[This is the heading over a post by The Herald's Chief Scottish Political Correspondent, Robbie Dinwoodie, on the Parcel of Rogues blog on the heraldscotland website. It reads in part:]
Last Thursday the main press aide to Annabel Goldie was in the Black and White corridor off the Holyrood debating chamber handing out the documentation on which the Tory leader had just based her attack on Alex Salmond at FMQs.
Pages one and two were mainly extracts from Libya-related minutes and correspondence which we had all written about since the Government released its first big batch of Megrahi material. Then there was a two-page letter from Alex Salmond to Qatar’s UK ambassador. After reading this I turned to the spin doctor and said: “Doesn’t this rather knock down your whole story?”
In what way, he asked. Well, I replied, in this letter the FM is repeatedly at pains to say he can’t discuss the Megrahi issue and refers the Qataris to Kenny MacAskill who will deal with it according to due process and strictly on judicial grounds. The spin doctor continued to demur so I asked straight out: “What exactly is Annabel Goldie alleging?”
Back came the response: “Oh, we’re not alleging anything – we’re simply asking questions.”
But here is what Ms Goldie said, employing assertions rather than questions: “I am afraid that there are suspicions — and facts. Fact: The First Minister is seeking money for his Scottish Futures Trust from Arab states. Fact: on 11 June 2009, he met the Qatari Government and discussed trade and Mr al-Megrahi’s release at the same time. Fact: on 17 July 2009, the Qatari Government wrote to the Scottish Government, supporting compassionate release. Fact: One week later, Mr al-Megrahi applied for compassionate release. That does not look good.”
Later, the Government pointed out that the Scottish Futures Trust has made no such pitch for Arab money, and at the meeting with the Qataris the minutes showed the FM determined not to conflate talk of trade with the issue of Megrahi. As to the Qatar/Arab League support for compassionate release and Megrahi’s application under the 1993 legislation, neither was down to Ministers. But never mind, as long as it “does not look good” Ms Goldie had managed to throw some mud in the hope that some would stick.
But five days on, should Ms Goldie have joined in the latest attempt at mud-slinging, this time by the Wall Street Journal? Here’s what the WSJ said: “Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who recently released the Lockerbie bomber, has a brother who is an energy-industry executive and who has worked at firms that have pitched for oil business in Libya.
“The Scottish government, which has said that it made full disclosure of facts relevant to the decision, didn’t disclose this relationship, and opposition politicians on Monday criticized this.”
Note the tenses – has worked at firms that have pitched for Libya business. When would that be: Read on and you discover that Allan MacAskill worked for for 20 years for BP, who have had Libyan links, but that he left the company in 1998 (...) MacAskill fils then joined Canadian firm Talisman, a firm which the WSJ tells us “has been looking the past few years to get a foothold in Libya, but has yet to establish a position.”
So, one company he worked for has known Libyan links but he left that company more than a decade ago, while the one he joined next has never had any contracts with Libya. As for the company he joined last year? SeaEnergy are into offshore windfarms and conduct no business with Libya whatsoever. All of which may explain why the Scottish Government did not see fit to “disclose this relationship” since to call it tenuous would be charitable.
Still it let Ms Goldie get in on the act again: “If any part of the Scottish Government has any connections to Libyan businesses then they need to come clean. The SNP Scottish Government need to be open and transparent once and for all and stop this constant drip drip of information which only serves to undermine Scotland and the UK.”
If she lends her name to anything further that is as tenuous as this, then the only thing dripping away will be Ms Goldie’s credibility.
Tuesday 8 September 2009
MacAskill wants to release SCCRC papers
The justice secretary has said he intends to release many of the papers connected to the dropped appeal of the Lockerbie bomber.
Kenny MacAskill wants to release papers connected with the recommendation of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's (SCCRC) findings that the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for blowing up Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 may have been unsafe.
A 14-page summary has been published and 800 pages of reasoning and 13 volumes of appendices cannot, at present, be made public. The minister is set to have discussions this week with the chairwoman of the SCCRC, Jean Couper, to look at what can be released.
He said: "There are matters that have to be reviewed here. We have to make sure we don't compromise anybody's security, and that could come about, that we don't lay people open to defamation.
"We have always said we are more than happy to publish everything relevant, where appropriate consents are given."
He added: "I give you a clear assurance we have nothing to hide. We are happy to co-operate with any inquiry, any jurisdiction, and we're happy to make sure we publish as much as we can, as long as it does not interfere or undermine the appropriate rights or sensitivities of others." (...)
Concerns were also raised by law professor Robert Black, who was the architect of the Camp Zeist trial and has long believed that Megrahi is innocent.
He said that publication was "better than nothing", but did not go nearly far enough.
"The problem is that those who agree with the conviction will say, 'Well, the evidence hasn't been properly tested', and those who disagree with it will simply have their views confirmed," Prof Black said.
"What we needed was an appeal, and now that will not go ahead, we need a public inquiry."
He added: "We have to remember that much of the documentation could not be published.
"Some of it was not even made available to the defence, because the UK government put a public interest immunity certificate on it."
[The above are excerpts from an article in today's edition of The Scotsman.]
Kenny MacAskill wants to release papers connected with the recommendation of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's (SCCRC) findings that the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for blowing up Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 may have been unsafe.
A 14-page summary has been published and 800 pages of reasoning and 13 volumes of appendices cannot, at present, be made public. The minister is set to have discussions this week with the chairwoman of the SCCRC, Jean Couper, to look at what can be released.
He said: "There are matters that have to be reviewed here. We have to make sure we don't compromise anybody's security, and that could come about, that we don't lay people open to defamation.
"We have always said we are more than happy to publish everything relevant, where appropriate consents are given."
He added: "I give you a clear assurance we have nothing to hide. We are happy to co-operate with any inquiry, any jurisdiction, and we're happy to make sure we publish as much as we can, as long as it does not interfere or undermine the appropriate rights or sensitivities of others." (...)
Concerns were also raised by law professor Robert Black, who was the architect of the Camp Zeist trial and has long believed that Megrahi is innocent.
He said that publication was "better than nothing", but did not go nearly far enough.
"The problem is that those who agree with the conviction will say, 'Well, the evidence hasn't been properly tested', and those who disagree with it will simply have their views confirmed," Prof Black said.
"What we needed was an appeal, and now that will not go ahead, we need a public inquiry."
He added: "We have to remember that much of the documentation could not be published.
"Some of it was not even made available to the defence, because the UK government put a public interest immunity certificate on it."
[The above are excerpts from an article in today's edition of The Scotsman.]
Monday 7 September 2009
Don't UK cabinet ministers talk to each other?
[What follows is from a post by Andrew Sparrow on The Guardian's Politics blog.]
[UK Schools Secretary Ed] Balls appeared on BBC Radio 4's Today programme to talk about academies, but began the interview by taking questions on Libya.
Interestingly, he was much more willing than other ministers have been to acknowledge realpolitik, arguing that the interests of the families of IRA victims were outweighed by the wider diplomatic benefits to be gained from improving relations with Libya.
And, right at the end of the interview, he threw in this:
"The important thing is to be open and honest about the difficult foreign policy judgments which are being made here.
"As for William Hague's comment [about] the government's failure of judgment to release al-Megrahi, I have to say that none of us wanted to see the release of al-Megrahi, but that wasn't a judgment made by British government, it was a decision made by the Scottish executive.
"If William Hague says we should be straight, then I think he should be straight."
The problem with this is that it contradicts what we learned last week.
On Tuesday, the Scottish government released documents showing that, when Bill Rammell was a Foreign Office minister, he told the Libyans the UK government did not want Megrahi to die in prison.
The note, which recorded what Scottish officials were told about the meeting by the Libyans, said:
"Mr Rammell had stated that neither the prime minister nor the foreign secretary would want Mr Megrahi to pass away in prison, but the decision on transfer lies in the hands of Scottish ministers."
The following day, David Miliband confirmed this was accurate when he told Today:
"We did not want him to die in prison. We were not seeking his death in prison."
Then, a few hours later, Gordon Brown said he "respected" the decision taken by the Scottish government to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. Downing Street said his comment was an endorsement of the early release.
Does this amount to much? We're probably in minor gaffe territory. The truth is that Brown, Miliband, Balls and everyone else probably wished the Megrahi problem had never existed in the first place.
But Downing Street is holding its weekly briefing later today – it's twice daily when the Commons is sitting, but only once a week in recess – and we'll see what people have to say then.
11.45am update: Downing Street refused to back Balls at the lobby briefing.
Asked whether he had been right to say ministers did not want Megrahi released, the prime minister's spokesman said: "The prime minister set out the position last week. I'm not going to go beyond that."
[It is, of course, not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility that Ed Balls was signalling that the UK Government wanted Megrahi to be repatriated under prisoner transfer to serve the remainder of his sentence in Libya, rather than being released on compassionate grounds. The problem with this interpretation is that it involves the UK Government advocating the breach of an international undertaking that the sentence would be served in Britain. Surely HMG would never do that!
A press release from the SNP on this most recent UK Government debacle can be read here.]
[UK Schools Secretary Ed] Balls appeared on BBC Radio 4's Today programme to talk about academies, but began the interview by taking questions on Libya.
Interestingly, he was much more willing than other ministers have been to acknowledge realpolitik, arguing that the interests of the families of IRA victims were outweighed by the wider diplomatic benefits to be gained from improving relations with Libya.
And, right at the end of the interview, he threw in this:
"The important thing is to be open and honest about the difficult foreign policy judgments which are being made here.
"As for William Hague's comment [about] the government's failure of judgment to release al-Megrahi, I have to say that none of us wanted to see the release of al-Megrahi, but that wasn't a judgment made by British government, it was a decision made by the Scottish executive.
"If William Hague says we should be straight, then I think he should be straight."
The problem with this is that it contradicts what we learned last week.
On Tuesday, the Scottish government released documents showing that, when Bill Rammell was a Foreign Office minister, he told the Libyans the UK government did not want Megrahi to die in prison.
The note, which recorded what Scottish officials were told about the meeting by the Libyans, said:
"Mr Rammell had stated that neither the prime minister nor the foreign secretary would want Mr Megrahi to pass away in prison, but the decision on transfer lies in the hands of Scottish ministers."
The following day, David Miliband confirmed this was accurate when he told Today:
"We did not want him to die in prison. We were not seeking his death in prison."
Then, a few hours later, Gordon Brown said he "respected" the decision taken by the Scottish government to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. Downing Street said his comment was an endorsement of the early release.
Does this amount to much? We're probably in minor gaffe territory. The truth is that Brown, Miliband, Balls and everyone else probably wished the Megrahi problem had never existed in the first place.
But Downing Street is holding its weekly briefing later today – it's twice daily when the Commons is sitting, but only once a week in recess – and we'll see what people have to say then.
11.45am update: Downing Street refused to back Balls at the lobby briefing.
Asked whether he had been right to say ministers did not want Megrahi released, the prime minister's spokesman said: "The prime minister set out the position last week. I'm not going to go beyond that."
[It is, of course, not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility that Ed Balls was signalling that the UK Government wanted Megrahi to be repatriated under prisoner transfer to serve the remainder of his sentence in Libya, rather than being released on compassionate grounds. The problem with this interpretation is that it involves the UK Government advocating the breach of an international undertaking that the sentence would be served in Britain. Surely HMG would never do that!
A press release from the SNP on this most recent UK Government debacle can be read here.]
Megrahi files 'may be released'
[This is the heading over a report on the BBC News website. The following are excerpts.]
Scotland's justice secretary has said he may release confidential documents relating to the Lockerbie bomber's appeal against conviction.
Kenny MacAskill said a Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission report could be made public if those who gave evidence granted their permission.
The independent commission concluded Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
Some of its findings have been released but most of the report remains secret. (...)
Mr MacAskill said he would now consider publishing the commission's 800 page report but only if those who gave evidence granted their permission.
He told BBC Radio Scotland: "There are matters that have to be reviewed here. We have to make sure we don't compromise anybody's security, and that could come about. That we don't lay people open to defamation.
"We have always said we are more than happy to publish everything relevant where appropriate consents are given."
He said he was willing to have discussions with the chairman of the criminal cases review about publishing the report.
He added: "I give you a clear assurance we have nothing to hide. We are happy to co-operate with any inquiry, any jurisdiction and we're happy to make sure we publish as much as we can as long as it does not interfere or undermine the appropriate rights or sensitivities of others."
Mr MacAskill also denied having read medical reports on Megrahi's medical condition that had been paid for by the Libyan government, before deciding to release him.
He said the assessments, by leading cancer specialists, arrived at his office too late, and he was guided instead by the views of the director of health at the Scottish Prison Service.
[Before everyone gets too excited over this, it is as well to point out that if "appropriate consents" have to be obtained before publication, it is in the highest degree unlikely that the UK Foreign Office will consent, given the Foreign Secretary's assertion of public interest immunity in Mr Megrahi's abandoned appeal in respect of documents seen by the SCCRC and the non-disclosure of which in the Zeist trial formed one of its reasons for holding that there might have been a miscarriage of justice.]
Scotland's justice secretary has said he may release confidential documents relating to the Lockerbie bomber's appeal against conviction.
Kenny MacAskill said a Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission report could be made public if those who gave evidence granted their permission.
The independent commission concluded Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
Some of its findings have been released but most of the report remains secret. (...)
Mr MacAskill said he would now consider publishing the commission's 800 page report but only if those who gave evidence granted their permission.
He told BBC Radio Scotland: "There are matters that have to be reviewed here. We have to make sure we don't compromise anybody's security, and that could come about. That we don't lay people open to defamation.
"We have always said we are more than happy to publish everything relevant where appropriate consents are given."
He said he was willing to have discussions with the chairman of the criminal cases review about publishing the report.
He added: "I give you a clear assurance we have nothing to hide. We are happy to co-operate with any inquiry, any jurisdiction and we're happy to make sure we publish as much as we can as long as it does not interfere or undermine the appropriate rights or sensitivities of others."
Mr MacAskill also denied having read medical reports on Megrahi's medical condition that had been paid for by the Libyan government, before deciding to release him.
He said the assessments, by leading cancer specialists, arrived at his office too late, and he was guided instead by the views of the director of health at the Scottish Prison Service.
[Before everyone gets too excited over this, it is as well to point out that if "appropriate consents" have to be obtained before publication, it is in the highest degree unlikely that the UK Foreign Office will consent, given the Foreign Secretary's assertion of public interest immunity in Mr Megrahi's abandoned appeal in respect of documents seen by the SCCRC and the non-disclosure of which in the Zeist trial formed one of its reasons for holding that there might have been a miscarriage of justice.]
Doctor paid by Libya did not influence Megrahi's release
The Scottish government has denied a claim by a leading cancer specialist - paid by the Libyan government - that his medical assessment helped to free the Lockerbie bomber.
Dr Karol Sikora visited Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi in Greenock prison on July 28 and assessed that he had less than three months to live because of prostate cancer.
Dr Sikora said: “The Libyans ... wanted their own independent view which is fair enough. We were told that if we made it less than 3 months that would be helpful.” (...)
The government said yesterday that the decision to release al-Megrahi was made on the basis of other medical advice and that the opinion of three doctors paid by the Libyan Government, including Dr Sikora, was not taken into consideration.
A Scottish government spokesman said that al-Megrahi's defence team had submitted their evidence on the extent of his illness too late for it to be included in Mr MacAskill's considerations. (...)
A spokesman for the Scottish government said that although Dr Sikora may have submitted his report to his clients at the end of July it was not received by the SNP administration until August 18 by which time Mr MacAskill had already studied a medical report on al-Megrahi by the Scottish Prison Service's director of health, Andrew Fraser, which took into account the views of a range of specialists.
“These included two consultant oncologists, two consultant urologists and a number of other specialists, including a palliative care team, who had reviewed and contributed to the clinical management of the patient,” the spokesman added.
“They did not include Karol Sikora ..., whose assessment played no part in considerations.”
[The above is from a report in The Times.]
Dr Karol Sikora visited Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi in Greenock prison on July 28 and assessed that he had less than three months to live because of prostate cancer.
Dr Sikora said: “The Libyans ... wanted their own independent view which is fair enough. We were told that if we made it less than 3 months that would be helpful.” (...)
The government said yesterday that the decision to release al-Megrahi was made on the basis of other medical advice and that the opinion of three doctors paid by the Libyan Government, including Dr Sikora, was not taken into consideration.
A Scottish government spokesman said that al-Megrahi's defence team had submitted their evidence on the extent of his illness too late for it to be included in Mr MacAskill's considerations. (...)
A spokesman for the Scottish government said that although Dr Sikora may have submitted his report to his clients at the end of July it was not received by the SNP administration until August 18 by which time Mr MacAskill had already studied a medical report on al-Megrahi by the Scottish Prison Service's director of health, Andrew Fraser, which took into account the views of a range of specialists.
“These included two consultant oncologists, two consultant urologists and a number of other specialists, including a palliative care team, who had reviewed and contributed to the clinical management of the patient,” the spokesman added.
“They did not include Karol Sikora ..., whose assessment played no part in considerations.”
[The above is from a report in The Times.]
Lockerbie families could exploit legal loophole to raise conviction appeal after al-Megrahi's death
[This is the headline over a report in the Daily Record, one of Scotland's largest-circulation newspapers. It reads as follows:]
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's appeal could be back on, the Record can reveal.
Family members of those killed have learned a legal loophole will allow a third party to have the case reopened on Megrahi's behalf after his death.
The convicted terrorist - who is dying from cancer - sensationally dropped his case days before being freed on compassionate grounds.
The move was viewed as a massive blow to the chances of the public ever getting to the truth of the Pan Am flight 103 explosion, which killed 270 in 1988.
But the families - some of whom believe Megrahi is innocent - held talks yesterday to discuss the possibility of applying to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for an investigation.
Doctor Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed, said: "We want to know the truth and his appeal was to be our way of getting to that.
"Any way there is to dig out this appeal, anything that makes it more likely that the appeal could be reborn, would be music to our ears.
"We would certainly be interested in looking at taking this up ourselves or asking someone to do that on our behalf if that is possible."
Normally an appeal cannot be restarted once abandoned.
But legislation drawn up before the SCCRC were introduced in 1999 states that anyone - not just the convicted person - can apply for a case to be investigated on grounds there has been a miscarriage of justice.
And should the Commission refer the case to the appeal court, it must be considered.
A Scottish Justiciary Office spokesman said: "As we have had proceedings to formally abandon the appeal, some reason would have to be given to resurrect it.
"But technically, there is provision within the legislation that created the SCCRC for the appeal court to consider it."
[Note by RB: The legislation which set up the SCCRC envisages applications being made by persons other than the convicted person himself: Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 194D(1) and (2). Under section 194C, the Commission may refer a case to the High Court if they believe (a) that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and (b) that it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made. Condition (a) is clearly satisfied: the SCCRC so decided in Mr Megrahi's own application.
But what about condition (b)? Would the Commission regard it as in the interests of justice to refer a case back to the High Court where the convicted person himself had commenced an appeal on a SCCRC reference and then chosen to abandon it? The answer might depend on the precise circumstances in which the appellant came to abandon his appeal. Mr Megrahi's terminal illness; the fact that prisoner transfer was not open while the appeal was ongoing; and the fact that Mr Megrahi had no way of knowing that Kenny MacAskill would ultimately opt for compassionate release rather than prisoner transfer, would be relevant factors.
The relevant legislation can be read here.]
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's appeal could be back on, the Record can reveal.
Family members of those killed have learned a legal loophole will allow a third party to have the case reopened on Megrahi's behalf after his death.
The convicted terrorist - who is dying from cancer - sensationally dropped his case days before being freed on compassionate grounds.
The move was viewed as a massive blow to the chances of the public ever getting to the truth of the Pan Am flight 103 explosion, which killed 270 in 1988.
But the families - some of whom believe Megrahi is innocent - held talks yesterday to discuss the possibility of applying to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for an investigation.
Doctor Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed, said: "We want to know the truth and his appeal was to be our way of getting to that.
"Any way there is to dig out this appeal, anything that makes it more likely that the appeal could be reborn, would be music to our ears.
"We would certainly be interested in looking at taking this up ourselves or asking someone to do that on our behalf if that is possible."
Normally an appeal cannot be restarted once abandoned.
But legislation drawn up before the SCCRC were introduced in 1999 states that anyone - not just the convicted person - can apply for a case to be investigated on grounds there has been a miscarriage of justice.
And should the Commission refer the case to the appeal court, it must be considered.
A Scottish Justiciary Office spokesman said: "As we have had proceedings to formally abandon the appeal, some reason would have to be given to resurrect it.
"But technically, there is provision within the legislation that created the SCCRC for the appeal court to consider it."
[Note by RB: The legislation which set up the SCCRC envisages applications being made by persons other than the convicted person himself: Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 194D(1) and (2). Under section 194C, the Commission may refer a case to the High Court if they believe (a) that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and (b) that it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made. Condition (a) is clearly satisfied: the SCCRC so decided in Mr Megrahi's own application.
But what about condition (b)? Would the Commission regard it as in the interests of justice to refer a case back to the High Court where the convicted person himself had commenced an appeal on a SCCRC reference and then chosen to abandon it? The answer might depend on the precise circumstances in which the appellant came to abandon his appeal. Mr Megrahi's terminal illness; the fact that prisoner transfer was not open while the appeal was ongoing; and the fact that Mr Megrahi had no way of knowing that Kenny MacAskill would ultimately opt for compassionate release rather than prisoner transfer, would be relevant factors.
The relevant legislation can be read here.]
Lockerbie: Gaddafi's Son Blasts British MPs
Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi's son has branded as "disgusting" and "immoral" the British politicians asking questions about the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
In an exclusive interview with Sky News, Saif al Islam came to the defence of Gordon Brown and his "friends" behind the release of Abdelbaset al Megrahi.
Britain's Prime Minister has faced pressure over the extent of his involvement in prisoner transfer negotiations.
But when asked directly if Gordon Brown had had input in the talks, the London-educated Libyan replied: "No, no, no."
He attacked critics of al Megrahi's release, saying: "Politicians, both in the UK and America, are trying to use this human tragedy - both Mr Megrahi and the families - for their own political agenda.
"It's a tragedy. It's completely immoral.
"This is what happened in London in particular.
"There are political parties fighting each other, preparing themselves for the next election, and they are trying to use this tragedy for their agenda. They are disgusting."
It was Saif al Islam who raised the arm of al Megrahi on his return to Tripoli last month. The scenes provoked an international outcry. The Libyan insists that the scenes were unavoidable and had not been pre-arranged.
"We got stuck for two hours on the plane. The people were waiting there for two hours... and we cannot leave the plane with hoods on our heads.
"We're not criminals or thieves. You have to greet the crowds who have been there waiting for many hours.
"Plus, this man is not a criminal, he's innocent. I believe 100% that he's innocent." (...)
On Megrahi himself, he said that he remains a sick man, still in hospital under observation.
Specialists have been flown in from France and Italy to examine him and assess his suitability for chemotherapy treatment.
[The above is from a report by James Matthews on the Sky News website. The filmed interview can be accessed from the same website.]
In an exclusive interview with Sky News, Saif al Islam came to the defence of Gordon Brown and his "friends" behind the release of Abdelbaset al Megrahi.
Britain's Prime Minister has faced pressure over the extent of his involvement in prisoner transfer negotiations.
But when asked directly if Gordon Brown had had input in the talks, the London-educated Libyan replied: "No, no, no."
He attacked critics of al Megrahi's release, saying: "Politicians, both in the UK and America, are trying to use this human tragedy - both Mr Megrahi and the families - for their own political agenda.
"It's a tragedy. It's completely immoral.
"This is what happened in London in particular.
"There are political parties fighting each other, preparing themselves for the next election, and they are trying to use this tragedy for their agenda. They are disgusting."
It was Saif al Islam who raised the arm of al Megrahi on his return to Tripoli last month. The scenes provoked an international outcry. The Libyan insists that the scenes were unavoidable and had not been pre-arranged.
"We got stuck for two hours on the plane. The people were waiting there for two hours... and we cannot leave the plane with hoods on our heads.
"We're not criminals or thieves. You have to greet the crowds who have been there waiting for many hours.
"Plus, this man is not a criminal, he's innocent. I believe 100% that he's innocent." (...)
On Megrahi himself, he said that he remains a sick man, still in hospital under observation.
Specialists have been flown in from France and Italy to examine him and assess his suitability for chemotherapy treatment.
[The above is from a report by James Matthews on the Sky News website. The filmed interview can be accessed from the same website.]
Sunday 6 September 2009
TV interview with Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi
A little bird tells me that Sky News within the very near future will be broadcasting an important interview with Colonel Gaddafi's son, Saif, in which the circumstances surrounding the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi will feature prominently.
Malta and Lockerbie
[This is the title of a long article in The Malta Independent on Sunday by Dr George Vella, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malta. The first few paragraphs are reproduced below, but the article deserves to be read in full.]
The recent release of Abdel Basset al Megrahi from a Scottish jail on humanitarian grounds, and the controversy which has erupted on the decision of the UK and the Scottish authorities to grant such an amnesty, has once again brought the issue of the disaster at Lockerbie to world attention.
I do not intend going into the merits or demerits of such a decision, but have to register my disappointment at the fact that Mr Megrahi, for reasons unknown, decided to, or was made to, abandon an appeal against the court sentence that had incriminated him as the person responsible for the Lockerbie disaster.
Over the past few years there has been mounting respected legal opinion that openly and publicly expressed grave doubts as to how correct the decision of the Scottish Court was that had found al-Megrahi guilty.
Serious doubts also emerged as to how reliable and how truthful certain witnesses were. Everything was pointing in the direction of a new trial, which most probably would have exculpated Mr al-Megrahi.
In all probability it would also have shattered, once and for all, the theory that the luggage containing the bomb that caused the disaster had been loaded at Malta airport.
I do not see how Malta can clear its name in this Lockerbie issue, now that the appeal has been abandoned.
This is very unfair, because there is mounting compelling evidence that the bomb could not have been loaded in Malta.
The recent release of Abdel Basset al Megrahi from a Scottish jail on humanitarian grounds, and the controversy which has erupted on the decision of the UK and the Scottish authorities to grant such an amnesty, has once again brought the issue of the disaster at Lockerbie to world attention.
I do not intend going into the merits or demerits of such a decision, but have to register my disappointment at the fact that Mr Megrahi, for reasons unknown, decided to, or was made to, abandon an appeal against the court sentence that had incriminated him as the person responsible for the Lockerbie disaster.
Over the past few years there has been mounting respected legal opinion that openly and publicly expressed grave doubts as to how correct the decision of the Scottish Court was that had found al-Megrahi guilty.
Serious doubts also emerged as to how reliable and how truthful certain witnesses were. Everything was pointing in the direction of a new trial, which most probably would have exculpated Mr al-Megrahi.
In all probability it would also have shattered, once and for all, the theory that the luggage containing the bomb that caused the disaster had been loaded at Malta airport.
I do not see how Malta can clear its name in this Lockerbie issue, now that the appeal has been abandoned.
This is very unfair, because there is mounting compelling evidence that the bomb could not have been loaded in Malta.
Gaddafi's gameplan: Why DID Libya want Megrahi back so badly?
[An interesting article by former ambassador to Libya Oliver Miles appears today in the Mail on Sunday. The following are excerpts.]
Justice Secretary Jack Straw’s acknowledgement that the prospect of trade and oil deals with Libya played a part in the Government’s handling of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi has heightened the intrigue.
One British motivation is clear: Libya, dirt poor in everything except oil and gas, has been an important energy producer for half a century. It sells £40billion of oil per year – mainly to Europe – and buys from every trading country in the world. Britain has become a major supplier.
Furthermore, Libya is that rare thing, a ‘rogue state’ which sponsored terrorism before being brought back into the international fold by diplomacy. (...)
For 15 years Libya has been slowly emerging from its status as international pariah, and dealing with London is regarded there as a staging post to its ultimate goal – the normalisation of relations with the United States.
There is also the matter of Megrahi, an important man from an influential tribe – the same as Abdullah Sanusi, the head of Libya’s internal intelligence service (equivalent to MI5 and MI6). Sanusi is related to Gaddafi by marriage and tribal solidarity is a strong link. Megrahi’s close family and tribal elders would have been putting pressure on the Libyan leader to do something about bringing their man home.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Libya has actively sought to deal with the international community, often using Britain as a diplomatic bridgehead to the US, which was in the past much more aggressive. It ended support for terrorism, paid compensation to victims on a vast scale and abandoned illegal programmes of weapons of mass destruction.
All this has made Libya increasingly attractive to the West. The benefits for Britain in having access to Libya’s oil, when gas supplies are subject to disruption by the Russians and nuclear plants are being decommissioned, should be obvious to anyone. (...)
Lockerbie has been central to Libya’s international rehabilitation. Under arrangements worked out in 1999 by Robin Cook and the Foreign Office, involving a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands, Megrahi was convicted of responsibility for the destruction of the Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie in 1988 which killed 270 people.
There have always been doubts about the evidence against him. Some believe, as I do, that the Libyans delivered him for trial only because they felt he was unlikely to be convicted.
Having read the legal judgment of his trial, I defy anyone to conclude from it that his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet his first appeal, in 2002, was dismissed. He always insisted on his innocence and only abandoned his second appeal in the hope of a return to Libya. (...)
On his second visit, in 2007, [Tony Blair] launched a number of initiatives, including assisting the return of BP to Libya.
He also unwittingly laid the foundations for the current furore by proposing a Prisoner Transfer Agreement to allow British prisoners convicted in Libya to serve their sentences in Britain and vice versa – an arrangement which exists between many countries.
The Libyans saw it as an instrument to get Megrahi home.
But Blair seems conveniently to have overlooked the fact that Megrahi’s fate rested with the devolved government in Scotland. Given the bad relations between the Labour Party and the Scottish Nationalists, this was more than a formal problem.
Blair also overlooked an even bigger obstacle. Under the Lockerbie trial agreements, any sentence arising from it had to be served in Scotland (the Libyans insisted on this since they feared Megrahi might be handed to the Americans and executed).
The Lockerbie agreements are not properly documented, but the commitments were well known to the Foreign Office, the Americans and the Libyans. Tony Blair may not have bothered about them as he didn’t like inconvenient advice from officials.
As these difficulties emerged, the Libyans began to feel that they had been led up the garden path. And when it became known last year that Megrahi was terminally ill with prostate cancer, Tripoli began to issue not-very-veiled threats that if he died in jail relations between Britain and Libya would suffer.
When his condition deteriorated, two things happened: he inexplicably abandoned his appeal, and a story was leaked to the BBC that Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill was to grant compassionate release.
The reaction in the US was fevered amid rumours of a deal involving business and oil. The Americans have taken a line which they would call robust and I would call vindictive.
Some reactions have been foolish (Obama’s suggestion that Megrahi should have been put under house arrest in Tripoli), and others outrageous.
The demand by Obama and Brown that Megrahi should not receive a ‘hero’s welcome’ was a classic example of demanding that water should run uphill.
I believe Megrahi’s release was influenced more by the Scottish government’s desire to assert its independence rather than by any deal. Others may disagree, but time will tell.
Progress is slow and there are many obstacles to a better way of life in Libya. But BP’s operations continue and Megrahi has returned home to die.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw’s acknowledgement that the prospect of trade and oil deals with Libya played a part in the Government’s handling of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi has heightened the intrigue.
One British motivation is clear: Libya, dirt poor in everything except oil and gas, has been an important energy producer for half a century. It sells £40billion of oil per year – mainly to Europe – and buys from every trading country in the world. Britain has become a major supplier.
Furthermore, Libya is that rare thing, a ‘rogue state’ which sponsored terrorism before being brought back into the international fold by diplomacy. (...)
For 15 years Libya has been slowly emerging from its status as international pariah, and dealing with London is regarded there as a staging post to its ultimate goal – the normalisation of relations with the United States.
There is also the matter of Megrahi, an important man from an influential tribe – the same as Abdullah Sanusi, the head of Libya’s internal intelligence service (equivalent to MI5 and MI6). Sanusi is related to Gaddafi by marriage and tribal solidarity is a strong link. Megrahi’s close family and tribal elders would have been putting pressure on the Libyan leader to do something about bringing their man home.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Libya has actively sought to deal with the international community, often using Britain as a diplomatic bridgehead to the US, which was in the past much more aggressive. It ended support for terrorism, paid compensation to victims on a vast scale and abandoned illegal programmes of weapons of mass destruction.
All this has made Libya increasingly attractive to the West. The benefits for Britain in having access to Libya’s oil, when gas supplies are subject to disruption by the Russians and nuclear plants are being decommissioned, should be obvious to anyone. (...)
Lockerbie has been central to Libya’s international rehabilitation. Under arrangements worked out in 1999 by Robin Cook and the Foreign Office, involving a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands, Megrahi was convicted of responsibility for the destruction of the Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie in 1988 which killed 270 people.
There have always been doubts about the evidence against him. Some believe, as I do, that the Libyans delivered him for trial only because they felt he was unlikely to be convicted.
Having read the legal judgment of his trial, I defy anyone to conclude from it that his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet his first appeal, in 2002, was dismissed. He always insisted on his innocence and only abandoned his second appeal in the hope of a return to Libya. (...)
On his second visit, in 2007, [Tony Blair] launched a number of initiatives, including assisting the return of BP to Libya.
He also unwittingly laid the foundations for the current furore by proposing a Prisoner Transfer Agreement to allow British prisoners convicted in Libya to serve their sentences in Britain and vice versa – an arrangement which exists between many countries.
The Libyans saw it as an instrument to get Megrahi home.
But Blair seems conveniently to have overlooked the fact that Megrahi’s fate rested with the devolved government in Scotland. Given the bad relations between the Labour Party and the Scottish Nationalists, this was more than a formal problem.
Blair also overlooked an even bigger obstacle. Under the Lockerbie trial agreements, any sentence arising from it had to be served in Scotland (the Libyans insisted on this since they feared Megrahi might be handed to the Americans and executed).
The Lockerbie agreements are not properly documented, but the commitments were well known to the Foreign Office, the Americans and the Libyans. Tony Blair may not have bothered about them as he didn’t like inconvenient advice from officials.
As these difficulties emerged, the Libyans began to feel that they had been led up the garden path. And when it became known last year that Megrahi was terminally ill with prostate cancer, Tripoli began to issue not-very-veiled threats that if he died in jail relations between Britain and Libya would suffer.
When his condition deteriorated, two things happened: he inexplicably abandoned his appeal, and a story was leaked to the BBC that Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill was to grant compassionate release.
The reaction in the US was fevered amid rumours of a deal involving business and oil. The Americans have taken a line which they would call robust and I would call vindictive.
Some reactions have been foolish (Obama’s suggestion that Megrahi should have been put under house arrest in Tripoli), and others outrageous.
The demand by Obama and Brown that Megrahi should not receive a ‘hero’s welcome’ was a classic example of demanding that water should run uphill.
I believe Megrahi’s release was influenced more by the Scottish government’s desire to assert its independence rather than by any deal. Others may disagree, but time will tell.
Progress is slow and there are many obstacles to a better way of life in Libya. But BP’s operations continue and Megrahi has returned home to die.
Revealed: Blair's role in Megrahi release
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Independent on Sunday. It claims that, as early as December 2003, the UK and US Governments were involved in negotiations designed to lead eventually to the repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi. What was sought in return was Libya's renunciation of its nuclear weapons programme, not trade or oil exploration concessions. The article reads in part:]
Tony Blair will be thrust into the controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi with questions in Parliament over a secret meeting the then Prime Minister orchestrated that brought Libya in from the cold.
MPs are set to demand the minutes of an extraordinary cloak-and-dagger summit in London between British, American and Libyan spies held three days before Mr Blair announced that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was surrendering his weapons of mass destruction programme.
At the time of the secret meeting in December 2003 at the private Travellers Club in Pall Mall, London – for decades the favourite haunt of spies – Libyan officials were pressing for negotiations on the status of Megrahi, who was nearly three years into his life sentence at a Scottish jail.
Whitehall sources said the issue of Megrahi's imprisonment was raised as part of the discussions, although it is not clear whether Britain or America agreed to a specific deal over his imprisonment, or a more general indication that it would be reviewed.
MPs are to investigate what was promised by Britain at the talks on 16 December, and the role that Mr Blair played in the affair. Until now, the controversy over Megrahi's release last month has centred on discussions between Gordon Brown's government and the Scottish executive and Libya since 2007, with Mr Blair apparently not involved in any way.
It has also focused on claims that the deal was related to oil deals, with Jack Straw admitting yesterday that BP's interests in Libya played a "big part". But authoritative sources said the seeds for Megrahi's release were sown in 2003, when Libya made the historic agreement to end its status as a pariah, and that the focus on oil and trade was a "red herring".
Yesterday the Libyan Foreign Minister, Musa Kusa – who himself was present at the Travellers Club meeting – told The Times that Megrahi's release was "nothing to do with trade".
Two days after the meeting Mr Blair and Col Gaddafi held direct talks by telephone; and the next day, 19 December, the historic announcement about Libyan WMD was made by Mr Blair and President Bush. (...)
Nine top-level MI6, Foreign Office, CIA and Libyan officials were present for the negotiations at the Travellers Club. The revelation that two senior American officials were present risks causing embarrassment to the White House, as Washington has made clear its criticism of the release of Megrahi by the Scottish government last month. (...)
Last night, a spokesman for Mr Blair could not be drawn on the December 2003 meeting. In fact, The Independent on Sunday has established that Mr Blair's involvement with the Travellers Club meeting was at arm's length, via his then foreign affairs envoy, the current ambassador to Washington Sir Nigel Sheinwald. (...)
Sir Nigel was in Downing Street and was kept informed of negotiations. He in turn kept the Prime Minister up to date. Full details of the meeting, and the identities of those present, have not been revealed until now.
Mr Kusa, the Libyan head of external intelligence, was at the time banned from entering Britain after allegedly plotting to assassinate Libyan dissidents. But because of his closeness to Col Gaddafi, he was essential to the talks and was given safe passage to London. Also in the Libyan delegation was Abdulati [al-Obeidi], now the minister for Europe, who extracted the assurance from Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell this year that Mr Brown did not want Megrahi to die in a Scottish jail. Mr [al-Obeidi] said last week: "In my negotiations with the British and the Scottish, I didn't mention anything about trade relations."
For the Americans, Stephen Kappes, the CIA deputy director of operations, and Robert Joseph, counter-proliferation chief, led the talks. Britain was represented by William Ehrman, Foreign Office director general for defence and intelligence, and David Landsman, then the head of counter-proliferation at the Foreign Office. A CIA source said last night that a Lebanese businessman, while not at the meeting, was the key go-between, bringing together Libyan officials and British and US spies. The same businessman also put together a team of private investigators on Lockerbie to undermine the case against Megrahi.
An official with knowledge of the talks said of the Travellers Club meeting: "That was where the real negotiations were made."
[The same newspaper also publishes a leading article on the subject entitled "Megrahi: a small piece in the game".]
Tony Blair will be thrust into the controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi with questions in Parliament over a secret meeting the then Prime Minister orchestrated that brought Libya in from the cold.
MPs are set to demand the minutes of an extraordinary cloak-and-dagger summit in London between British, American and Libyan spies held three days before Mr Blair announced that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was surrendering his weapons of mass destruction programme.
At the time of the secret meeting in December 2003 at the private Travellers Club in Pall Mall, London – for decades the favourite haunt of spies – Libyan officials were pressing for negotiations on the status of Megrahi, who was nearly three years into his life sentence at a Scottish jail.
Whitehall sources said the issue of Megrahi's imprisonment was raised as part of the discussions, although it is not clear whether Britain or America agreed to a specific deal over his imprisonment, or a more general indication that it would be reviewed.
MPs are to investigate what was promised by Britain at the talks on 16 December, and the role that Mr Blair played in the affair. Until now, the controversy over Megrahi's release last month has centred on discussions between Gordon Brown's government and the Scottish executive and Libya since 2007, with Mr Blair apparently not involved in any way.
It has also focused on claims that the deal was related to oil deals, with Jack Straw admitting yesterday that BP's interests in Libya played a "big part". But authoritative sources said the seeds for Megrahi's release were sown in 2003, when Libya made the historic agreement to end its status as a pariah, and that the focus on oil and trade was a "red herring".
Yesterday the Libyan Foreign Minister, Musa Kusa – who himself was present at the Travellers Club meeting – told The Times that Megrahi's release was "nothing to do with trade".
Two days after the meeting Mr Blair and Col Gaddafi held direct talks by telephone; and the next day, 19 December, the historic announcement about Libyan WMD was made by Mr Blair and President Bush. (...)
Nine top-level MI6, Foreign Office, CIA and Libyan officials were present for the negotiations at the Travellers Club. The revelation that two senior American officials were present risks causing embarrassment to the White House, as Washington has made clear its criticism of the release of Megrahi by the Scottish government last month. (...)
Last night, a spokesman for Mr Blair could not be drawn on the December 2003 meeting. In fact, The Independent on Sunday has established that Mr Blair's involvement with the Travellers Club meeting was at arm's length, via his then foreign affairs envoy, the current ambassador to Washington Sir Nigel Sheinwald. (...)
Sir Nigel was in Downing Street and was kept informed of negotiations. He in turn kept the Prime Minister up to date. Full details of the meeting, and the identities of those present, have not been revealed until now.
Mr Kusa, the Libyan head of external intelligence, was at the time banned from entering Britain after allegedly plotting to assassinate Libyan dissidents. But because of his closeness to Col Gaddafi, he was essential to the talks and was given safe passage to London. Also in the Libyan delegation was Abdulati [al-Obeidi], now the minister for Europe, who extracted the assurance from Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell this year that Mr Brown did not want Megrahi to die in a Scottish jail. Mr [al-Obeidi] said last week: "In my negotiations with the British and the Scottish, I didn't mention anything about trade relations."
For the Americans, Stephen Kappes, the CIA deputy director of operations, and Robert Joseph, counter-proliferation chief, led the talks. Britain was represented by William Ehrman, Foreign Office director general for defence and intelligence, and David Landsman, then the head of counter-proliferation at the Foreign Office. A CIA source said last night that a Lebanese businessman, while not at the meeting, was the key go-between, bringing together Libyan officials and British and US spies. The same businessman also put together a team of private investigators on Lockerbie to undermine the case against Megrahi.
An official with knowledge of the talks said of the Travellers Club meeting: "That was where the real negotiations were made."
[The same newspaper also publishes a leading article on the subject entitled "Megrahi: a small piece in the game".]
MacAskill under pressure to release Megrahi appeal files
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Sunday Herald. It reads in part:]
Kenny MacAskill is under growing pressure to order the release of secret files which cast doubt on the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber. The justice secretary has the legal power to force the disclosure of material held by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) into the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Sunday Herald has learned.
Last night, Jean Couper, chairwoman of the SCCRC, confirmed the law which established the Commission allowed MacAskill to disclose hitherto confidential papers.
Professor Robert Black, a campaigner for greater openness on the case, said there was no excuse for MacAskill to hold back. The call coincides with fresh revelations about Alex Salmond's links to Qatar, the oil-rich Gulf state which lobbied for Megrahi's release.
Release of the SCCRC files could prove highly embarrassing for the Scottish legal system, which prides itself on the conduct of Megrahi's trial under Scots law at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2000 and 2001. (...)
After a three-year investigation into the case, the SCCRC produced an 800-page confidential report with 13 volumes of appendices in 2007, which identified six grounds for believing Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
Only a 14-page summary was made public, but even that raised strong doubts about the reliability of the key eyewitness against Megrahi.
The full report was later used by Megrahi to lodge a second appeal against his conviction - his first was refused in 2002 - and some of the contents were due to be aired in the Court of Appeal later this year and next.
When Megrahi, terminally ill with cancer, dropped his appeal before his return to Libya on compassionate grounds last month, it seemed the SCCRC findings would remain secret. (...)
Under the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997, material can be disclosed "in any circumstances permitted by an order made by the Secretary of State" using a simple piece of legislation called a statutory instrument.
Since devolution, the power has passed to the justice secretary. (...)
Black, of Edinburgh University Law School, said he had been unaware of the power, but there was no reason for MacAskill not to use it.
"You have a responsible independent body saying, In our view there may have been a miscarriage of justice'. I don't think you can overlook that."
[The actual statutory provision, as amended when the Scotland Act 1998 came into force, takes the form of a new section introduced by the 1997 Act into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. It reads as follows:
'194K Exceptions from obligations of non-disclosure
(1) The disclosure of information, or the authorisation of the disclosure of information, is excepted from section 194J of this Act by this section if the information is disclosed, or is authorised to be disclosed —
(...)
(f) in any circumstances in which the disclosure of information is permitted by an order made by the [Scottish Ministers].
(...)
(5) The power to make an order under subsection (1)(f) above is exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of [the Scottish] Parliament.']
Kenny MacAskill is under growing pressure to order the release of secret files which cast doubt on the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber. The justice secretary has the legal power to force the disclosure of material held by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) into the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Sunday Herald has learned.
Last night, Jean Couper, chairwoman of the SCCRC, confirmed the law which established the Commission allowed MacAskill to disclose hitherto confidential papers.
Professor Robert Black, a campaigner for greater openness on the case, said there was no excuse for MacAskill to hold back. The call coincides with fresh revelations about Alex Salmond's links to Qatar, the oil-rich Gulf state which lobbied for Megrahi's release.
Release of the SCCRC files could prove highly embarrassing for the Scottish legal system, which prides itself on the conduct of Megrahi's trial under Scots law at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2000 and 2001. (...)
After a three-year investigation into the case, the SCCRC produced an 800-page confidential report with 13 volumes of appendices in 2007, which identified six grounds for believing Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
Only a 14-page summary was made public, but even that raised strong doubts about the reliability of the key eyewitness against Megrahi.
The full report was later used by Megrahi to lodge a second appeal against his conviction - his first was refused in 2002 - and some of the contents were due to be aired in the Court of Appeal later this year and next.
When Megrahi, terminally ill with cancer, dropped his appeal before his return to Libya on compassionate grounds last month, it seemed the SCCRC findings would remain secret. (...)
Under the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997, material can be disclosed "in any circumstances permitted by an order made by the Secretary of State" using a simple piece of legislation called a statutory instrument.
Since devolution, the power has passed to the justice secretary. (...)
Black, of Edinburgh University Law School, said he had been unaware of the power, but there was no reason for MacAskill not to use it.
"You have a responsible independent body saying, In our view there may have been a miscarriage of justice'. I don't think you can overlook that."
[The actual statutory provision, as amended when the Scotland Act 1998 came into force, takes the form of a new section introduced by the 1997 Act into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. It reads as follows:
'194K Exceptions from obligations of non-disclosure
(1) The disclosure of information, or the authorisation of the disclosure of information, is excepted from section 194J of this Act by this section if the information is disclosed, or is authorised to be disclosed —
(...)
(f) in any circumstances in which the disclosure of information is permitted by an order made by the [Scottish Ministers].
(...)
(5) The power to make an order under subsection (1)(f) above is exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of [the Scottish] Parliament.']
Saturday 5 September 2009
Tony Blair and Colonel Gadaffi discussed al-Megrahi
Tony Blair discussed with Colonel Gadaffi how best to “find a way through" for the jailed Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi after BP formally signed an exploration deal in 2007, according to Libya’s Europe minister.
In an interview with The Sunday Times in Tripoli yesterday, Abdulati al-Obeidi, the minister, said that al-Megrahi had been on the agenda during Blair’s visit that year.
“They (Blair and Gadaffi) discussed possible ways on how legally to bring al-Megrahi to Libya, whether through British or international laws or the Scottish system,” the minister said.
“At that time they were merely exchanging ideas. The idea was discussed as a title. Everyone was looking for a relationship to continue and prosper into the future and to find a way out for Abdul Baset, but nothing was agreed." (...)
The minister, Libya’s longest-serving politican, going back since 1968, said he had been asked by his government to become involved in the negotiations over al-Megrahi’s release following the prisoner’s cancer diagnosis.
It was he who first conveyed Libya’s concerns to Bill Rammell, a Foreign Office minister at the time, about the possible consequences should al-Megrahi die in prison.
“I told Rammell and then (Ivan) Lewis, his successor, that al-Megrahi was very sick with cancer and that if he died in prison it would be disastrous in general, not just with regards to trade issues, but more importantly with public opinion, as people here and in the Middle East believed he was innocent, a hero.
“If he had died in prison they would also have believed that his illness was brought about intentionally and this would have been bad.”
He said he had conveyed the same message to Scottish officials.
It was then that Rammell had told him that neither Gordon Brown, the prime minister, nor David Miliband, the foreign secretary, wanted al-Megrahi to die in prison.
Legal experts were hired to explore ways in which to seek his freedom and they were made aware of possible release on compassionate grounds as well as under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement.
The minister said al-Megrahi had insisted on dropping his appeal against conviction for the Lockerbie bombing in order to give both options a better chance.
“He was a sick man, a dying man who wanted to return home, reunite with his family and see them before he died,” he said. Al-Megrahi had declared when he made his decision: “I want to die among my family.”
[The above are excerpts from an article in The Sunday Times.]
In an interview with The Sunday Times in Tripoli yesterday, Abdulati al-Obeidi, the minister, said that al-Megrahi had been on the agenda during Blair’s visit that year.
“They (Blair and Gadaffi) discussed possible ways on how legally to bring al-Megrahi to Libya, whether through British or international laws or the Scottish system,” the minister said.
“At that time they were merely exchanging ideas. The idea was discussed as a title. Everyone was looking for a relationship to continue and prosper into the future and to find a way out for Abdul Baset, but nothing was agreed." (...)
The minister, Libya’s longest-serving politican, going back since 1968, said he had been asked by his government to become involved in the negotiations over al-Megrahi’s release following the prisoner’s cancer diagnosis.
It was he who first conveyed Libya’s concerns to Bill Rammell, a Foreign Office minister at the time, about the possible consequences should al-Megrahi die in prison.
“I told Rammell and then (Ivan) Lewis, his successor, that al-Megrahi was very sick with cancer and that if he died in prison it would be disastrous in general, not just with regards to trade issues, but more importantly with public opinion, as people here and in the Middle East believed he was innocent, a hero.
“If he had died in prison they would also have believed that his illness was brought about intentionally and this would have been bad.”
He said he had conveyed the same message to Scottish officials.
It was then that Rammell had told him that neither Gordon Brown, the prime minister, nor David Miliband, the foreign secretary, wanted al-Megrahi to die in prison.
Legal experts were hired to explore ways in which to seek his freedom and they were made aware of possible release on compassionate grounds as well as under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement.
The minister said al-Megrahi had insisted on dropping his appeal against conviction for the Lockerbie bombing in order to give both options a better chance.
“He was a sick man, a dying man who wanted to return home, reunite with his family and see them before he died,” he said. Al-Megrahi had declared when he made his decision: “I want to die among my family.”
[The above are excerpts from an article in The Sunday Times.]
Straw admits Lockerbie trade link
Trade and oil played a part in the decision to include the Lockerbie bomber in a prisoner transfer deal, Jack Straw has admitted.
Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, the UK justice secretary said trade was "a very big part" of the 2007 talks that led to the prisoner deal with Libya. (...)
But officials admit the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) was part of a wider set of negotiations aimed at bringing Libya in from the international cold, and improving British trade prospects with the country.
"Libya was a rogue state," Mr Straw told the paper. "We wanted to bring it back into the fold.
"And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal." (...)
A spokesman for Mr Straw said the minister had always made clear that wider considerations such as trade played a part in the negotiation of the PTA. (...)
Deputy First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon said: "All this discussion about the prisoner transfer agreement is academic because al-Megrahi wasn't released under the prisoner transfer agreement.
"Having said that, Jack Straw's comments do tend to support the view that the Scottish Government always took which was that the prisoner transfer agreement was tainted and compromised by trade discussions."
The Scottish National Party MSP added: "That's why I think we were right to both oppose that agreement, but also to reject the application of the Libyan Government to have al-Megrahi released under it."
[The above are extracts from a report on the BBC News website.]
Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, the UK justice secretary said trade was "a very big part" of the 2007 talks that led to the prisoner deal with Libya. (...)
But officials admit the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) was part of a wider set of negotiations aimed at bringing Libya in from the international cold, and improving British trade prospects with the country.
"Libya was a rogue state," Mr Straw told the paper. "We wanted to bring it back into the fold.
"And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal." (...)
A spokesman for Mr Straw said the minister had always made clear that wider considerations such as trade played a part in the negotiation of the PTA. (...)
Deputy First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon said: "All this discussion about the prisoner transfer agreement is academic because al-Megrahi wasn't released under the prisoner transfer agreement.
"Having said that, Jack Straw's comments do tend to support the view that the Scottish Government always took which was that the prisoner transfer agreement was tainted and compromised by trade discussions."
The Scottish National Party MSP added: "That's why I think we were right to both oppose that agreement, but also to reject the application of the Libyan Government to have al-Megrahi released under it."
[The above are extracts from a report on the BBC News website.]
Friday 4 September 2009
Why do we still cling to mythical link with US?
[This is the headline over Ian Bell's Saturday Essay in The Herald. The following are excerpts.]
[T]hat dilapidated heirloom, the special relationship, is being disowned by Americans and their leaders. Like those extradition laws by which the US demands and Britain requests, it turns out to have been a one-way street. So do we fret, or move on?
Matters have been brought to a head by the Lockerbie row. The Americans are justifiably aggrieved and, simultaneously, in the wrong. Sir Christopher Meyer, former ambassador to Washington, attests that there was a "clear political and diplomatic understanding" in 1998 that, if convicted, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi would serve his time in a Scottish prison. Now we learn that, while Britain talked trade, Gordon Brown was conveying an entirely different message to the Libyans.
The Americans smell a rat. This is not how loyal allies, as defined in Washington, are supposed to behave. Yet neither the American media nor the US government have shown the slightest interest in examining the safety of Megrahi's conviction. In fact, the administration is facing legal action just to force the release of documents that could shed light on the case. As for compassion, the integrity of Scots law or the memory of recent services rendered, these are of no account.
The reaction towards "the Brits" in the American popular press has been contemptuous. According to the New York Daily News, the special relationship has "gone". Brown is a "betrayer". The Republican right, in particular, has reached for every cliche in the book covering effete, duplicitous, post-imperial losers. As with the recent fantastic propaganda traducing the NHS, not a thought has been given to British opinion. Who cares, after all?
In fact, evidence that Scots are split evenly over Megrahi's release, as demonstrated in yesterday's opinion poll, would only harden attitudes, were it ever to penetrate. Such signs of pathetic weakness, like the British Army's alleged inadequacies in the field, are no more than a certain sort of American has come to expect. The belief that Britain is held in wide esteem in the US is our delusion.
[T]hat dilapidated heirloom, the special relationship, is being disowned by Americans and their leaders. Like those extradition laws by which the US demands and Britain requests, it turns out to have been a one-way street. So do we fret, or move on?
Matters have been brought to a head by the Lockerbie row. The Americans are justifiably aggrieved and, simultaneously, in the wrong. Sir Christopher Meyer, former ambassador to Washington, attests that there was a "clear political and diplomatic understanding" in 1998 that, if convicted, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi would serve his time in a Scottish prison. Now we learn that, while Britain talked trade, Gordon Brown was conveying an entirely different message to the Libyans.
The Americans smell a rat. This is not how loyal allies, as defined in Washington, are supposed to behave. Yet neither the American media nor the US government have shown the slightest interest in examining the safety of Megrahi's conviction. In fact, the administration is facing legal action just to force the release of documents that could shed light on the case. As for compassion, the integrity of Scots law or the memory of recent services rendered, these are of no account.
The reaction towards "the Brits" in the American popular press has been contemptuous. According to the New York Daily News, the special relationship has "gone". Brown is a "betrayer". The Republican right, in particular, has reached for every cliche in the book covering effete, duplicitous, post-imperial losers. As with the recent fantastic propaganda traducing the NHS, not a thought has been given to British opinion. Who cares, after all?
In fact, evidence that Scots are split evenly over Megrahi's release, as demonstrated in yesterday's opinion poll, would only harden attitudes, were it ever to penetrate. Such signs of pathetic weakness, like the British Army's alleged inadequacies in the field, are no more than a certain sort of American has come to expect. The belief that Britain is held in wide esteem in the US is our delusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)