Friday 23 January 2015

Today's High Court hearing on SCCRC Megrahi application

[What follows is the report on the BBC News website of today’s (purely procedural) hearing in the High Court of Justiciary before Lady Dorrian:]

A High Court judge has been asked if families of some of the victims of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing can launch an appeal on behalf of the only man convicted of the atrocity.

It is the latest attempt by relatives to bring the case back to court.

The families want the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi overturned.

Lady Dorrian has now ordered that a hearing should take place to decide whether they can pursue an appeal on his behalf.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) wants guidance on the legal status of the relatives of those who lost their lives in the atrocity.

After hearing submissions from legal teams, Lady Dorrian arranged a hearing to take place on 27 March.

Al-Megrahi died three years ago, having abandoned his own second appeal brought by the SCCRC.

The SCCRC is considering a joint application from members of Megrahi's family and the Justice for Megrahi campaign group, which includes relatives of British victims of the bombing, to review the conviction.

It previously said that despite repeated requests, members of Megrahi's family had failed to provide "appropriate evidence" supporting their involvement in the application.

The SCCRC concluded that the application was being "actively supported" only by the members of the victims' families.

Previous court decisions have meant that only the executor of a dead person's estate or their next of kin could proceed with such a posthumous application. [RB: This is incorrect. There are no Scottish judicial decisions one way or the other on this issue. That is why the SCCRC feel the need to seek guidance.]

The SCCRC wants to determine if a member of the victims' families - such as Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the bombing - might be classed as a "person with a legitimate interest to pursue an appeal" if the case is referred back to the High Court.

Dr Swire and Aamer Anwar, solicitor for the Megrahi family, were among those at court for the latest hearing.

Mr Anwar said: "We would submit that the commission are wrong and that we remain instructed by members of the Megrahi family as well as the British relatives.

"We have been in communication with the Megrahi family, both via intermediaries and directly.

"Communication is hampered by an extremely dangerous situation in Libya, a situation referred to in December by the Lord Advocate, by way of an explanation for lack of any progress in relation to investigations into the Lockerbie atrocity."

He added that with regards to the rights of the victims' families to pursue an appeal there was a "fundamental duty" to protect the rights of victims of crime.

"It is submitted that the families of the victims have as much right to make an application for referral as the family of Mr al-Megrahi," he said.

"Finality and certainty in the Megrahi case is unlikely ever to be achieved unless a referral is made to the Appeal Court."

Megrahi case goes back to court

[What follows is a report published today on the BBC News website:]

A High Court judge is to be asked if members of the families of some of the victims of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing can launch an appeal on behalf of the only man convicted of the atrocity.

It is the latest attempt by the relatives to bring the case back to court.

BBC Scotland Home Affairs Correspondent Reevel Alderson said it could be the start of a protracted legal battle.

The families want the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi overturned.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) wants the court to rule whether it is allowed to investigate the Lockerbie case again, on behalf of members of victims' families.

Al-Megrahi died three years ago, having abandoned his own second appeal brought by the SCCRC.

The application will be contested by the Crown Office, and it is likely a formal hearing will be arranged later for full-scale legal arguments.

[RB: 1. A slightly longer report appears on the website of The Independent.

2. The SCCRC’s petition to the High Court flows from its decision to regard the current application as brought only by victims’ relatives and not also by Megrahi’s close family. In the light of recent evidence regarding the intentions of the Megrahi family, it is hoped that the SCCRC will soon reverse this decision, rendering the petition otiose. Today’s hearing at 10.00 in the High Court will be attended by Dr Jim Swire.]

Thursday 22 January 2015

Lockerbie chat on Independence Live

This evening’s Skype chat between David McGowran and me is archived here. It was intended to be a video chat, but the technology let us down and it is audio only.

Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer contributed a reference to an article published today on the website of The Guardian. I had not in fact seen it, but have now had a chance to read it. Absolutely fascinating: Cooperation between British spies and Gaddafi’s Libya revealed in official papers

Dr De Braeckeleer also mentioned the recent death of the Argentinian investigating judge Alberto Nisman. How does that relate to Lockerbie? Here is an excerpt from an article published today on the website of The Christian Science Monitor:

"Mr Nisman had been obsessively on the trail of the perpetrators of the July 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires for the past decade. He was tasked with the investigation by Nestor Kirchner, the former president and deceased husband of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. Nisman died at home on Sunday night, shortly before he was to expound publicly on a political bombshell he laid on Argentina's public earlier this month, namely that President Kirchner had promised to cover up Iran's involvement in the 1994 terrorist attack, the worst in Argentina's history, in which 85 people died. (...)

"Mr Nisman took over in 2005.

"By 2006, he was claiming that senior Iranian officials were involved in the attack, including the country's former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. His key witness? Abolghasem Mesbahi, an alleged former Iranian intelligence officer, who has made a career of leveling accusations against Iran since his defection in 1996. He claimed that former President Carlos Menem was paid about $10 million to hide Iran's involvement.

"Mr Mesbahi has also insisted that Iran was behind the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland, instead of Muammar Qaddafi's Libya. A Libyan intelligence agent was ultimately found guilty of murder by a special tribunal; Mr Qaddafi's regime paid substantial reparations over the attack."

Wednesday 21 January 2015

Air crash relatives hold 'emotional' Lockerbie meeting

This is the headline over a report published today on the BBC News website. It elaborates on the news report in The Herald that I reproduced on this blog yesterday. The programme in question is being broadcast for the first time tonight on BBC Alba at 8.30pm GMT.

Megrahi's 2001 appeal

[What follows is the text of a report published in The Scotsman on this date in 2001:]

Tne appeal of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi has been plagued by bitter in-fighting because members of his defence team have not been paid for their services.

The Scotsman has learned that Megrahi’s Libyan backers owe tens of thousands of pounds to the lawyers and spin doctors hired to bolster his case. Two members of the defence team have already resigned from the organising committee and one has even served a writ on Megrahi’s UK representative, claiming £30,000 in unpaid fees.

Megrahi was found guilty a year ago of mass murder for bombing New York-bound Pan Am flight 103 out of the sky in December 1988, killing all 259 passengers and crew and 11 people in Lockerbie.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation that he serve at least 20 years.

His co-accused, Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was cleared. Megrahi’s appeal is due to start on Wednesday [23 January 2001].

Professor Alan Dershowitz, a leading American civil rights lawyer and one of the main legal brains behind the appeal, has admitted technical specialists and lawyers gathering vital evidence for the case have yet to be paid by the Libyans.

He said: "I’ve been a consultant to the law firm and (I know) some people have not been paid. Some of the experts have not been paid as well. Some of the people that have been retained to do some of the scientific research on the case have not been paid."

Professor Dershowitz’s comments came after David Wynn Morgan and Patrick Robertson, the London-based PR experts brought in to publicise the appeal, resigned from their posts over financial disputes.

Mr Robertson has served a writ on Stephen Mitchell, the representative for Needleman Treon, Megrahi’s London-based solicitors, for almost £30,000.

Last night, Mr Robertson, who has represented former Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet, confirmed he had served a writ on Mr Mitchell. He said: "I was forced to resign from the committee because I was not paid the agreed sum in my contract to assist the team. I was brought in to inform the media on the case, set up a website on the appeal and organise a seminar for the committee and I had agreed a sum to carry out these functions.

"Unfortunately I have been forced to issue a writ to retrieve the money owed to me, that is now public knowledge and it is a position I would rather not be in."

It has also emerged that Mr Wynn Morgan resigned from the appeal committee by sending an e-mail to his colleagues, stating he was no longer in a position to carry out his duties. The disagreement is said to have come to a head after a five-figure cheque paid to Mr Wynn Morgan’s PR firm was allegedly stopped by representatives acting for the Libyans. A source close to Mr Wynn Morgan said: "David did resign from the appeal committee and it is fair to suggest there was a financial disagreement but we are in a tricky position at the moment.

"All we can say is this ‘disagreement’ has since been resolved and we hope to contribute more to the team in the future, but it was the basis for our withdrawal from the appeal team."

An appeal team insider suggested the timing for the dispute could not be worse and the growing financial cloud hanging over the committee could undermine the Libyan’s case.

He said: "There is a growing unease in the team and many of the lawyers and specialists who have contributed to the appeal feel they have been used by the Libyans."

Megrahi’s appeal is being financed and co-ordinated by a consortium of Libyan lawyers headed by Tripoli-based academic Dr Ibrahim Legwell. [RB: Dr Legwell was not an academic (save for an honorary professorship) but a practising lawyer.]

In a bid to bolster the appeal case, the Libyan lawyers raised funds to recruit the services of some of the world’s leading legal minds and PR men.

The appeal is to be heard by Scotland’s highest-ranking judge, Lord Cullen, the Lord Justice-General, sitting with Lords Kirkwood, Osborne, Macfadyen and Nimmo Smith.

Professor Robert Black, QC, of Edinburgh University, who helped to pave the way for the Lockerbie trial to be held in a neutral country, believes that Megrahi should win his appeal.

He added: "I did not believe either of the accused should have been convicted, and it is pretty plain my view is that the appeal should succeed, simply because Megrahi should never have been convicted in the first place on the evidence that was led.

"I believe that conclusions drawn by the court, that Megrahi bought clothing on Malta on a day when he was known to be on the island, went against the weight of the evidence.

"These conclusions were absolutely vital to his conviction. But it is very difficult for five judges to turn round and say, ‘Our three very senior colleagues at the trial got it wrong and they were not entitled to convict.’ I’m not oozing confidence that my view will turn out to be correct."

RB: My lack of confidence in the outcome of the appeal was regrettably justified. The reasons for its failure are set out here, in the section headed “The Appeal”. My view that the trial court’s conclusion, that the clothes that surrounded the bomb were bought in Malta on a day when Megrahi was present on the island, was contrary to the weight of the evidence is shared by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission:

“… the Commission formed the view that 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. Although it was proved that the applicant was in Malta on several occasions in December 1988, in terms of the evidence 7 December was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to purchase the items. The finding as to the date of purchase was therefore important to the trial court's conclusion that the applicant was the purchaser. Likewise, the trial court's conclusion that the applicant was the purchaser was important to the verdict against him. Because of these factors the Commission has reached the view that the requirements of the legal test [RB: that no reasonable court could have reached that conclusion on the evidence] may be satisfied in the applicant's case.”

Tuesday 20 January 2015

Relatives of MH17 and Lockerbie tragedies brought together

[This is the headline over an article published this afternoon on the website of The Herald newspaper. It reads as follows:]

Families affected by the Lockerbie disaster have met relatives of victims of the MH17 crash to share their experiences.

The Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lampur was brought down in a rebel area of Eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. All 283 passengers, including 80 children, were killed in the crash.

The Lockerbie bombing which brought down a trans-Atlantic flight in 1988 is still fresh in the mind of the families who lost loved ones. Pan Am Flight 103 was targeted in a terrorist attack that resulted in 259 passengers being killed as well as 11 people on the ground.

Silene Fredriksz lost her son Bryce and his girlfriend Daisy in the MH17 incident. The young couple was travelling to Bali when the plane came down.

The Fredriksz family met John and Lisa Mosey, whose daughter Helga died in the Lockerbie disaster, for a documentary filmed by BBC Alba's Eorpa which shows how the families are coping with their loss.

Ms Fredriksz said: "It's a nightmare. Every time you close your eyes you see how that airplane exploded with them in it."

During the conversation between the Moseys and the Fredriksz family, they spoke about the importance of forgiveness in helping them to come to terms with what happened.

The Dutch family also met Jim Swire who continues to campaign for what he believes was a wrongful conviction over the Lockerbie bombing. Mr Swire lost his daughter Flora who had been travelling to the USA to spend Christmas with her boyfriend.

He said: "Seeking truth and justice was my way of coping with the loss of that lovely girl of ours - our eldest daughter Flora and to a great extent, I'd felt that I had been doing that for her."

After meeting the other relatives whose family members were killed more than 26 years ago, Ms Fredriksz said: "It was very emotional but very good that we did it... I think we can learn a lot from this. They have a positive outlook and can still enjoy life."

The programme will be shown at 8.30pm [tomorrow, Wednesday] on BBC ALBA Eorpa.

Support of an unsupportable verdict

[The following are excerpts from two items -- (1) Lockerbie father: al-Megrahi is innocent and (2) My trip to bid dying bomber goodbye -- posted on this blog three years ago on this date:]

From The Times:  The doctor who lost his daughter in the 1988 Lockerbie  bombing has reaffirmed his belief that the Libyan man convicted of the attack is innocent.

Jim Swire said he was convinced that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice, despite the belief of the new Libyan governement that al-Megrahi is guilty of the mass murder of the 270 passengers.

Dr Swire was speaking last night after an ITV documentary in which he was shown visiting al-Megrahi, who is dying of cancer. He also consulted representatives of the Libyan leadership that toppled the dictatorship of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi last year.

In one exchange Ashour Shamis, an adviser to Abdurrahim al-Keib, the Libyan Prime Minister, told Dr Swire: “As far as the Libyans are concerned, the Gaddafi regime, Gaddafi personally, are involved in planning and executing the atrocity. There is no doubt about it. They are involved, the regime are involved.”

Mr Shamis added that al-Megrahi was involved in the bombing, if “only a small player”. He went on: “Megrahi is an employee of Libyan security there is no doubt about it — of Libyan security. And if he was told to do something, he would have done it.”

Dr Swire said he had not accepted that argument. Mr Shamis, along with the rest of new government, had simply not had time to consider the case with any thoroughness.

“I found Tripoli percolated with the desire to pin everything imaginable under the sun on the defunct Gaddafi regime, because the people are so delighted to have got rid of him,” said Dr Swire. “Mr Shamis certainly believes al-Megrahi was guilty. I tried to make plain that if you look at the evidence that it is not at all likely.”

Dr Swire added that he hoped the documentary would re-awaken interest in al-Megrahi’s conviction, in a Scottish court at Camp Zeist, in the Netherlands, in 2001. The Libyan was released from Greenock prison on compassionate grounds in 2009 because he is suffering from terminal cancer.

“The verdict is vulnerable and would be repealed if there were a full inquiry into it,” said Dr Swire. “The Scottish public should understand what’s going on in their name: the support of an unsupportable verdict.”

From The Sun:  A dad who lost his daughter in the Lockerbie bombing has travelled to Libya to "say goodbye" to the man convicted of the atrocity.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 23, was among 270 people killed in the 1988 terror attack, said Abdelbaset al-Megrahi "does not have much time left".

Megrahi, 59, was freed on compassionate grounds from Greenock jail in August 2009, after being diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer.

Dr Swire — who said he was "entirely satisfied" that Megrahi was not guilty — revealed he had spent just over a week in Tripoli. The 75-year-old, who lives in Gloucestershire, said: "It was very much a trip for me to say goodbye to him.
"It may seem unusual but I have come to regard him as a friend."

Monday 19 January 2015

Compensation negotiations following Lockerbie trial

[What follows is the text of a report published in The Independent on this date in 2002:]

Millions of dollars for bomb victims' families if Gaddafi accepts responsibility  

Relatives of the 270 people who died in the Lockerbie bombing stand to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation from Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in a secret deal being finalised by senior officials from Libya, Britain and the US. Senior Libyan officials met their British and American counterparts at the Foreign Office in London this month to discuss the deal, which would also see Tripoli accept general responsibility for the 1988 attack on Pan Am Flight 103, which killed all the passengers and crew and 11 people from the small Scottish border town. In return, the way would be opened for the north African country to resume oil deals worth billions of dollars. The negotiations are going on as Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Libyan intelligence officer convicted last year of planting the bomb that destroyed the airliner, prepares for his appeal, due to start on Wednesday at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. His co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was found not guilty.

"A meeting took place on 10 January to discuss Libya's response to the requirements set down by the UN Security Council," a Foreign Office spokesman said. "There are two requirements – that Libya accept responsibility for the actions of its officers and that it pay compensation to the families of the victims." The meeting was the latest in a series of three-way engagements that have taken place since Megrahi's conviction last year. One person with knowledge of what transpired at the most recent meeting said: "Libya wants to get out of the shadow of Lockerbie, and the only way it can do that is to accept responsibility." Underlining the importance of the 10 January meeting, all three countries sent officials of the highest level. The US was represented by William Burns, the assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, while a spokesman for the Libyan embassy in London said that a special negotiating team was dispatched from Tripoli. Britain said it sent a senior Foreign Office official.

It is not clear how much compensation will be paid. Dr Jim Swire, who leads the group of 31 bereaved British families, said the relatives had been asked that they keep private the sums being discussed but that the total would come to "many, many millions". (...) 

Dr Swire said the families supported the efforts to bring Libya back into the international arena. "Our view is that it would be unhelpful to look at Libya now as it was in the mid-1980s," said Dr Swire, whose daughter, Flora, died in the bombing. "We feel it would be more of a memorial to our loved ones if we can play a small part in [ensuring Libya does not return to the path of terrorism]." Glenn Johnson, the chairman of Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, the group that represents the vast majority of the families of the 169 US victims, was also encouraged that Libya was taking part in the talks. "Over the last 13 years I have spent around $100,000, pursuing the case," said Mr Johnson, who lost his 21-year-old daughter, Beth, in the incident.

Libya, which has already regained diplomatic relations with Britain, has much to gain from a normalisation of relations with the US – most importantly, the resumption of oil deals worth billions of dollars. The US believes that Libya is no longer involved in terrorism and was heartened by Colonel Gaddafi's comments condemning the attacks of 11 September. The US imposed its own sanctions in 1986, after Libyan agents bombed a Berlin disco frequented by US soldiers, killing two of them. US President Ronald Reagan responded by bombing Tripoli. The UN sanctions, suspended in 1999 after Libya handed over the two Lockerbie suspects, were imposed in 1992. The UN requirement that Libya pay compensation is not dependent on the outcome of Megrahi's appeal. After last year's verdict, Mohammed Azwai, Libya's ambassador to Britain, said Tripoli would pay if the conviction was upheld. "After the appeal result, at that time we will speak about compensation. We will fulfil our duty to the Security Council."

Forthcoming attraction

On Thursday, 22 January 2015 at 7pm GMT, I’ll be doing a live Skype chat on Lockerbie with David McGowran in the Independence Live Events series.

Sunday 18 January 2015

A deliberate perversion of justice

What follows is an item first published on this blog seven years ago on this date:

Rewards for Justice

The Sunday Post, the Scottish Sunday newspaper with the largest readership, published the following article by Adam Docherty about payment to witnesses in the Lockerbie trial on 13 January 2008:

'The US justice department paid for evidence that helped convict Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing.

'With the next hearing in Megrahi's High Court Appeal due to take place next month, the admission casts a dark shadow over testimony at the original trial -- and the safety of the conviction.

'The Washington DC-based 'Rewards for Justice' organisation boasts that it has paid out more than 72 million dollars to over 50 people who have provided information that prevented international terrorist attacks or have brought to justice those involved in prior acts. Included on its website, in a list of those brought to justice, is Megrahi. Due to a strict policy of confidentiality Rewards for Justice will not name the witnesses nor divulge the exact amount paid to them.

'In June last year the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Megrahi's case back to the Court of Appeal after a three-year inquiry. They found six areas of concern and are believed to have uncovered a £2-million reward paid by the CIA to key witness, Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci.

'Gauci was the only witness to link Megrahi directly to the bomb, and was therefore instrumental in convicting him on 31 January 2001. Gauci told the trial that Megrahi bought clothes in his shop, which were later used to wrap the bomb.

'At the trial, Gauci appeared uncertain about the exact date he sold the clothes in question, and was not entirely sure that it was Megrahi to whom they were sold. Nonetheless, Megrahi's appeal against conviction was rejected by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands in March 2002. Five years after the trial, former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, publicly described Gauci as being "an apple short of a picnic" and "not quite the full shilling".

'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the 1988 bombing, is convinced that Megrahi is innocent. Yesterday he said that such huge sums offered to witnesses could encourage them to perjury.

'"Many jurists would consider that promises of money to secure 'evidence' from any individual do not accord with the principles of justice," he explained.

'"It is the timing of such promises rather the payments themselves that determine whether the 'evidence' is likely to be degraded. To many such witnesses such sums would alter their lives.

'"And such promises of money, if concealed from court -- or perhaps divulged only to prosecution -- could be considered a deliberate perversion of justice.

'"Witnesses are supposed to serve the truth. But the old Scots adage holds firm here - 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'.

'"This document gives some idea of the scale of the payments. It also removes any doubt as to whether payments were, indeed, made in this case."

The newspaper also published an article containing Dr Swire's detailed reactions to the revelations. These included the following:

'I entered the Zeist trial believing (as the British Foreign secretary had told us) that there was conclusive evidence of Libya's guilt, and none concerning the guilt of any other nation.

'This was the reason that we, the UK relatives, had made every conceivable effort, including three visits to Colonel Gaddafi, to persuade him to allow his citizens to undergo trial under Scottish criminal justice.

'Within days of the start of the trial at Zeist it became clear that fundamental requirements for the collection of evidence for a criminal trial had been breached, when the court was told that a suitcase, belonging to one of the US passengers had been removed from the crash site, by persons unknown, cut open, and then returned for the Scottish searchers to find, with some of its contents put back and even labelled with the name of the owner.

'The court accepted that the rectangular cutting into that suitcase could not have been a result of the explosion, but appeared unfazed by the possible implications for other items allegedly recovered as evidence. This had intense relevance later in the case to the question of a fragment of timer circuit board, the key forensic 'link' to the credibility of the bomb ever having started from Malta.

'There was evidence of the presence of numerous unidentified US agents roaming the site at a very early stage - a situation which the resources of the Scottish police could never have been expected to anticipate or control.

'From this unhappy start, the picture grew of how certain intelligence agencies had contributed to the assembly of much of the evidence. Intelligence services act in support of the perceived advantage of the countries for which they work: this may or may not be consistent with seeking the truth.

'Remember that for this trial there was no jury.

'Now, as you report, we have the proud exhibition by 'Rewards for Justice' in Washington DC of their use of 'more than 72 million dollars' in persuading witnesses to give evidence in terror-related cases. Former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie's, post trial assessment of the key witness, Mr Gauci, as being 'one apple short of a picnic' was not vouchsafed to the court, but can only serve now to emphasize the possibility that an offer of cash might have affected the evidence that Mr Gauci was willing to give.

'As a layman, I emerged from the Zeist hearings convinced that the verdict should never have been reached.'

Saturday 17 January 2015

Amal Clooney representing Abdullah al-Senussi

[The following are excerpts from an article published yesterday on The World Post website, hosted by The Huffington Post:]

While Amal Clooney's resumé reads like most human rights activists' wildest dreams (stints working for the UN, heads of states, and ambassadors are not easy to come by) the term "human rights lawyer" is somewhat misunderstood by the public to mean "saint." (...)

Clooney's client list includes not only the ostensible "good guys" like former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, but also very questionable characters like the King of Bahrain and Abdullah al Senussi. (...)

Abdullah al Senussi, another one of Clooney's clients, served as Muammar Gaddafi's intelligence chief and was captured in Libya in 2011. The International Criminal Court charged him with crimes against humanity in 2011 for his role in Gaddafi's brutal government as well as the Lockerbie bombing. [RB: I can find no evidence that charges have been brought against Senussi in relation to Lockerbie.] Clooney's decision to continue to work on his defense drew some fire after she became engaged to her current spouse, as if her professional life might take a backseat to her then-fiancé's humanitarian image. Clooney's primary role in the case appears to be appealing the decision to hold the trial in Libya's domestic courts, however, claiming her client's right to meet with his lawyers was denied by the ICC.

Clooney herself justified her choice to work on behalf of al Senussi, saying that everyone has a right to a defense lawyer (extremely true) and criticizing the International Criminal Court for violating the rights of her client. Even though this may seem ironic, given the charges of human rights violations against al Senussi, due process is an integral, essential part of the international legal structure, and failures to uphold due process undermine the entire system. When it comes to those accused of war crimes or human rights violations, this includes the right to a defense, which Clooney provided professionally and convincingly in al Senussi's case. What's more, Clooney, while being many other laudable things, is also a lawyer, and lawyers make their living and reputation from acting as both prosecution and defense.

Clooney's defense of al Senussi and legal advising to [Bahraini King Hasan bin Isa] al Khalifa is part of her success as a lawyer, and defense as well as prosecution is essential to ensure the functioning of international human rights law. It is a reminder that human rights lawyers are still lawyers, professionals who need to make a career by playing both sides of the courtroom.