Friday, 19 September 2008

Hospital visit for Megrahi

The Sun reports that Abdelbaset Megrahi today has an appointment at Inverclyde Royal Hospital. This apparently involves a major security operation. The full story can be read here and the aangirfan blog's concerns here.

The report in The Times can be read here. It contains the following paragraphs:

'This week it emerged that the Appeal Court in Edinburgh had decided to appoint a special defender to view confidential documents believed to contain information about the electronic timer used to detonate the aircraft.

'The court's decision came after an unprecendented hearing behind closed doors during which the UK Government argued that the documents should remain secret to avoid compromising security. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, claimed that handing over the documents would put national security at risk.

'It will be the first time that a special defender has been used in a Scottish court, although the process has been used in English courts during terrorism cases. Lord Hamilton, the Lord President [sic; should read "the Lord Justice General"], sat with Lords Kingarth and Eassie last month to decide whether al-Megrahi can obtain a fair trial without access to the documents.

'The Advocate General, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova, who represents the UK Government in the Scottish courts, asked the court to appoint a security-vetted lawyer to look at the documents on behalf of al-Megrahi's defence team before arguing which parts of the documents should be published.

'The final decision on the release of sections of the document would lie with judges. The court has not yet formally published its decision but Kim Howells, the Foreign Office Minister, has written a letter confirming that the court has decided to appoint a special defender.

'It is understood that al-Megrahi's legal team is planning to appeal against the decision to the Privy Council on the ground that the move would violate his human rights.

'Dr Hans Koechler, the United Nations special envoy to the trial in the Netherlands of the two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing, criticised the development as “intolerable”. Dr Koechler said that it was “detrimental to the rule of law”.'

The Daily Mail has a long article with photographs, concentrating principally on the security arrangements and the cost of the visit. It also has quotes from Susan Cohen, the lazy tabloid journalist's first port of call for some juicy inflammatory copy. Why do UK journalists not seek the reactions of UK relatives, rather than the reaction of one specific US relative? The answer, I'm afraid, is clear: controversy sells newspapers and you wouldn't get controversy from UK relatives over medical treatment for Megrahi. Gutter journalism.


  1. The aangirfan blog has an article from the Guardian in which it is stated, 'The fact that the judges refused to be swayed by the clouds of doubt hanging over the prosecution case left many observers staggered.'
    This really is quite shocking when a man is being tried for multiple murder.
    In England fairly recently there was a case in the Court of Appeal which left the observers in a similar state of mind. This case alleged state crime and there was ample evidence to indicate it. There were many, many PII applications and serious failure in disclosure.

  2. In the name of the State: The truth (PII) remains covered in a document under national Security...

    To prevent international legal assistance from Switzerland and the potential disgrace for the Scottish justice system and to divert at the same time from the explosive affidavit of Lumpert, the newspaper „The Herald" communicated on the 3rd of October 2007 that behind ground 5 of the SCCRC-report a top secret classified document "under national security" was hidden and that its content is about the MST-13 timer. This after the editor of the Herald was feeded with information from the secret and unpublished 800 pages report of the commission's findings.

    At the first hearing on the 19th of October 2007 the Appeal court in Edinburgh suddenly confirmed after more than 3 months the existence of a document "under national security"; but keeps ist content closed.

    Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC agreed on the 20th of February 2008 to open the secret document but the UK Government by Advocate General Lord Davidson, QC, - Westminster's representative in Scottish matters - refused so and argued that it was not in the public interest to release the secret document. He claimed higher national interests: "The national security was at stake"!!!

    Seemingly the content of the document "under national security" (MST-13 timer) is so high-explosive that the national security of Great Britain is at stake !!!

    Prosecuting counsel Ronnie Clancy added that the secret document did not originate from the USA or one of ist agencies as the CIA.

    For provable special reasons only two countries come into consideration for having passed the document 'under national security' to Great Britain: Switzerland or Germany. Reason: The manipulated "Lockerbie MST-13 timer fragment" did not come from a timer supplied to Libya in 1985/86.

    Why the national security in Great Britain would be in danger with the opening of the document?
    At least these two ex RARDE experts, Dr.Thomas Hayes and Allen Feraday, were involved as officials in the manipulations of the MST-13, (PT/35) fragment and the falsifications in the examination report page 51, photo PP8932, PI/995, memorandum to Insp.William Williamson, etc.
    At least this two officials experts were responsible for the deliberately wrong accusation by linking the MST-13 fragment to Libya and the PanAm 103 Tragedy. In reality the crown wants to protect Hayes and Feraday.

    They are a real problem for the public security in Great Britain, why?
    Who gave the ex RARDE experts Dr.Thomas Hayes and all Feraday the order to falsifications evidence in context with the MST-13(PT/35) fragment? Came the order from the state?

    If RARDE experts Dr.Thomas Hayes and Allen Feraday acted in the name of the state remains covered until the police will prosecute these two officials for falsification of evidence.
    This is the true reason for the non-disclosure of the document 'under national security' (PII) ...
    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd

  3. I think you are right. National security/PII is used quite frequently in England to hide the illegal activities by the government/Establishmemt. I suppose in a way if they were found out it would jeopardise national security because the public would not tolerate their acts and there would be mass demonstrations. Also their illegal acts would impinge on other countries.
    If it is exposed that Dr.Thomas Hayes and Allen Feraday did falsify evidence then the government would prosecute them but to keep them quiet it would use 'leverage' and/or let them be convicted and then let them out the back door of the prison. Or they might suddenly die of heart attacks.