[This is the headline over an article just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
The Justice for Megrahi Committee, the group who have garnered an international coalition of signatories to a petition calling for a full investigation of the Pan Am 103 event and its aftermath, have written to the First Minister querying his refusal to sign their petition, accusing him of raising "more questions than answers" in his response to the invitation.
"Albeit that he has declined offer, we accept his decision. However, the message delivered by the Scottish Government’s spokesman in response to the invitation raises more questions than it answers insofar as it comes across as confusing and contradictory," the group said.
The committee, who have gathered signatories to their cause as diverse as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, John Pilger, Professor Noam Chomsky, Kate Adie and Parliamentarians Tam Dalyell and Sir Teddy Taylor, have asked Salmond to respond to six questions raised by the response submitted to them in Salmond's name, in which he appears to contradict his earlier position that he was willing to take part in an inquiry into the Pan Am 103 event, the discredited trial and the debacle surrounding Megrahi's release.
"Mr Salmond continues to maintain his stance that the Scottish Government is satisfied with the safety of Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction, thus setting himself squarely against the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) in their referral of the case to the Court of Appeal," the group said.
"He does, however, state that he would co-operate fully with an inquiry by an independent authority such as the United Nations.
"Further to this, according to the Scottish Government’s spokesman, despite confidence in the safety of the verdict, “there remain concerns on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.” If these “concerns” differ from those of JFM’s, what are they? JFM would very much like the Scottish Government to clarify which “concerns” it is alluding to.
"Mr Salmond also consistently contends, as has been reiterated via the Scottish Government’s spokesman in response to the JFM invitation, that “the questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots Law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would, therefore, need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”
"With the greatest respect, JFM disputes this. The international nature of the event was not such an impediment when it came to trying Messrs al-Megrahi and Fhimah at Zeist in the first instance, was it? What then is the obstruction now, when it comes to opening a Holyrood inquiry into the safety of a verdict reached under Scots Law?"
The Justice for Megrahi committee's membership includes Dr Jim Swire and Professor Robert Black QC, whose guidance on these matters allowed the international trial to be convened in the Netherlands under Scots law.
"JFM and its signatories seek clarification on the questions raised here resultant from the statement delivered by the Scottish Government’s spokesman. We list the questions below for Mr Salmond’s convenience.
"The questions:
-What are the wider concerns over the Lockerbie case as mentioned in the Scottish Government spokesman’s statement?
-Does the Scottish Government have the authority to set up inquiries?
-If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, under whose auspices was the 2003 inquiry into the Scottish Parliament building project, headed by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, set up?
-If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, is, therefore, the judiciary of Scotland sacrosanct and beyond the scrutiny of the people of Scotland, who pay for it?
-Is the First Minister going to lobby Westminster to request that either UN General Assembly or the Security Council set up an inquiry into the Lockerbie case?
-Given that such a considerable quantity of the evidence required for such inquiry falls under Scottish jurisdiction, what precisely is preventing the Scottish Government from opening an inquiry into the evidence already available to it?"
The full letter to Salmond can be read here.
[As regards question 2, I -- in my wonted spirit of helpfulness -- suggest that the First Minister and his advisers start researching their answer by consulting the Inquiries Act 2005 (c12), particularly sections 1, 27, 28 and 32.
The coverage of this story on the Newsnet Scotland website can be accessed here.]
"I don't know anything about boxing, other than: Never bet on the white guy!"
ReplyDeleteHowever, in this case, my money is on an economist (turned politician), rather than a disputation of Glasgow solicitors. (I couldn't find a non-offensive collective noun for lawyers, in Google)
Salmond is the premier operator - and makes very few mistakes by knowing intuitively when to tread cautiously. At a time when he is trying to keep the US issue from escalating and therefore losing control why would he ever hint at supporting or calling an enquiry - that would immediately send a message to the Senators that the Megrahi release was favoured for other reasons - not just on compassionate grounds.
Once the US mid-terms are over, and their interest in Megrahi has waned (once again), he may be more forthcoming...and that is going to be a political rather than judicial consideration, I would reckon.
MISSION LOCKERBIE:
ReplyDeleteWhy does the Scottish Justiciary and the security service MI6, strive persistent the responsibility for the "Lockerbie-Tragedy" with Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Libya to hold ?
Article only in german language:
Wieso bemüht sich die Scottish Justiciary und der Security Service MI6, hartnäckig die Verantwortung für die Lockerbie-Tragödie weiterhin bei Abdelbaset al-Megrahi und Libya zubelassen?
3* facts, which a Scottish Miscarriage of Justice provokes:
3* Tatsachen, welche ein Scottish Miscarriage of Justice herausfordern:
Wenn wirklich Aufklärung in dieser Angelegenheit in Scotland gefragt ist, können mit 72 Stunden Zeitaufwand durch eine polizeiliche Nachprüfung, zusammen mit professionellen Fachleuten und Experten, die wahren entlastenden Fakts 1-3 bestätigt werden:
1) Es kann zum heutigen Zeitpunkt auf einfache Art nachweislich bewiesen werden, dass von Air Malta Flug KM-180, am 21. Dezember 1988, kein Gepäckstück im Airport Frankfurt auf PanAm Flug PA-103/B transferiert wurde. Damit wird die Behauptung hinfällig, Mr. al-Megrahi hätte ein "Bomb-Bag" im Airport Luqa auf Flug KM-180 eingeschleust !
2) Es kann zum heutigen Zeitpunkt auf einfache Art nachweislich bewiesen werden, dass das MST-13 Timer-Fragment (PT/35) nicht von einem nach Libyen gelieferten MST-13 Timer abstammt, sondern aus einem **entwendeten MST-13 Circuit-Bord (Prototyp) welches von offiziellen Personen zu diesem Zweck manipuliert wurde. Dadurch ist eine Verbindung zu Libyen über das MST-13 Timer Fragment ebenfalls hinfällig !
(see **Affidavit vom 18. Juli, 2007))
3) Aus Beweisunterlagen z.B. (Regenfall in Malta) hätte man bei seriöser Gerichtsverhandlung im "Lockerbie-Prozess" (Kamp van Zeist) bereits beweisen können, dass der fragwürdige Kleider-Verkauf bei Gauci in Malta, am Mittwoch den 23. November 1988 abgewickelt wurde. An diesem Datum hielt sich Mr. al-Megrahi nachweislich nicht in Malta auf.
Mr. Megrahi kann dadurch als Kleider-Käufer am 7. Dezember 1988 bei Gauci's Boutique "Mary's House" definitiv ausgeschlossen werden!
Wichtig: Mr. Megrahi's Besuch am 20.-21. Dezember 1988 in Malta
mit falschem Passport und codiertem Namen, "Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad", hatte mit einer angeblichen Einschleusung eines "Bomb-Bag" auf Air Malta, KM-180 nichts zutun !
Da kein unbegleitetes "Bag" auf Air Malta, KM-180 geladen und in Frankfurt auf PanAm 103/B transferiert wurde, unterstützt die Tatsache, dass Megrahi's Besuch in Malta mit einen normalen subversiven Auftrag im Zusammenhang steht..
Sollte sich Scottish Secretary of Justice Kenny MacAskill nicht getrauen sein Versprechen aus "begreiflichen" Gründen einzulösen, das heisst die SCCRC Dokumente zu veröffentlichen, hätte er jetzt Gelegenheit mit den Tatsachen 1-3, Libyen und Mr. Al-Megrahi zuentlasten.
US senators hearing has been called to examine BP’s alleged role in Scotland’s decision last August to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi would not be then necessary...
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland
URL: www.lockerbie.ch
Für eine gute Übersetzung des obigen Artikels in English sind wir dankbar. > e-mail: mr.lockerbie.ch
If Scotland were now independent, she would be a United Nations member state.
ReplyDeleteThe First (Prime) Minister of an independent Scotland could then table a UN resolution demanding an inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster. And the UN would have to listen.
Wishful thinking! But, as the JFM acknowledges, all it can do is to pose this question to Alex Salmond:
"Is the First Minister going to lobby Westminster to request that either UN General Assembly or the Security Council set up an inquiry into the Lockerbie case?"
As blogiston correctly says: Salmond is the premier operator and makes very few mistakes by knowing intuitively when to tread cautiously.
So it's pretty clear there's going to be no lobbying of Westminster or any setting up of a UN inquiry.
And the idea of a Scottish inquiry?
Who would conduct such an inquiry: Lord Fraser of "apple short of a picnic" or Lord (Colin) Boyd of Camp Zeist?
Crikey!
Bloggy, by setting himself against the findings of the SCCRC Salmond makes his position quite clear. It is not good enough.
ReplyDeleteThe SCCRC, as I have said before, is not outside of the establishment. It is part , albeit independent, of it. If he cannot bring himself to acknowledge the official doubts stated about the original conviction then he has picked a side. It is, sadly, as simple as that.
PS...and Bloggy I don't care a jot about the US mid terms. This isn't the US, its Scotland and this case is a national disgrace. Salmond knows it.
ReplyDeletePatrick H. said Who would conduct such an inquiry [..]? Definitely not Lord Wiggy Opinions of Whereva.
ReplyDeleteJo G You may not care about the US mid-terms, but until they are over, which means those Senator's attention on Lockerbie subsides, they are important.
The JFM asking for an enquiry have to consider both timing and degree, and I’m not sure whether I understand if they have it correct, or is it just too complex for the untrained strategist, like myself, to understand? (rhetorical)
Timing: From the FM’s point of view, if he relented and started talking enquiry right now it would give legs to the Senators' enquiry, and surely he wants to avoid this – so when to ask is an important consideration. However, ask too many times, and it gets easier to ignore you – you start to resemble Tam D. constantly asking Thatcher about the sinking of the Belgrano, and eventually you can only muster a giggle.
Degree: What is the expected outcome of this enquiry? I do not think the JFM are making this clear – maybe they do not want to put constraints on the request. Again, the FM seems to be saying, if this is only about a miscarriage of justice as regards the Megrahi verdict, then I am standing by the original verdict. He has to say this. Only one year ago his Cabinet Secretary for Justice released the man on compassionate grounds, saying he was still guilty and the original verdict still stood. He cannot possibly change the script. However, he does mention ‘wider’ enquiry, and by this he means an enquiry into the trial AND investigation. Not the trial alone. In his estimation, he sees the larger proportion of fault in the ‘wider’ affair as being all the extra-Scottish agencies that ‘helped’ – he is surely gunning for Westminster when he mentions he would support any such enquiry. He knows it will not be a Westminster sponsored enquiry – it has to be the UN.
So, if you only want a Scottish held enquiry into the trial – you’re not getting it because (domestically) that is too awkward for me. But if you want an enquiry into the trial and investigation, which I don’t need to set up, but which asks awkward questions of that government ‘down south’ then bring it on!
I also think Salmond knows there is not a hope in hell of the Americans contributing anything meaningful to a wider enquiry – and I do not think he will risk alienating them either, by asking them to do anything meaningful. Politically, the only thing in this for Salmond is to further the cause – and we all know what that entails.
A very astute move by First Minister Alex Salmond would be to appoint his predecessor Jack McConnell to conduct a full inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster and its aftermath.
ReplyDeleteLord McConnell of Glenscorrodale has just made himself available to carry out this formidable task by announcing his retirement from frontline politics.
"You may not care about the US mid-terms, but until they are over, which means those Senator's attention on Lockerbie subsides, they are important."
ReplyDeleteThey were meaningless this time last year, when Megrahi was released, which is when Salmond should have dealt with this properly. He didn't. MacAskill didn't either. They released him while ignoring the major statements made by the SCCRC about Megrahi's original conviction. They are still meaningless now and paying them any attention whatsoever puts the Americans where they want to be: in the driving seat. It is a seat they have no legal right to occupy over this issue.
"Timing: From the FM’s point of view, if he relented and started talking enquiry right now it would give legs to the Senators' enquiry, and surely he wants to avoid this – so when to ask is an important consideration."
See previous answer.
"However, ask too many times, and it gets easier to ignore you – you start to resemble Tam D. constantly asking Thatcher about the sinking of the Belgrano, and eventually you can only muster a giggle."
I'm grateful to Mr Dalzell for not being what we now expect of politicians. I'm grateful too that he would never dream of giggling about what happened to the Belgrano.
"What is the expected outcome of this enquiry? Again, the FM seems to be saying, if this is only about a miscarriage of justice as regards the Megrahi verdict, then I am standing by the original verdict. He has to say this."
Why does he "have" to say this? He doesn't. He especially shouldn't say it when the evidence suggesting otherwise is already out there. Because it makes his motives look suspicious to say the least. The SCCRC findings came from an independent body, a body that is part of the Establishment. Not some pressure group. They investigate on behalf of the establishment and the establishment should take what they say seriously. And whether or not that appeal was dropped what they said was extremely serious. This isn't "only about a miscarriage of justice". The word only doesn't belong in that sentence. The possibility of a miscarriage of justice when applied to Lockerbie is massive.
(cont'd)
ReplyDelete"Only one year ago his Cabinet Secretary for Justice released the man on compassionate grounds, saying he was still guilty and the original verdict still stood. He cannot possibly change the script."
MacAskill changed the script in the first place when he made that ridiculous statement and by ignoring the SCCRC findings and the appeal. He created his own mess.
"However, he does mention ‘wider’ enquiry, and by this he means an enquiry into the trial AND investigation. Not the trial alone. In his estimation, he sees the larger proportion of fault in the ‘wider’ affair as being all the extra-Scottish agencies that ‘helped’ – he is surely gunning for Westminster when he mentions he would support any such enquiry."
MacAskill isn't "gunning" for anyone Bloggy. He doesn't care. He would be as happy as Westminster for all of this to fade and go away. If he wasn't I believe his public statements would have been quite different. He had a duty as, ironically, "Justice" Secretary to oversee Megrahi's legal and human rights. One of those rights was having his appeal heard within a fair timescale. It was not. Let's not mess with wider "investigations" into the trial and the atrocity. Megrahi's appeal was solely to deal with the really important issue of whether there had been a miscarriage of justice. It was also safely within Scottish jurisdiction to go ahead with it.
"He knows it will not be a Westminster sponsored enquiry – it has to be the UN.
So, if you only want a Scottish held enquiry into the trial – you’re not getting it because (domestically) that is too awkward for me."
The Scottish legal establishment could have heard that appeal without the UN or the Americans. They had the authority to do it and repeatedly delayed doing it.
"Politically, the only thing in this for Salmond is to further the cause – and we all know what that entails."
Do we? What does it entail exactly? Because if this is him furthering the cause I'd hate to see him opposing any movement whatsoever.
Pan Am 103 Disaster, ‘More Questions Than Answers’.
ReplyDeleteEver since the day it happened, absolutely nothing has been achieved in getting a satisfactory conclusion to finding the true cause of this disaster. Both the relatives and the general public are no nearer to being told the real true cause, than they were on that fateful day. All the inquiries seem to have produced so far have been innuendoes, diversions, anxiety, conflict and an unwanted label attached to both an unfortunate town in Scotland and the late Pan Am.
We should now seriously consider if there are those amongst us who are fully aware of the true cause, but are continuing to use their power to keep the lid on the truth tightly closed. After all, why do the authorities in Britain and the USA seem very loathe to be open with this matter, leaving obstacles along the way and many unanswered and important questions. What are they afraid of?
It is my opinion, in order to get at the truth, we have to go back to basics and if possible, wash our minds of any thoughts towards seeking vengeance and everything that has been published or said about the matter over the past years. In other words make a complete fresh start in our line of thought and investigations; otherwise, we will carry on in the same hopeless way.
The truth is out there and is available, if only we are willing to find it, grasp it and brave enough to deal with it, when we have found it.
I also believe that Megrahi is innocent, but when his name is cleared it will leave a vacuum, which the authorities have to consider. If, as is alleged, the disaster had been an act of terrorism, it would then have required a terrorist and I stand to be corrected, but I do not recall ever hearing any person or group claiming responsibility for this alleged action and should anyone make that kind of claim this late in the day would hold little credibility. If any terrorist had performed such a successful mission, I reckon they would have been screaming their joy from the hill tops and at the very beginning, not keeping quiet. The resulting vacuum leaves the very important question we have to ask ourselves, if it really was an act of terrorism at all? I believe the time is long overdue when we should be taking more interest in section 1.17.4 of the AAIB report and thorough investigation of this important disclosure should be carried out ASAP. I have been calling for these kind of investigations since only hours after the event and will continue to campaign until full investigations of this aspect have been fully carried out, John Hall (Raising Awareness Interest of Space Debris RAISD)
AAIB report section 1.17.4 (Space debris re-entry) states:
ReplyDeleteFour items of space debris were known to have re-entered the Earth's atmosphere on 21 December 1988. Three of these items were fragments of debris which would not have survived re-entry, although their burn up in the upper atmosphere might have been visible from the Earth's surface. The fourth item landed in the USSR at 09.50hrs UTC.
Undoubtedly, "the truth is out there and is available" but space debris is clearly not the answer to resolving the question of responsibility for the Lockerbie disaster.
In my view, a more fruitful line of inquiry would be the so far ignored targeting of Bernt Carlsson on Pan Am Flight 103.
Patrick Haseldine Thanks for your interest. You are entitled to your opinion, but as I am sure you will appreciate, I also consider my particular evidence just as worthy of investigation as yours. This is what I have been requesting since 1988, I will continue to do this until it has been Fully & Freshly investigated and will not accept anything less. I should have said in my comment, the truth is clearly also contained in the AAIB report and I am not just referring to section 1.17.4. (John Hall Raising Awareness Interest Of Space Debris)
ReplyDelete