An online petition to the UK Prime Minister has been instituted. It reads: We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to launch a public inquiry to investigate the Lockerbie bombing.
I would have preferred the petition simply to refer to the "Lockerbie disaster" since there are those, such as John Parkes and Robbie the Pict, who contend, on grounds which are not fanciful, that the destruction of Pan Am 103 was caused, not by a bomb but by the explosion of munitions being carried as cargo. This explanation, as well as the various IED explanations, deserves to be explored. I would also have preferred the petition to refer to an "independent inquiry" since the demand that the inquiry be "public" makes it easier for the UK Government to resist on the ground that certain pertinent evidence is so sensitive that its public disclosure is not in the national interest: witness the assertions of public interest immunity advanced by the Foreign Secretary in Abdelbaset Megrahi's now-abandoned appeal.
However, notwithstanding these reservations, I shall be supporting the petition. British citizens or residents who wish to sign it can do so here.
Thursday, 10 September 2009
Blair: It was right to release Megrahi
Tony Blair last night waded into the Lockerbie bomber row by backing the decision to free him.
The former PM risked further angering the US public by insisting Abdel al-Megrahi's release was right.
Mr Blair also claimed he made the world a safer place by invading Iraq alongside America.
He compared the freeing of al-Megrahi to the part he played in securing peace in Ulster. Mr Blair told US chat show host David Letterman: "I think the hardest thing I ever did was sit down with the families of the victims of IRA terrorism.
"They'd say to me, 'How can you sit in the same room with the people responsible for killing my son or my daughter?' My answer to that was because I believe if they are prepared to change we can save lives and make peace in the future."
[The above are extracts from a report in today's edition of the Daily Mirror. I'm sure it's a great comfort to Kenny MacAskill that the man who dragged the UK into the illegal Iraq adventure thinks that his decision to repatriate Abdelbaset Megrahi was the right one.]
The former PM risked further angering the US public by insisting Abdel al-Megrahi's release was right.
Mr Blair also claimed he made the world a safer place by invading Iraq alongside America.
He compared the freeing of al-Megrahi to the part he played in securing peace in Ulster. Mr Blair told US chat show host David Letterman: "I think the hardest thing I ever did was sit down with the families of the victims of IRA terrorism.
"They'd say to me, 'How can you sit in the same room with the people responsible for killing my son or my daughter?' My answer to that was because I believe if they are prepared to change we can save lives and make peace in the future."
[The above are extracts from a report in today's edition of the Daily Mirror. I'm sure it's a great comfort to Kenny MacAskill that the man who dragged the UK into the illegal Iraq adventure thinks that his decision to repatriate Abdelbaset Megrahi was the right one.]
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
Gaddafi's address to UN General Assembly
[The following are excerpts from an article just posted on the English-language website of the leading Arabic daily newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat.]
Libya has condemned Washington’s diplomatic warnings to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi against the repercussions of aggravating US emotions regarding the Lockerbie bombings during his upcoming visit to the United Nations headquarters in New York later this month where he will deliver a speech as head of the African Union.
The official spokesman for the Libyan foreign office stated that it is wrong for Washington to try to dictate to Gaddafi what he should say at the event.
Gaddafi is scheduled to visit the UN General Assembly for the first time since coming to power in Libya. Earlier this month, Gaddafi celebrated the 40th anniversary of the coup against the Libyan monarch King Idris al Senussi in 1969, which brought him to power.
Gaddafi ... will deliver a speech to world leaders at the annual meeting on September 23 directly after President Obama. (...)
The Libyan Foreign Ministry Spokesman said, ‘Al Megrahi in our opinion and in the opinion of many states is a “political hostage” and this was corroborated by Arab League resolutions and by the neutral stances of Africa and the Islamic world in this regard.’ Meanwhile, in what seemed to be a response to US criticism of the way al Megrahi was received in Libya, the Libyan official added, ‘We were not receiving a criminal or a terrorist; we were receiving a victim and the documents, which are backed by many families of [Lockerbie] victims, will prove his innocence and they must refer back to these [Arab League] resolutions.’
Libya has condemned Washington’s diplomatic warnings to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi against the repercussions of aggravating US emotions regarding the Lockerbie bombings during his upcoming visit to the United Nations headquarters in New York later this month where he will deliver a speech as head of the African Union.
The official spokesman for the Libyan foreign office stated that it is wrong for Washington to try to dictate to Gaddafi what he should say at the event.
Gaddafi is scheduled to visit the UN General Assembly for the first time since coming to power in Libya. Earlier this month, Gaddafi celebrated the 40th anniversary of the coup against the Libyan monarch King Idris al Senussi in 1969, which brought him to power.
Gaddafi ... will deliver a speech to world leaders at the annual meeting on September 23 directly after President Obama. (...)
The Libyan Foreign Ministry Spokesman said, ‘Al Megrahi in our opinion and in the opinion of many states is a “political hostage” and this was corroborated by Arab League resolutions and by the neutral stances of Africa and the Islamic world in this regard.’ Meanwhile, in what seemed to be a response to US criticism of the way al Megrahi was received in Libya, the Libyan official added, ‘We were not receiving a criminal or a terrorist; we were receiving a victim and the documents, which are backed by many families of [Lockerbie] victims, will prove his innocence and they must refer back to these [Arab League] resolutions.’
UK and Libya
[The following are excerpts from a recent post on the Craig Murray blog. Craig Murray is a former British ambassador and is currently the Rector of the University of Dundee.]
It was absolutely right to release al-Megrahi. Every dying person deserves what comfort, pain alleviation and disease amelioration can be provided by the presence of family and by medical treatment. There should be no place in a justice system for the cruel vindictiveness of making a now harmless person die in jail. Scotland and the SNP have shown a civilised example; those who attack them have shown ugliness. (...)
The Tories have shown their blood-baying, American bum-sucking true colours. New Labour have been caught in their usual horrible hypocrisy, attempting to capitalise on anti-SNP right wing media reaction, while having been deliberately paving the way for the release for years. (...)
Jack Straw has admitted that trade was the deciding factor in his agreeing that al-Megrahi should not be excluded from the prisoner exchange agreement. Bill Rammell has admitted that as an FCO Minister he told the Libyans that Gordon Brown did not want to see al-Megrahi die in jail. There is no room to doubt that the UK's assiduous courting of LIbya saw all kinds of positive signals given quietly on al-Megrahi, whose release was an obvious Libyan demand in the normalisation of relations.
The infuriating thing is that New Labour actually did the right thing in their dealings with the Libyans. Jack Straw's positions and Gordon Brown's message were the right ones. But a combination of fear of the United States, a right wing populist media instinct and a desire to attack the SNP has led New Labour to tyy to hide the truth - and try so badly as to bring down more media scorn than if they had just come out and supported the release in the first place.
Al-Megrahi was not the Lockerbie bomber. The scandal is not that trade deals and the realpolitik of relationship normalisation led to his release. The scandal is that trade deals and the realpolitik of relationship normalisation were what led the Libyans to hand him over in the first place - very much in the way their ancestors had given hostages to Imperial Rome. His family were richly rewarded, made wealthy for generations by his acceptance of the role of sacrificial lamb, and there was the hope that he would be acquitted. That he was convicted on very dubious evidence shocked many, especially Dr Jim Swire, representative of the victims' families, who followed the evidence painstakingly and has never accepted al-Megrahi's guilt.
Syria was responsible for the Lockerbie bomb. But in the first Iraq war, we needed Syria's support, while Libya remained a supporter of Iraq. Lockerbie was a bar to our new alliance with Damascus, so extremely conveniently, and with perfect timing, it was discovered that actually it was the Libyans!! Anyone who believes that fake intelligence started with Iraqi WMD is an idiot.
It haunts me that I had a chance to read the intelligence reports which, I was told by a shocked FCO colleague in Aviation and Maritime Department where I then worked, showed that the new anti-Libyan narrative was false. I say in self-defence that at the time I was literally working day and night, sleeping on a camp bed. I was organising the Embargo Surveillance Centre and I was convinced that a watertight full physical embargo could remove the need to invade Iraq. I was impatient of the interruption. I listened to my colleague only distractedly and did not want to go through the rigmarole of signing for and transporting the reports I hadn't got time to look at then. Events overtook me, and I never did see them.
Which is not to say the Libyan regime was not a sponsor of terrorism. It was. It just didn't do Lockerbie. (...)
Ultimately, negotiating with "terrorists" and "rogue states" has to be done. The strange thing is that New Labour's Libyan policy has been one of its genuine successes - and makes a nonsense of its argument that we could deal with Saddam no other way. There should be more human rights emphasis in the relationship, but the apporach has been basically the right one, just as it was right to settle with the IRA, and just as it is long overdue to settle with the Taliban.
On a rare occasion when this government has shown wisdom, it appears ashamed of it.
[A further post dated 25 September on the Craig Murray blog contains the following:
"As I have previously stated, I can affirm that the FCO and MI6 knew that al-Megrahi was not the Lockerbie bomber.
"I strongly recommend that you read this devastating article by the great lawyer Gareth Peirce, in the London Review of Books. Virtually every paragraph provides information which in itself demolishes the conviction. The totality of the information Peirce gives is a quite stunning picture of not accidental but deliberate miscarriage of justice."]
It was absolutely right to release al-Megrahi. Every dying person deserves what comfort, pain alleviation and disease amelioration can be provided by the presence of family and by medical treatment. There should be no place in a justice system for the cruel vindictiveness of making a now harmless person die in jail. Scotland and the SNP have shown a civilised example; those who attack them have shown ugliness. (...)
The Tories have shown their blood-baying, American bum-sucking true colours. New Labour have been caught in their usual horrible hypocrisy, attempting to capitalise on anti-SNP right wing media reaction, while having been deliberately paving the way for the release for years. (...)
Jack Straw has admitted that trade was the deciding factor in his agreeing that al-Megrahi should not be excluded from the prisoner exchange agreement. Bill Rammell has admitted that as an FCO Minister he told the Libyans that Gordon Brown did not want to see al-Megrahi die in jail. There is no room to doubt that the UK's assiduous courting of LIbya saw all kinds of positive signals given quietly on al-Megrahi, whose release was an obvious Libyan demand in the normalisation of relations.
The infuriating thing is that New Labour actually did the right thing in their dealings with the Libyans. Jack Straw's positions and Gordon Brown's message were the right ones. But a combination of fear of the United States, a right wing populist media instinct and a desire to attack the SNP has led New Labour to tyy to hide the truth - and try so badly as to bring down more media scorn than if they had just come out and supported the release in the first place.
Al-Megrahi was not the Lockerbie bomber. The scandal is not that trade deals and the realpolitik of relationship normalisation led to his release. The scandal is that trade deals and the realpolitik of relationship normalisation were what led the Libyans to hand him over in the first place - very much in the way their ancestors had given hostages to Imperial Rome. His family were richly rewarded, made wealthy for generations by his acceptance of the role of sacrificial lamb, and there was the hope that he would be acquitted. That he was convicted on very dubious evidence shocked many, especially Dr Jim Swire, representative of the victims' families, who followed the evidence painstakingly and has never accepted al-Megrahi's guilt.
Syria was responsible for the Lockerbie bomb. But in the first Iraq war, we needed Syria's support, while Libya remained a supporter of Iraq. Lockerbie was a bar to our new alliance with Damascus, so extremely conveniently, and with perfect timing, it was discovered that actually it was the Libyans!! Anyone who believes that fake intelligence started with Iraqi WMD is an idiot.
It haunts me that I had a chance to read the intelligence reports which, I was told by a shocked FCO colleague in Aviation and Maritime Department where I then worked, showed that the new anti-Libyan narrative was false. I say in self-defence that at the time I was literally working day and night, sleeping on a camp bed. I was organising the Embargo Surveillance Centre and I was convinced that a watertight full physical embargo could remove the need to invade Iraq. I was impatient of the interruption. I listened to my colleague only distractedly and did not want to go through the rigmarole of signing for and transporting the reports I hadn't got time to look at then. Events overtook me, and I never did see them.
Which is not to say the Libyan regime was not a sponsor of terrorism. It was. It just didn't do Lockerbie. (...)
Ultimately, negotiating with "terrorists" and "rogue states" has to be done. The strange thing is that New Labour's Libyan policy has been one of its genuine successes - and makes a nonsense of its argument that we could deal with Saddam no other way. There should be more human rights emphasis in the relationship, but the apporach has been basically the right one, just as it was right to settle with the IRA, and just as it is long overdue to settle with the Taliban.
On a rare occasion when this government has shown wisdom, it appears ashamed of it.
[A further post dated 25 September on the Craig Murray blog contains the following:
"As I have previously stated, I can affirm that the FCO and MI6 knew that al-Megrahi was not the Lockerbie bomber.
"I strongly recommend that you read this devastating article by the great lawyer Gareth Peirce, in the London Review of Books. Virtually every paragraph provides information which in itself demolishes the conviction. The totality of the information Peirce gives is a quite stunning picture of not accidental but deliberate miscarriage of justice."]
No need to hide politics behind Megrahi release
[This is the headline over an opinion piece in today's edition of Edinburgh's evening newspaper, the Evening News by Margo MacDonald MSP, who -- for the benefit of foreign readers -- sits as an independent in the Scottish Parliament and is a fervent supporter of Scottish independence. She abstained in the Scottish Parliament vote on whether Kenny MacAskill was right to release Mr Megrahi. The article reads in part:]
When Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was tried for the murder of 270 people at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands, the usual process was amended. (...) [H]is trial was conducted without a jury, with the verdict and sentence being decided by three Scottish High Court judges. (...)
A few people at his trial, whose numbers have grown over the years, harbour suspicions that the changed procedures served to protect the security interests of these states, and others, at least as much as al-Megrahi's safety. But allowing for the compromises in procedure, there was still the intention that justice should be the overriding factor.
Many people felt uneasy as the jury-free proceedings were played out in public, in the presence of victims' relatives. But they trusted in everything else being done according to the book. It's now known the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission has turned up evidence withheld from al-Megrahi's defence lawyers at the trial, pertinent enough to have the SCCRC advise that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. You can bet your bottom petro-dollar that if there was any manipulation of evidence, it was down to diplomatic, and not judicial considerations.
This being the case, why should anyone find it an unthinkable departure from the paths of righteousness for Kenny MacAskill to have taken notice of the multiplicity of state interests involved with his decision on whether to agree to al-Megrahi's request to be allowed to end his days in Libya? Legal considerations doubtless influenced and guided the justice secretary's decision. But it beggars belief that in meetings between civil servants from Edinburgh and London, transatlantic phone calls between the American State Department and Scotland's Justice Ministry, and meetings and communications between Arab, Scottish and UK governments there were no exchanges of views on what should happen to al-Megrahi.
Apart from anything else, people who were not directly affected by the atrocity can address the issue buffered by the 20 years that have passed. In the same way as many other wicked cruelties have come to be accommodated by their victims as the world has moved on and new relationships have developed, so the realpolitik of 2009 is different from that of 1988. The Berlin Wall was still in place, the world was divided between states under the influence of either Moscow or Washington. In the Middle East, internal civil war all but destroyed Lebanon, Iran and Iraq had pursued a long, destructive war, other Arab countries were unable to exert influence or power in defence of their interests because of internal tensions, and Libya was a pariah state. (...)
Nelson Mandela's was the name invoked by the supporters of the decision to let al-Megrahi go home. Twenty years ago, he was still a convicted terrorist. It's ironic that should have been his legal status when he was released from prison, and nobody even thought to ask about the legal niceties. (...)
The details of such things may have blurred in the public mind, but experience and common sense ensures understanding of all the pressures on the justice secretary when the Libyans and al-Megrahi applied for release.
The Scottish government and the justice secretary would have saved themselves a load of angst if they'd admitted this up front. For the record, I agreed with the decision, but thought the stated reasons for it didn't ring totally true.
When Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was tried for the murder of 270 people at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands, the usual process was amended. (...) [H]is trial was conducted without a jury, with the verdict and sentence being decided by three Scottish High Court judges. (...)
A few people at his trial, whose numbers have grown over the years, harbour suspicions that the changed procedures served to protect the security interests of these states, and others, at least as much as al-Megrahi's safety. But allowing for the compromises in procedure, there was still the intention that justice should be the overriding factor.
Many people felt uneasy as the jury-free proceedings were played out in public, in the presence of victims' relatives. But they trusted in everything else being done according to the book. It's now known the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission has turned up evidence withheld from al-Megrahi's defence lawyers at the trial, pertinent enough to have the SCCRC advise that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. You can bet your bottom petro-dollar that if there was any manipulation of evidence, it was down to diplomatic, and not judicial considerations.
This being the case, why should anyone find it an unthinkable departure from the paths of righteousness for Kenny MacAskill to have taken notice of the multiplicity of state interests involved with his decision on whether to agree to al-Megrahi's request to be allowed to end his days in Libya? Legal considerations doubtless influenced and guided the justice secretary's decision. But it beggars belief that in meetings between civil servants from Edinburgh and London, transatlantic phone calls between the American State Department and Scotland's Justice Ministry, and meetings and communications between Arab, Scottish and UK governments there were no exchanges of views on what should happen to al-Megrahi.
Apart from anything else, people who were not directly affected by the atrocity can address the issue buffered by the 20 years that have passed. In the same way as many other wicked cruelties have come to be accommodated by their victims as the world has moved on and new relationships have developed, so the realpolitik of 2009 is different from that of 1988. The Berlin Wall was still in place, the world was divided between states under the influence of either Moscow or Washington. In the Middle East, internal civil war all but destroyed Lebanon, Iran and Iraq had pursued a long, destructive war, other Arab countries were unable to exert influence or power in defence of their interests because of internal tensions, and Libya was a pariah state. (...)
Nelson Mandela's was the name invoked by the supporters of the decision to let al-Megrahi go home. Twenty years ago, he was still a convicted terrorist. It's ironic that should have been his legal status when he was released from prison, and nobody even thought to ask about the legal niceties. (...)
The details of such things may have blurred in the public mind, but experience and common sense ensures understanding of all the pressures on the justice secretary when the Libyans and al-Megrahi applied for release.
The Scottish government and the justice secretary would have saved themselves a load of angst if they'd admitted this up front. For the record, I agreed with the decision, but thought the stated reasons for it didn't ring totally true.
Full inquiry to be held on Megrahi
[This is the headline over a report by David Maddox in The Scotsman. The following are the first two paragraphs.]
A Holyrood committee is to hold a full inquiry into the way the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber was made.
It is understood that the planned inquiry, by the justice committee, will focus on concerns that the decision to send Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi back to Libya was based on investment and trade concerns rather than legal and health grounds. This comes after questions were asked by the Conservatives about justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's brother Allan, who is an energy industry executive with the firm SeaEnergy Renewables, which has ties to Libya.
[Note by RB: No other newspaper -- not even The Wall Street Journal which broke the "story" -- has suggested that the current employer of Kenny MacAskill's brother Allan has links with Libya. Indeed, The Press and Journal, a newspaper that has good sources within the energy industry, specifically states that Ramco (the owner of SeaEnergy, a company concerned exclusively with offshore renewable energy) has no known links with Libya.
What therefore is the source of David Maddox's bald assertion that SeaEnergy Renewables "has ties to Libya"? Did he simply make it up? Does he stand by it? If not, will he and his newspaper publish a correction and an apology? I think we should be told.]
A Holyrood committee is to hold a full inquiry into the way the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber was made.
It is understood that the planned inquiry, by the justice committee, will focus on concerns that the decision to send Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi back to Libya was based on investment and trade concerns rather than legal and health grounds. This comes after questions were asked by the Conservatives about justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's brother Allan, who is an energy industry executive with the firm SeaEnergy Renewables, which has ties to Libya.
[Note by RB: No other newspaper -- not even The Wall Street Journal which broke the "story" -- has suggested that the current employer of Kenny MacAskill's brother Allan has links with Libya. Indeed, The Press and Journal, a newspaper that has good sources within the energy industry, specifically states that Ramco (the owner of SeaEnergy, a company concerned exclusively with offshore renewable energy) has no known links with Libya.
What therefore is the source of David Maddox's bald assertion that SeaEnergy Renewables "has ties to Libya"? Did he simply make it up? Does he stand by it? If not, will he and his newspaper publish a correction and an apology? I think we should be told.]
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
Wall Street waffle
[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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)