[What follows is the text of a press release issued today by the Scottish National Party.]
The challenge from SNP MSP and Lockerbie campaigner Christine Grahame comes after The Guardian reported that far from releasing all documents Mr Cameron would consult former Labour ministers first.
Ms Grahame, who is to write to Mr Cameron and the former Labour ministers on this matter said:
"David Cameron must not let Labour ministers protect their dirty little secrets. Cameron must also explain why he was totally silent when the PTA negotiations became public knowledge in June 2007 – thanks to the First Minister – and why the Tories as the Official Opposition at Westminster never spoke up against it. Were the Tories along with the then government lobbied by BP?
"Now is time for the UK Government to release all the information on the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, the deal in the desert and the negotiations between Tony Blair’s Government and Colonel Gaddafi’s regime.
"The Scottish Government has published all the relevant material it holds – where permission was given where that was required – and has been clear throughout that it rejected Tony Blair’s dodgy deal in the desert.
"Indeed, the US government refused publication of communications with the Scottish Government, and the UK government also held some material back. The US and UK must agree that all this material should be published.
"I have always believed that the UK Government had its own objectives when it came to Libya and was utterly hypocritical over Mr Megrahi’s release.
"David Miliband made clear last year that the UK Government wanted Megrahi released to help business interests. That tainted approach was rejected by the Scottish Government. It is only right that we know who Mr Miliband had been talking to and whose interests he favoured."
Ms Grahame intends to contact the Obama administration urging them to release any documents they may have on correspondence with either the UK, Scottish or Libyan Governments on Mr Megrahi after the US refused to allow the Scottish Government to release its correspondence.
"The US Government refused to allow the Scottish Government to release their correspondence.
"With Labour and Tory politicians and US senators making unsubstantiated and ill informed accusations the only way to bring clarity to families of victims on both sides of the Atlantic and to all those who want an inquiry would be for all the papers to be released in full."
[Another related SNP press release can be read here.]
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
"Compassionate release" of Lockerbie convict: investigation must be comprehensive and independent
In a statement issued today, Dr Hans Köchler, UN-nominated international observer at the Lockerbie Trial, expressed his support for the call by a group of United States Senators for an inquiry into the release by the Scottish government of the only person convicted in connection with the midair explosion of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie (Scotland) on 21 December 1988.
However, for an investigation to be meaningful, it must be independent of political interference and should deal with all aspects of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release, not only with the alleged role of British Petroleum (BP); the ongoing controversy over BP's responsibility for the biggest environmental disaster in the history of the United States must not unduly interfere with the search for the truth in an entirely different matter, Dr Köchler stated.
An investigation should also address the question why Scotland's Cabinet Secretary for Justice made the unprecedented step to visit the Lockerbie convict in Scotland's Greenock prison and what exactly he discussed with him in private.
It is to be recalled that Mr al-Megrahi withdrew his appeal on 12 August 2009, a few days after his meeting with the Justice Secretary (5 August), and, again a few days later (20 August), he was repatriated to Libya. It is also to be recalled that, under Scots law, "compassionate release" does not require the termination of trial or appeal proceedings. Only a release under the provisions of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement between the UK and Libya (that was initiated by then Prime Minister Tony Blair) would have required the termination of proceedings. The Scottish Justice Secretary deliberately chose not to make use of this option.
The only "visit" that was required in the process of handling Mr al-Megrahi's application for compassionate release would have been one by competent and independent medical experts, since it is essentially a medical assessment (concerning a convict's life expectancy) that determines compassionate release under Scots law.
It is further to be recalled that, on 28 June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) stated that it suspects a miscarriage of justice and referred Mr al-Megrahi's case back to the appeal court. After much delay, the hearings of the second appeal had finally begun in 2009, only to be abruptly terminated by Mr al-Megrahi's (legally unnecessary) withdrawal of his application.
A meaningful investigation should find out the real motives behind the decision of the Scottish Justice Secretary. In view of the unprecedented private meeting between a Secretary for Justice and a person convicted of mass murder (a conviction which, according to his own statements, Scotland's Justice Secretary does not question in any way), it is entirely appropriate to ask whether the decisive motive might have been the termination of proceedings so that the role of the Scottish, UK and US administrations in the handling of the Lockerbie case would never be fully scrutinized in a court of law. In view of the British Foreign Secretary's decision, in February 2008, to withhold supposedly secret evidence from the Defence, claiming "Public Interest Immunity" (PII), questions as to considerations of raison d'état (of the United Kingdom and, possibly, the United States) are not far-fetched.
The families of the victims deserve better; and the rule of law requires more. The full truth of the Lockerbie tragedy must be known; the possible role of BP in the release of the only person convicted is only one of many aspects that would have to be investigated, Dr Köchler concluded.
[A report on the BBC News website of an interview with Dr Koechler can be read here.]
However, for an investigation to be meaningful, it must be independent of political interference and should deal with all aspects of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release, not only with the alleged role of British Petroleum (BP); the ongoing controversy over BP's responsibility for the biggest environmental disaster in the history of the United States must not unduly interfere with the search for the truth in an entirely different matter, Dr Köchler stated.
An investigation should also address the question why Scotland's Cabinet Secretary for Justice made the unprecedented step to visit the Lockerbie convict in Scotland's Greenock prison and what exactly he discussed with him in private.
It is to be recalled that Mr al-Megrahi withdrew his appeal on 12 August 2009, a few days after his meeting with the Justice Secretary (5 August), and, again a few days later (20 August), he was repatriated to Libya. It is also to be recalled that, under Scots law, "compassionate release" does not require the termination of trial or appeal proceedings. Only a release under the provisions of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement between the UK and Libya (that was initiated by then Prime Minister Tony Blair) would have required the termination of proceedings. The Scottish Justice Secretary deliberately chose not to make use of this option.
The only "visit" that was required in the process of handling Mr al-Megrahi's application for compassionate release would have been one by competent and independent medical experts, since it is essentially a medical assessment (concerning a convict's life expectancy) that determines compassionate release under Scots law.
It is further to be recalled that, on 28 June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) stated that it suspects a miscarriage of justice and referred Mr al-Megrahi's case back to the appeal court. After much delay, the hearings of the second appeal had finally begun in 2009, only to be abruptly terminated by Mr al-Megrahi's (legally unnecessary) withdrawal of his application.
A meaningful investigation should find out the real motives behind the decision of the Scottish Justice Secretary. In view of the unprecedented private meeting between a Secretary for Justice and a person convicted of mass murder (a conviction which, according to his own statements, Scotland's Justice Secretary does not question in any way), it is entirely appropriate to ask whether the decisive motive might have been the termination of proceedings so that the role of the Scottish, UK and US administrations in the handling of the Lockerbie case would never be fully scrutinized in a court of law. In view of the British Foreign Secretary's decision, in February 2008, to withhold supposedly secret evidence from the Defence, claiming "Public Interest Immunity" (PII), questions as to considerations of raison d'état (of the United Kingdom and, possibly, the United States) are not far-fetched.
The families of the victims deserve better; and the rule of law requires more. The full truth of the Lockerbie tragedy must be known; the possible role of BP in the release of the only person convicted is only one of many aspects that would have to be investigated, Dr Köchler concluded.
[A report on the BBC News website of an interview with Dr Koechler can be read here.]
Lockerbie truth must be known
[This is the headline over an article by Pamela Dix on the Comment is free section of The Guardian website. It reads as follows:]
The BP issue is another example of the way the truth has been hidden over Lockerbie. We need a full inquiry into the atrocity
Yet again Lockerbie has hit the headlines. The latest twist is the role BP might have had in the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, leading, ironically, to a call for an inquiry into the circumstances of his release. This while the families' calls for an inquiry into the atrocity itself are denied.
The families have faced years of denials and obfuscation, as we have painstakingly sought answers to the many unanswered questions about Lockerbie. The BP issue is just another element in the shameful way in which the truth behind Britain's biggest mass murder has been hidden.
Gordon Brown said that there was "no deal on oil" for Megrahi's release. Yet the then foreign secretary, David Miliband, said in the House of Commons in October 2009: "British interests, including those of UK nationals, British business and possibly security co-operation would be damaged, perhaps badly, if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison rather than in Libya."
In its statement, BP was careful to say that it had made no mention of Megrahi while discussing the need to conclude the agreement on prisoner transfer between Libya and the UK. BP must think we were born yesterday: what other Libyan was supposedly holding back progress on oil drilling deals with Libya?
Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill assures the world that representations made to him, for and against Megrahi's release, played no part in his decision, which he apparently made on the basis of medical and legal evidence. Would they really have released a mass murderer on compassionate grounds if they truly believed he was guilty?
Our new prime minister, David Cameron, takes the view that Megrahi "should have died in jail". Perhaps he thinks in agreeing with the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton that it shouldn't have happened, that it was just a bad decision by the Scottish government, it will make the problem go away. He is yet to get to grips with the complexity of Lockerbie – that it is not a simple case of a guilty man, a few US senators causing trouble, and business as usual for the oil industry.
Cameron's statement takes no account of the fact that although he was convicted, Megrahi continues to protest his innocence. With the abandonment of his appeal last year went all our hopes and expectations that finally we would get to the bottom of the case against him. Dismay does not begin to convey the feelings I had then and now as speculation and a drip feed of "information" about Lockerbie fill the vacuum that a full inquiry should fill.
Where does the public interest truly lie: in getting to the bottom of the worst terrorist crime this country has ever known, or in securing the national economic interest? Are these two things incompatible?
Cameron should indeed explain the UK government position to President Barack Obama and others in the United States. Over 180 Americans died in the bombing. It is equally right that he should stand by his own recent statement to the House of Commons on the Bloody Sunday inquiry – "It is right to pursue the truth with vigour and thoroughness." With this in mind, I can only hope that he will respect the maxim of UK Families Flight 103, that "the truth must be known".
UK Families Flight 103 will soon find out whether the letter we sent today to Cameron, reiterating our call for a full independent inquiry, will be heeded.
Perhaps some readers will think I am like a stuck record – still calling for answers, for justice, for the truth. However slim the prospects may be, that maxim is at the forefront of my mind today, along with our second, "their spirit lives on".
[Another Comment is free contribution by Ewan Crawford entitled "Megrahi release was compassionate, not political" can be read here.]
The BP issue is another example of the way the truth has been hidden over Lockerbie. We need a full inquiry into the atrocity
Yet again Lockerbie has hit the headlines. The latest twist is the role BP might have had in the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, leading, ironically, to a call for an inquiry into the circumstances of his release. This while the families' calls for an inquiry into the atrocity itself are denied.
The families have faced years of denials and obfuscation, as we have painstakingly sought answers to the many unanswered questions about Lockerbie. The BP issue is just another element in the shameful way in which the truth behind Britain's biggest mass murder has been hidden.
Gordon Brown said that there was "no deal on oil" for Megrahi's release. Yet the then foreign secretary, David Miliband, said in the House of Commons in October 2009: "British interests, including those of UK nationals, British business and possibly security co-operation would be damaged, perhaps badly, if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison rather than in Libya."
In its statement, BP was careful to say that it had made no mention of Megrahi while discussing the need to conclude the agreement on prisoner transfer between Libya and the UK. BP must think we were born yesterday: what other Libyan was supposedly holding back progress on oil drilling deals with Libya?
Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill assures the world that representations made to him, for and against Megrahi's release, played no part in his decision, which he apparently made on the basis of medical and legal evidence. Would they really have released a mass murderer on compassionate grounds if they truly believed he was guilty?
Our new prime minister, David Cameron, takes the view that Megrahi "should have died in jail". Perhaps he thinks in agreeing with the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton that it shouldn't have happened, that it was just a bad decision by the Scottish government, it will make the problem go away. He is yet to get to grips with the complexity of Lockerbie – that it is not a simple case of a guilty man, a few US senators causing trouble, and business as usual for the oil industry.
Cameron's statement takes no account of the fact that although he was convicted, Megrahi continues to protest his innocence. With the abandonment of his appeal last year went all our hopes and expectations that finally we would get to the bottom of the case against him. Dismay does not begin to convey the feelings I had then and now as speculation and a drip feed of "information" about Lockerbie fill the vacuum that a full inquiry should fill.
Where does the public interest truly lie: in getting to the bottom of the worst terrorist crime this country has ever known, or in securing the national economic interest? Are these two things incompatible?
Cameron should indeed explain the UK government position to President Barack Obama and others in the United States. Over 180 Americans died in the bombing. It is equally right that he should stand by his own recent statement to the House of Commons on the Bloody Sunday inquiry – "It is right to pursue the truth with vigour and thoroughness." With this in mind, I can only hope that he will respect the maxim of UK Families Flight 103, that "the truth must be known".
UK Families Flight 103 will soon find out whether the letter we sent today to Cameron, reiterating our call for a full independent inquiry, will be heeded.
Perhaps some readers will think I am like a stuck record – still calling for answers, for justice, for the truth. However slim the prospects may be, that maxim is at the forefront of my mind today, along with our second, "their spirit lives on".
[Another Comment is free contribution by Ewan Crawford entitled "Megrahi release was compassionate, not political" can be read here.]
Lockerbie bomber's release has strengthened ties with UK, says Libya
[This is the headline over a report published yesterday on The Guardian website. It reads in part:]
Libya's relations with Britain have been flourishing across the board since the controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber, one of Muammar Gaddafi's senior ministers said today.
Libya was "delighted" at Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's return home from a Scottish prison last August and still insists he is innocent of the murder of 270 people on Pan Am 103, said Abdel-Fatah Yunis al-Obeidi, the Libyan secretary general for public security. [Note by RB: The person being referred to is not Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, who led the Libyan team that had several meetings with Scottish (and UK) government officials in the run-up to Mr Megrahi's repatriation.]
Obeidi, whose rank is that of a cabinet minister, hinted that David Cameron's comment that Megrahi's release had been a "mistake" — fuelling the domestic and international row about the circumstances of the decision — was made under US pressure. In an exclusive interview on a visit to London, Obeidi said he was certain the former intelligence agent was innocent.
"Libya is delighted by his return and has always viewed him as a political hostage and never acknowledged him as a prisoner," he said. "Libya had no connection with the Lockerbie affair. The international community was led to believe that Libya was behind the incident but history will prove the truth. I am convinced that Megrahi was innocent and was a victim of a huge international conspiracy."
Libya agreed to pay billions of dollars in compensation to families of the victims because of demands from the UN, not because it admitted guilt over the worst act of terrorism in British history. It portrays Megrahi's release as a purely humanitarian issue involving a man suffering from terminal prostate cancer who supposedly had just weeks left to live.
"Megrahi is in the hands of God," said Obeidi. "He was in a Scottish prison. Those who made the three-month prognosis were British doctors. The fact that he is still alive is divine will and has nothing to do with Libya. If you have a direct line to Heaven you can check up there." (...)
"Relations are excellent and getting better every day," he said. "The problem before was the absence of trust. Now we have restored confidence and there is much greater cooperation."
Libyan officials do not normally relish discussing Lockerbie, wishing to draw a line under it after the payment of compensation, the restoration of diplomatic relations with the US and UK and a wider sense that the country has shed its pariah status as western companies, backed by their governments, queue up to do business. But Libya lobbied hard for Megrahi's release — finding a willing partner in the Labour government — and the only man convicted of the 1988 atrocity was escorted home personally by Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the leader's son and presumed heir. During a recent lecture in London the younger Gaddafi responded monosyllabically to a question about Megrahi, focusing instead on the "new" Libya and opportunities it presented.
Libya does not expect any adverse effect on its booming relations with the UK. "The Libyans won't really care," predicted Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Tripoli "It's yesterday's problem. The worry now is Megrahi's state of health. There's no question of him being sent back to Scotland or of Libya having to pay any price. They will see it as Cameron being in the pocket of the Americans."
Libya's relations with Britain have been flourishing across the board since the controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber, one of Muammar Gaddafi's senior ministers said today.
Libya was "delighted" at Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's return home from a Scottish prison last August and still insists he is innocent of the murder of 270 people on Pan Am 103, said Abdel-Fatah Yunis al-Obeidi, the Libyan secretary general for public security. [Note by RB: The person being referred to is not Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, who led the Libyan team that had several meetings with Scottish (and UK) government officials in the run-up to Mr Megrahi's repatriation.]
Obeidi, whose rank is that of a cabinet minister, hinted that David Cameron's comment that Megrahi's release had been a "mistake" — fuelling the domestic and international row about the circumstances of the decision — was made under US pressure. In an exclusive interview on a visit to London, Obeidi said he was certain the former intelligence agent was innocent.
"Libya is delighted by his return and has always viewed him as a political hostage and never acknowledged him as a prisoner," he said. "Libya had no connection with the Lockerbie affair. The international community was led to believe that Libya was behind the incident but history will prove the truth. I am convinced that Megrahi was innocent and was a victim of a huge international conspiracy."
Libya agreed to pay billions of dollars in compensation to families of the victims because of demands from the UN, not because it admitted guilt over the worst act of terrorism in British history. It portrays Megrahi's release as a purely humanitarian issue involving a man suffering from terminal prostate cancer who supposedly had just weeks left to live.
"Megrahi is in the hands of God," said Obeidi. "He was in a Scottish prison. Those who made the three-month prognosis were British doctors. The fact that he is still alive is divine will and has nothing to do with Libya. If you have a direct line to Heaven you can check up there." (...)
"Relations are excellent and getting better every day," he said. "The problem before was the absence of trust. Now we have restored confidence and there is much greater cooperation."
Libyan officials do not normally relish discussing Lockerbie, wishing to draw a line under it after the payment of compensation, the restoration of diplomatic relations with the US and UK and a wider sense that the country has shed its pariah status as western companies, backed by their governments, queue up to do business. But Libya lobbied hard for Megrahi's release — finding a willing partner in the Labour government — and the only man convicted of the 1988 atrocity was escorted home personally by Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the leader's son and presumed heir. During a recent lecture in London the younger Gaddafi responded monosyllabically to a question about Megrahi, focusing instead on the "new" Libya and opportunities it presented.
Libya does not expect any adverse effect on its booming relations with the UK. "The Libyans won't really care," predicted Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Tripoli "It's yesterday's problem. The worry now is Megrahi's state of health. There's no question of him being sent back to Scotland or of Libya having to pay any price. They will see it as Cameron being in the pocket of the Americans."
MacAskill accuses his critics of hypocrisy
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill yesterday accused UK governments both past and present of hypocrisy after high-level condemnation of his decision to allow the man convicted of Lockerbie bombing to return home to die.
MacAskill said he would not apologise for freeing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, despite the fact that he has long outlived the medical opinion that he had only three months to live at the time of his release 11 months ago.
In an interview in yesterday’s Herald, David Milband, the former Foreign Secretary, said the decision to free Megrahi was wrong.
Responding, MacAskill stood by his decision to sanction the return of Megrahi to Tripoli on compassionate grounds, stressing that the Scottish Government was the sole opponent of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) between the UK and Libya.
The PTA followed the Deal in the Desert struck between Colonel Gaddafi and Tony Blair, which paved the way for BP to invest £450 million in exploring Libya’s vast oil reserves.
MacAskill said yesterday that Miliband was part of that government and should explain the details of the PTA to US senators, adding that the PTA was opposed by neither David Cameron nor William Hague at the time. He added: “I think there is a great deal of hypocrisy. If they are so opposed [to Megrahi’s release], why didn’t they oppose the PTA? At the end of the day, the only people to oppose the PTA was the Scottish Government. I don’t recall William Hague condemning the PTA.”
BP has admitted lobbying the British government in 2007 over a PTA with Libya, but denied specifically discussing Megrahi.
MacAskill said: “There are considerable questions that American senators are entitled to ask the UK Government but I can give every body a complete assurance that oil had never been a factor in my decision.
“There was before me an application for compassionate release to allow him to go home. We balance justice with mercy in this country.”
The Justice Secretary said he would be happy to assist US investigators if requested, but added that it was down to David Miliband and his colleagues to set out what they were doing “cavorting with Gaddafi.”
“There are questions about BP and the US Government. They are questions that I can’t answer. They are questions that David Miliband can answer.”
[An opinion piece by Brian Currie in the same newspaper headed "Just what don’t they get about devolution?" reads in part:]
What is it about devolution that Westminster politicians don’t understand?
After 11 years, it should be reasonable to assume even the most small-minded Little Englanders would know Scotland can make big decisions on its own.
But the message hasn’t penetrated some of the more obdurate minds of their Scottish colleagues in the Commons.
Comments by the hitherto unknown backbencher Daniel Kawczynski on the decision to release the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing suggest that the Scottish justice system and those in charge of it are somehow answerable to Westminster. Kawczynski was educated at Stirling University but perhaps he doesn’t realise the extent of the Scottish Government’s authority and maybe he is unaware that Scotland has its own judicial system.
But as chair of Westminster’s all-party committee on Libya he should know there have been two inquiries into the decision by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
A Scottish Parliament inquiry and another by Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Select Committee were clear in their conclusions, yet Kawczynski has written to David Cameron asking for Scottish Ministers to be held to account. Since Cameron can’t do this, perhaps he’s just trying to catch the PM’s eye in the hope of promotion.
It seems odd that a man who called for Megrahi to be used as a foreign policy bargaining chip chairs a committee whose aim is to promote and understand the culture, history and politics of Libya and engage in relations between that country’s legislature and the UK’s.
Some leeway, but not much, can be granted to the US Senators holding a hearing into whether there was a link between Megrahi’s release and BP oil deals. But they, too, should be better informed about what devolution means. America is a federal country and different states have different powers, the ultimate being the death penalty.
The Senators should surely grasp the concept of devolved powers and be able to distinguish between Prisoner Transfer Agreements between Westminster and Libya and the compassionate grounds on which the Scottish Government’s Justice Secretary based his decision. (...)
More than 50 US companies are reported to have signed contracts with Libya compared to four from the UK and the smell coming from the States isn’t just oil pollution – it’s the reek of hypocrisy.
It is also faintly nauseating to see the Prime Minister, his Foreign Secretary and Labour leadership favourite David Miliband queue up to blame MacAskill for releasing Megrahi. Would the decision have been different had it been made in Whitehall or would the interests of big business and the economy have resulted in the same outcome?
MacAskill had an enormous decision to make when considering whether to free the man convicted of murdering 270 people and the debate over whether he got it right or wrong remains the focus of controversy. In all the debate it seems to have been forgotten that people suffering from cancer are not given a set date on which to die and MacAskill acted only after considering the medical evidence that Megrahi had around three months to live.
Most importantly, however, the decision was taken in Scotland by a Scottish Government Minister and whether they sit in the US Senate or in the Commons, politicians should respect that because that is devolution in action. In this area Scotland is subservient to no-one.
[A Reuters news agency report contains the following comments from Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond:]
"We had no contact with BP either written or verbal or any lobbying of that kind as far as the process of compassionate release was concerned," Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond told BBC Radio 4. (...)
Salmond, who leads the pro-independence Scottish National Party and heads a minority government in Scotland's dissolved assembly, defended the decision to release Megrahi.
"You can only take a decision based on information at the time. It is not unheard of for people released on compassionate grounds to live longer than the estimated three months."
Salmond criticized former Prime Minister Tony Blair, saying he was negotiating on prisoner exchanges with Libya at the same time as discussing business deals in 2007 in what the Scottish leader called a "tainted process."
"I think it was deeply unfortunate that you should negotiate a prisoner transfer agreement on a judicial matter on the same day that you sign an agreement on oil exploration and concessions," Salmond said.
"But that's what the then Prime Minister Tony Blair did in June 2007." Blair visited Libya in late May 2007, a few weeks before he stood down as prime minister to be replaced by party colleague Gordon Brown. (...)
The agreement took effect in April 2009 but the Scottish authorities did not use it when releasing Megrahi, a fact that Salmond said proved there was no conspiracy.
"A lot of people would have wanted the Scottish government to invoke the Prisoner Transfer Agreement. If we had done then the U.S. Senators who are arguing for this conspiracy on economic and oil concessions would have something to go on," Salmond said.
[A similar report on The Scotsman website can be read here.]
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill yesterday accused UK governments both past and present of hypocrisy after high-level condemnation of his decision to allow the man convicted of Lockerbie bombing to return home to die.
MacAskill said he would not apologise for freeing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, despite the fact that he has long outlived the medical opinion that he had only three months to live at the time of his release 11 months ago.
In an interview in yesterday’s Herald, David Milband, the former Foreign Secretary, said the decision to free Megrahi was wrong.
Responding, MacAskill stood by his decision to sanction the return of Megrahi to Tripoli on compassionate grounds, stressing that the Scottish Government was the sole opponent of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) between the UK and Libya.
The PTA followed the Deal in the Desert struck between Colonel Gaddafi and Tony Blair, which paved the way for BP to invest £450 million in exploring Libya’s vast oil reserves.
MacAskill said yesterday that Miliband was part of that government and should explain the details of the PTA to US senators, adding that the PTA was opposed by neither David Cameron nor William Hague at the time. He added: “I think there is a great deal of hypocrisy. If they are so opposed [to Megrahi’s release], why didn’t they oppose the PTA? At the end of the day, the only people to oppose the PTA was the Scottish Government. I don’t recall William Hague condemning the PTA.”
BP has admitted lobbying the British government in 2007 over a PTA with Libya, but denied specifically discussing Megrahi.
MacAskill said: “There are considerable questions that American senators are entitled to ask the UK Government but I can give every body a complete assurance that oil had never been a factor in my decision.
“There was before me an application for compassionate release to allow him to go home. We balance justice with mercy in this country.”
The Justice Secretary said he would be happy to assist US investigators if requested, but added that it was down to David Miliband and his colleagues to set out what they were doing “cavorting with Gaddafi.”
“There are questions about BP and the US Government. They are questions that I can’t answer. They are questions that David Miliband can answer.”
[An opinion piece by Brian Currie in the same newspaper headed "Just what don’t they get about devolution?" reads in part:]
What is it about devolution that Westminster politicians don’t understand?
After 11 years, it should be reasonable to assume even the most small-minded Little Englanders would know Scotland can make big decisions on its own.
But the message hasn’t penetrated some of the more obdurate minds of their Scottish colleagues in the Commons.
Comments by the hitherto unknown backbencher Daniel Kawczynski on the decision to release the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing suggest that the Scottish justice system and those in charge of it are somehow answerable to Westminster. Kawczynski was educated at Stirling University but perhaps he doesn’t realise the extent of the Scottish Government’s authority and maybe he is unaware that Scotland has its own judicial system.
But as chair of Westminster’s all-party committee on Libya he should know there have been two inquiries into the decision by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
A Scottish Parliament inquiry and another by Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Select Committee were clear in their conclusions, yet Kawczynski has written to David Cameron asking for Scottish Ministers to be held to account. Since Cameron can’t do this, perhaps he’s just trying to catch the PM’s eye in the hope of promotion.
It seems odd that a man who called for Megrahi to be used as a foreign policy bargaining chip chairs a committee whose aim is to promote and understand the culture, history and politics of Libya and engage in relations between that country’s legislature and the UK’s.
Some leeway, but not much, can be granted to the US Senators holding a hearing into whether there was a link between Megrahi’s release and BP oil deals. But they, too, should be better informed about what devolution means. America is a federal country and different states have different powers, the ultimate being the death penalty.
The Senators should surely grasp the concept of devolved powers and be able to distinguish between Prisoner Transfer Agreements between Westminster and Libya and the compassionate grounds on which the Scottish Government’s Justice Secretary based his decision. (...)
More than 50 US companies are reported to have signed contracts with Libya compared to four from the UK and the smell coming from the States isn’t just oil pollution – it’s the reek of hypocrisy.
It is also faintly nauseating to see the Prime Minister, his Foreign Secretary and Labour leadership favourite David Miliband queue up to blame MacAskill for releasing Megrahi. Would the decision have been different had it been made in Whitehall or would the interests of big business and the economy have resulted in the same outcome?
MacAskill had an enormous decision to make when considering whether to free the man convicted of murdering 270 people and the debate over whether he got it right or wrong remains the focus of controversy. In all the debate it seems to have been forgotten that people suffering from cancer are not given a set date on which to die and MacAskill acted only after considering the medical evidence that Megrahi had around three months to live.
Most importantly, however, the decision was taken in Scotland by a Scottish Government Minister and whether they sit in the US Senate or in the Commons, politicians should respect that because that is devolution in action. In this area Scotland is subservient to no-one.
[A Reuters news agency report contains the following comments from Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond:]
"We had no contact with BP either written or verbal or any lobbying of that kind as far as the process of compassionate release was concerned," Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond told BBC Radio 4. (...)
Salmond, who leads the pro-independence Scottish National Party and heads a minority government in Scotland's dissolved assembly, defended the decision to release Megrahi.
"You can only take a decision based on information at the time. It is not unheard of for people released on compassionate grounds to live longer than the estimated three months."
Salmond criticized former Prime Minister Tony Blair, saying he was negotiating on prisoner exchanges with Libya at the same time as discussing business deals in 2007 in what the Scottish leader called a "tainted process."
"I think it was deeply unfortunate that you should negotiate a prisoner transfer agreement on a judicial matter on the same day that you sign an agreement on oil exploration and concessions," Salmond said.
"But that's what the then Prime Minister Tony Blair did in June 2007." Blair visited Libya in late May 2007, a few weeks before he stood down as prime minister to be replaced by party colleague Gordon Brown. (...)
The agreement took effect in April 2009 but the Scottish authorities did not use it when releasing Megrahi, a fact that Salmond said proved there was no conspiracy.
"A lot of people would have wanted the Scottish government to invoke the Prisoner Transfer Agreement. If we had done then the U.S. Senators who are arguing for this conspiracy on economic and oil concessions would have something to go on," Salmond said.
[A similar report on The Scotsman website can be read here.]
Letter from Dr Swire to Senator Kerry
[What follows is the text of a letter sent yesterday by Dr Jim Swire to Senator John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate committee on foreign relations, which has scheduled a hearing into the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. An article based on the letter can be found on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
My deeply loved elder daughter Flora aged 23 was among the victims aboard the plane. I think that all affected families, both here and in the US would welcome knowing the whole truth about every aspect of who caused the disaster and why they were not stopped.
I’m sure we are all united in that, though many of those you represent are much more confident in believing in the integrity of the trial process to which Mr Megrahi was subjected than are some of us over here.
So may I welcome you and your band of 4 Senators in your search for aspects of that truth, but this letter proposes reasons why it would be wise to consider the question of why the atrocity was not prevented as well as Megrahi’s guilt or innocence rather than only the reasons for his release.
I do not feel proud of the circumstances that have led me to hope that representatives of the USA rather than my own nation should be searching for the truth on our behalf. Below are some reasons why that is now a hope for us.
A Fatal Accident Inquiry (= inquest) was held in Scotland which found that the disaster had been preventable, and that the aircraft had been under the ‘Host State Protection of the United Kingdom’ at all relevant times. The failure of any UK Prime Minister to date to inquire into this ghastly failure of UK responsibility is enough in itself to justify this letter appealing to you.
We have approached every Prime Minster to seek a full inquiry and been as often rejected. David Cameron has not had time to reply yet, but I think you should know a little of the roles of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in particular.
Mrs Thatcher refused even to meet us (our group is called UK Families-Flight 103) to discuss an inquiry. She decreed that the Dumfries and Galloway (D&G) police, the UK's smallest police force should conduct the criminal investigation, even though she must have known that The Metropolitan police, through their special anti-terrorist branch, had already discovered a break-in at Heathrow airport the night before Lockerbie, which had given the untraced intruder access to the Iran Air facilities there, close to where bags were loaded for Pan Am 103 the next night.
The information concerning the break-in remained unknown to the Megrahi trial it only became known after the verdict had been reached,. when a junior Heathrow security man publicly complained that his evidence to the Metropolitan police early in 1989 had not been heard in the trial. Why did that happen?
In 1993 (two years after the indictment of the Libyans) Mrs Thatcher published a book The Downing Street Years. In it (p 449) she wrote that following the USAF raid on Tripoli/Bengazi in 1986 Gaddafi had been humbled and “the much vaunted Libyan counter attack did not and could not take place. There was a marked decrease in Libyan terrorism in succeeding years.”
‘Succeeding years’ would include 1988 and therefore the Lockerbie disaster. Why did she write that, though in power when Lockerbie happened?
We also requested Tony Blair to launch a full inquiry. He did meet with us but after a month of ‘asking the relevant people’ told us that ‘they’ did not consider any further inquiry necessary. When he went to see Colonel Gaddafi for the so called ‘Deal in the Desert’, the first we heard of it was through the media.
Scotland’s Criminal Case Review Commission meanwhile had found that the trial might well have been a miscarriage of justice, while the UN’s special observer to the trial, Professor Hans Koechler of Vienna had strongly criticised the trial as biased and the verdict as ‘incomprehensible’. Many jurists agree, and some would voluntarily give evidence before you.
As a result of the SCCRC’s comments Mr Megrahi’s case was referred back to the High Court in Edinburgh. Many believed that re-examination of the evidence would be bound to overturn the verdict.
However a succession of delays ensued, but even so Mr Jack Straw, the Labour government’s Minister of Justice was reduced to overriding the wishes of the House of Commons Select Committee on Human Rights, in order to have the Prisoner Transfer Agreement up and running by the start of the appeal.
Many thought this looked like an attempt to stop the appeal and thus ‘save’ the verdict by sending Mr Megrahi home. It was a unusual and unwelcome breech of custom for a Committee to be overridden in this way.
In the event the Scots did not use the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, but compassionate release, an option long enshrined in Scots law, when a prisoner has a short life prognosis (there is no ‘deadline’ of three months by the way) but for some reason Mr Megrahi withdrew his appeal, though this was not required for Compassionate release.
Was pressure put upon him to do so? Maybe a proper inquiry would answer that question too.
You may of course believe that it was pressure from BP which caused the panic, if Libya or BP were claiming that the UK was dragging her feet over her share of the ‘Deal in the Desert’.
Maybe you can find out whether it was that or a desire to 'protect' the verdict which motivated Mr Straw's precipitate actions.
Senator Kerry, I am heartened to hear that UK Prime Minister David Cameron has just undertaken to meet with you after all, according to today’s press. But I do wonder in view of the behaviour of successive UK governments, with all their delays and withholding of information over the past 21 years, and their failure to protect the plane in the first place, whether the Government of the UK is the right entity to hold an inquiry into this atrocity.
Would it be putting the fox in charge of the hencoop?
Previous UK governments have tried to ‘pass the buck’ to Scotland over the release of Megrahi, but there are far greater issues than that here. I do hope that David Cameron will be sufficiently independent of his predecessors to rebut the above fear: we too have just asked for a meeting with him to discuss an inquiry.
I understand that the Scottish authorities have agreed to cooperate with any appropriately empowered inquiry. Would you consider, in view of the multinational complexity of this case, whether a multinational board of respected individuals, a panel of jurists perhaps, should examine all aspects, including the behaviour of our Westminster administrations?
If so they would have to command the respect of the world and be seen to be independent of all those nations directly involved, which includes the USA of course. Such an inquiry would presumably require at least the full cooperation of the present UK administration.
Nelson Mandela said publicly just as the trial court was announced ‘No one country should be complainant prosecutor and judge’. We should not fall into the same trap again.
Please do not allow your determination to investigate this tragedy be thwarted by any one, it will be a tough call, but we relatives have a right to the whole truth.
My deeply loved elder daughter Flora aged 23 was among the victims aboard the plane. I think that all affected families, both here and in the US would welcome knowing the whole truth about every aspect of who caused the disaster and why they were not stopped.
I’m sure we are all united in that, though many of those you represent are much more confident in believing in the integrity of the trial process to which Mr Megrahi was subjected than are some of us over here.
So may I welcome you and your band of 4 Senators in your search for aspects of that truth, but this letter proposes reasons why it would be wise to consider the question of why the atrocity was not prevented as well as Megrahi’s guilt or innocence rather than only the reasons for his release.
I do not feel proud of the circumstances that have led me to hope that representatives of the USA rather than my own nation should be searching for the truth on our behalf. Below are some reasons why that is now a hope for us.
A Fatal Accident Inquiry (= inquest) was held in Scotland which found that the disaster had been preventable, and that the aircraft had been under the ‘Host State Protection of the United Kingdom’ at all relevant times. The failure of any UK Prime Minister to date to inquire into this ghastly failure of UK responsibility is enough in itself to justify this letter appealing to you.
We have approached every Prime Minster to seek a full inquiry and been as often rejected. David Cameron has not had time to reply yet, but I think you should know a little of the roles of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in particular.
Mrs Thatcher refused even to meet us (our group is called UK Families-Flight 103) to discuss an inquiry. She decreed that the Dumfries and Galloway (D&G) police, the UK's smallest police force should conduct the criminal investigation, even though she must have known that The Metropolitan police, through their special anti-terrorist branch, had already discovered a break-in at Heathrow airport the night before Lockerbie, which had given the untraced intruder access to the Iran Air facilities there, close to where bags were loaded for Pan Am 103 the next night.
The information concerning the break-in remained unknown to the Megrahi trial it only became known after the verdict had been reached,. when a junior Heathrow security man publicly complained that his evidence to the Metropolitan police early in 1989 had not been heard in the trial. Why did that happen?
In 1993 (two years after the indictment of the Libyans) Mrs Thatcher published a book The Downing Street Years. In it (p 449) she wrote that following the USAF raid on Tripoli/Bengazi in 1986 Gaddafi had been humbled and “the much vaunted Libyan counter attack did not and could not take place. There was a marked decrease in Libyan terrorism in succeeding years.”
‘Succeeding years’ would include 1988 and therefore the Lockerbie disaster. Why did she write that, though in power when Lockerbie happened?
We also requested Tony Blair to launch a full inquiry. He did meet with us but after a month of ‘asking the relevant people’ told us that ‘they’ did not consider any further inquiry necessary. When he went to see Colonel Gaddafi for the so called ‘Deal in the Desert’, the first we heard of it was through the media.
Scotland’s Criminal Case Review Commission meanwhile had found that the trial might well have been a miscarriage of justice, while the UN’s special observer to the trial, Professor Hans Koechler of Vienna had strongly criticised the trial as biased and the verdict as ‘incomprehensible’. Many jurists agree, and some would voluntarily give evidence before you.
As a result of the SCCRC’s comments Mr Megrahi’s case was referred back to the High Court in Edinburgh. Many believed that re-examination of the evidence would be bound to overturn the verdict.
However a succession of delays ensued, but even so Mr Jack Straw, the Labour government’s Minister of Justice was reduced to overriding the wishes of the House of Commons Select Committee on Human Rights, in order to have the Prisoner Transfer Agreement up and running by the start of the appeal.
Many thought this looked like an attempt to stop the appeal and thus ‘save’ the verdict by sending Mr Megrahi home. It was a unusual and unwelcome breech of custom for a Committee to be overridden in this way.
In the event the Scots did not use the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, but compassionate release, an option long enshrined in Scots law, when a prisoner has a short life prognosis (there is no ‘deadline’ of three months by the way) but for some reason Mr Megrahi withdrew his appeal, though this was not required for Compassionate release.
Was pressure put upon him to do so? Maybe a proper inquiry would answer that question too.
You may of course believe that it was pressure from BP which caused the panic, if Libya or BP were claiming that the UK was dragging her feet over her share of the ‘Deal in the Desert’.
Maybe you can find out whether it was that or a desire to 'protect' the verdict which motivated Mr Straw's precipitate actions.
Senator Kerry, I am heartened to hear that UK Prime Minister David Cameron has just undertaken to meet with you after all, according to today’s press. But I do wonder in view of the behaviour of successive UK governments, with all their delays and withholding of information over the past 21 years, and their failure to protect the plane in the first place, whether the Government of the UK is the right entity to hold an inquiry into this atrocity.
Would it be putting the fox in charge of the hencoop?
Previous UK governments have tried to ‘pass the buck’ to Scotland over the release of Megrahi, but there are far greater issues than that here. I do hope that David Cameron will be sufficiently independent of his predecessors to rebut the above fear: we too have just asked for a meeting with him to discuss an inquiry.
I understand that the Scottish authorities have agreed to cooperate with any appropriately empowered inquiry. Would you consider, in view of the multinational complexity of this case, whether a multinational board of respected individuals, a panel of jurists perhaps, should examine all aspects, including the behaviour of our Westminster administrations?
If so they would have to command the respect of the world and be seen to be independent of all those nations directly involved, which includes the USA of course. Such an inquiry would presumably require at least the full cooperation of the present UK administration.
Nelson Mandela said publicly just as the trial court was announced ‘No one country should be complainant prosecutor and judge’. We should not fall into the same trap again.
Please do not allow your determination to investigate this tragedy be thwarted by any one, it will be a tough call, but we relatives have a right to the whole truth.
American influence on Lockerbie trial
[This is the heading over a letter from Marion Woolfson in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]
I was very interested in the letter from Tom Minogue because, like him, I have serious doubts about Lockerbie (19 July)
I am a retired journalist (and former Scotsman columnist) and, although I was born and educated in Edinburgh, I wrote on the Middle East for 30 years.
As Mr Minogue has pointed out, the United Nations-appointed independent observer to the trial at the Scots court in the [Netherlands], Prof Hans Koechler, voiced his serious concerns that senior US Justice Department officials were in the body of the court and appeared to be directing the Crown Office prosecution staff.
This seems to confirm Lord Sutherland's judicial summation, for he pointed out that "there are undoubtedly problems. In relation to certain aspects of the case, there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications. In selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which might not fit, it is possible to read into a mass of evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified."
It was also revealed by Geoff Simons, author of Libya and the West, that before the trial Tony Gauci was feted by the police, taken to Aviemore, taken fishing for salmon and put up at the Hilton Hotel in Glasgow.
The judges were not told that, on the day of the bombing, there had been an unexplained break-in in the Heathrow baggage area.
Tony Gauci was the Maltese shopkeeper who became the chief witness in the case because a suitcase containing goods he stocked was suddenly "found" among the debris and, although as Gauci could not identify some of the clothing in the suitcase nor could he remember the "owner's" appearance it was decided that the clothing had been wrapped round the bomb (surely if that were true, it would have been destroyed) and so the owner of the suitcase was the bomber.
Megrahi had been about to appeal but was unable to because of being released on compassionate grounds. Gauci has apparently gone to Australia, "assisted" by the gift of a million dollars.
I could have understood all the pathetic lies if they had come from an American source, but surely the Scots have more sense than to believe the rubbish that we have heard.
I was very interested in the letter from Tom Minogue because, like him, I have serious doubts about Lockerbie (19 July)
I am a retired journalist (and former Scotsman columnist) and, although I was born and educated in Edinburgh, I wrote on the Middle East for 30 years.
As Mr Minogue has pointed out, the United Nations-appointed independent observer to the trial at the Scots court in the [Netherlands], Prof Hans Koechler, voiced his serious concerns that senior US Justice Department officials were in the body of the court and appeared to be directing the Crown Office prosecution staff.
This seems to confirm Lord Sutherland's judicial summation, for he pointed out that "there are undoubtedly problems. In relation to certain aspects of the case, there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications. In selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which might not fit, it is possible to read into a mass of evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified."
It was also revealed by Geoff Simons, author of Libya and the West, that before the trial Tony Gauci was feted by the police, taken to Aviemore, taken fishing for salmon and put up at the Hilton Hotel in Glasgow.
The judges were not told that, on the day of the bombing, there had been an unexplained break-in in the Heathrow baggage area.
Tony Gauci was the Maltese shopkeeper who became the chief witness in the case because a suitcase containing goods he stocked was suddenly "found" among the debris and, although as Gauci could not identify some of the clothing in the suitcase nor could he remember the "owner's" appearance it was decided that the clothing had been wrapped round the bomb (surely if that were true, it would have been destroyed) and so the owner of the suitcase was the bomber.
Megrahi had been about to appeal but was unable to because of being released on compassionate grounds. Gauci has apparently gone to Australia, "assisted" by the gift of a million dollars.
I could have understood all the pathetic lies if they had come from an American source, but surely the Scots have more sense than to believe the rubbish that we have heard.
SNP under pressure as Obama demands answers on Megrahi
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Barack Obama has called for all the facts to be made public about the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing as he piled more pressure on the Scottish Government by describing its decision to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as heartbreaking for the victims’ families.
The US President told a White House press conference: “All of us here in the US were surprised, disappointed and angry about the release of the Lockerbie bomber … We welcome any additional information that will give us insights and better understanding of why the decision was made.”
With David Cameron, on his first prime ministerial trip to Washington, standing beside him, Obama added: “The key thing here is we have got a British Prime Minister who shares our anger over the decision and also objects to how it played out … The bottom line is that we all disagreed with it. It was a bad decision.”
Earlier, Cameron, having rejected calls for a UK public inquiry into the release of Megrahi, announced he had asked Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, to launch a full review to see if any more documents could be published to give clarification and said that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would be consulted. (...)
Last night, the SNP Government, under intense fire, stood its ground and launched a thinly veiled counterattack against Washington and London.
A spokesman said: “The Scottish Government has already published all relevant information where we had the necessary permission to do so.
“The US authorities did not give us permission to publish their communications with the Scottish Government and the UK Government also requested non-publication of some correspondence.”
He stressed there was a difference between the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) negotiated by the British and Libyan Governments and compassionate release, a “totally different process based on entirely different criteria”. (...)
With BP still dominating headlines in America because of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, Cameron sought to allay US suspicions that the oil giant had a role in Megrahi’s release, saying: “That was not a decision taken by BP, it was a decision taken by the Scottish Government.” (...)
However, among the documents Sir Gus might look at are details of telephone conversations in late 2007 between Jack Straw, the then justice secretary, and Sir Mark Allen, a BP lobbyist who argued for a swift PTA between London and Tripoli.
At the time this could have led to Megrahi’s release from his Scottish jail – and helped the firm’s commercial interests.
The oil company has subsequently admitted its lobbying was aimed at Libya sealing a deal on drilling rights but has stressed that Sir Mark, a former MI6 agent, did not specifically lobby for Megrahi’s release.
At the beginning of this year, Straw turned down a Freedom of Information request to release details of his calls with BP. Last night, one Whitehall source told The Herald: “These documents could be the smoking gun.”
Barack Obama has called for all the facts to be made public about the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing as he piled more pressure on the Scottish Government by describing its decision to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as heartbreaking for the victims’ families.
The US President told a White House press conference: “All of us here in the US were surprised, disappointed and angry about the release of the Lockerbie bomber … We welcome any additional information that will give us insights and better understanding of why the decision was made.”
With David Cameron, on his first prime ministerial trip to Washington, standing beside him, Obama added: “The key thing here is we have got a British Prime Minister who shares our anger over the decision and also objects to how it played out … The bottom line is that we all disagreed with it. It was a bad decision.”
Earlier, Cameron, having rejected calls for a UK public inquiry into the release of Megrahi, announced he had asked Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, to launch a full review to see if any more documents could be published to give clarification and said that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would be consulted. (...)
Last night, the SNP Government, under intense fire, stood its ground and launched a thinly veiled counterattack against Washington and London.
A spokesman said: “The Scottish Government has already published all relevant information where we had the necessary permission to do so.
“The US authorities did not give us permission to publish their communications with the Scottish Government and the UK Government also requested non-publication of some correspondence.”
He stressed there was a difference between the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) negotiated by the British and Libyan Governments and compassionate release, a “totally different process based on entirely different criteria”. (...)
With BP still dominating headlines in America because of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, Cameron sought to allay US suspicions that the oil giant had a role in Megrahi’s release, saying: “That was not a decision taken by BP, it was a decision taken by the Scottish Government.” (...)
However, among the documents Sir Gus might look at are details of telephone conversations in late 2007 between Jack Straw, the then justice secretary, and Sir Mark Allen, a BP lobbyist who argued for a swift PTA between London and Tripoli.
At the time this could have led to Megrahi’s release from his Scottish jail – and helped the firm’s commercial interests.
The oil company has subsequently admitted its lobbying was aimed at Libya sealing a deal on drilling rights but has stressed that Sir Mark, a former MI6 agent, did not specifically lobby for Megrahi’s release.
At the beginning of this year, Straw turned down a Freedom of Information request to release details of his calls with BP. Last night, one Whitehall source told The Herald: “These documents could be the smoking gun.”
Obama, Cameron tread cautiously on BP, Lockerbie
British Prime Minister David Cameron on Tuesday rejected calls for an inquiry into whether BP plc influenced the release of the Lockerbie bomber, even as he sought to ease transatlantic tensions in talks with US President Barack Obama.
Determined not to let the Lockerbie controversy and BP's role in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill overshadow their White House meeting, the two leaders reaffirmed the much-vaunted "special relationship" between their countries.
Cameron said he understood US anger over BP's role in the spill and tried to defuse US lawmakers' concerns that the company may have had a hand in Scottish authorities' release last year of a Libyan convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
But Cameron, under pressure at home to stand up for the British energy giant against the bashing it has faced in Washington, also insisted it was in US and British interests for the company to remain strong and viable.
Obama, whose approval ratings have been undercut by public outrage over the spill ... also played down the simmering controversy over the Lockerbie case.
"I completely understand the anger that exists right across America. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a catastrophe," Cameron told reporters as he stood side by side with Obama in his first US visit since taking power in May.
"It is BP's role to cap the leak, clean up the mess and pay appropriate compensation," Cameron said.
But he also cautioned, "Let us not confuse the oil spill with the Libyan bomber."
Cameron insisted BP had no role in the release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, which he opposed at the time as opposition leader, and pledged his government's aid in any US Senate probe into the matter.
Steering clear of any public disagreement, Obama said he was confident the British government would cooperate to make sure all the facts are known.
In an apparent bid to assuage US concerns, Cameron ordered his Cabinet secretary to review documents in the case and met US lawmakers on the issue on Tuesday.
But he rejected in advance their demands for a full British investigation. "I don't need an inquiry to tell me what was a bad decision," Cameron said.
New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, one of four senators who met Cameron, said they were in agreement Megrahi should not have been released but that did not mean "case closed."
"Only with complete information about the circumstances surrounding al-Megrahi's release can we get the full understanding that is needed to determine the next steps," Menendez said in a statement after the meeting.
Menendez, who will chair a hearing next week on the release, also said Cameron gave assurances his government would cooperate with requests from the Senate.
[From a report on the website of the Reuters news agency.]
Determined not to let the Lockerbie controversy and BP's role in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill overshadow their White House meeting, the two leaders reaffirmed the much-vaunted "special relationship" between their countries.
Cameron said he understood US anger over BP's role in the spill and tried to defuse US lawmakers' concerns that the company may have had a hand in Scottish authorities' release last year of a Libyan convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
But Cameron, under pressure at home to stand up for the British energy giant against the bashing it has faced in Washington, also insisted it was in US and British interests for the company to remain strong and viable.
Obama, whose approval ratings have been undercut by public outrage over the spill ... also played down the simmering controversy over the Lockerbie case.
"I completely understand the anger that exists right across America. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a catastrophe," Cameron told reporters as he stood side by side with Obama in his first US visit since taking power in May.
"It is BP's role to cap the leak, clean up the mess and pay appropriate compensation," Cameron said.
But he also cautioned, "Let us not confuse the oil spill with the Libyan bomber."
Cameron insisted BP had no role in the release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, which he opposed at the time as opposition leader, and pledged his government's aid in any US Senate probe into the matter.
Steering clear of any public disagreement, Obama said he was confident the British government would cooperate to make sure all the facts are known.
In an apparent bid to assuage US concerns, Cameron ordered his Cabinet secretary to review documents in the case and met US lawmakers on the issue on Tuesday.
But he rejected in advance their demands for a full British investigation. "I don't need an inquiry to tell me what was a bad decision," Cameron said.
New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, one of four senators who met Cameron, said they were in agreement Megrahi should not have been released but that did not mean "case closed."
"Only with complete information about the circumstances surrounding al-Megrahi's release can we get the full understanding that is needed to determine the next steps," Menendez said in a statement after the meeting.
Menendez, who will chair a hearing next week on the release, also said Cameron gave assurances his government would cooperate with requests from the Senate.
[From a report on the website of the Reuters news agency.]
Tuesday, 20 July 2010
David Cameron orders release of secret Lockerbie bomber documents
This is the headline over a report just published on the Telegraph website. For a fleeting instant I naively entertained the thought that the documents might be those in respect of which the UK government, acting through then Foreign Secretary David Miliband, in Mr Megrahi's most recent appeal claimed public interest immunity on grounds of national security. What a silly-billy I am! The papers that are to be released are as follows:
'In Washington, Mr Cameron said: “I am asking the Cabinet Secretary in the UK to go back over all the paperwork and see if there is anything else that should be released so there is the clearest possible picture out there of what decision [ie to repatriate Mr Megrahi] was taken and why.
'“I do not currently think that another inquiry is the right way to go. I don’t need an inquiry to tell me what I already know, which is that it was a bad decision.”'
So there we are. The circumstances in which Mr Megrahi was returned to his homeland are to be the focus of the document review rather than the circumstances in which he was wrongly convicted. Any meaningful inquiry would, of course, be too embarrassing to both the UK and the USA to be contemplated. O tempora, O mores!
'In Washington, Mr Cameron said: “I am asking the Cabinet Secretary in the UK to go back over all the paperwork and see if there is anything else that should be released so there is the clearest possible picture out there of what decision [ie to repatriate Mr Megrahi] was taken and why.
'“I do not currently think that another inquiry is the right way to go. I don’t need an inquiry to tell me what I already know, which is that it was a bad decision.”'
So there we are. The circumstances in which Mr Megrahi was returned to his homeland are to be the focus of the document review rather than the circumstances in which he was wrongly convicted. Any meaningful inquiry would, of course, be too embarrassing to both the UK and the USA to be contemplated. O tempora, O mores!
Britain's ambassador to US faces axe over release of Lockerbie bomber
[This is the headline over a report on the Mail website. It reads in part:]
Britain’s ambassador in Washington is facing the axe over his role in the Lockerbie affair.
Diplomatic sources say Sir Nigel Sheinwald will be made the scapegoat for the diplomatic spat because he helped broker Tony Blair’s ‘deal in the desert’ with Libyan dictator Colonel Gadaffi.
British sources say they have been told by American officials that Sir Nigel is too close to Lockerbie case because he helped arrange lucrative Libyan contracts on behalf of BP, the company at the heart of the row.
The ambassador, who took up his post in 2007, would usually be expected to serve another two years. (...)
Senior coalition figures want to push Sir Nigel into retirement since he is also seen as a New Labour throwback after serving as Tony Blair’s senior foreign policy adviser.
A British source in Washington with close links to the Embassy said: ‘Sir Nigel is seen as tainted by the Lockerbie affair. The Tories have been looking for a way to ease him out for a while and this should help speed things along nicely.’
While the Scottish Government took the final decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on ‘health grounds’ after he was given just three months to live, the Government had already signed a prisoner transfer agreement paving the way for his return.
[You read it first here.]
Britain’s ambassador in Washington is facing the axe over his role in the Lockerbie affair.
Diplomatic sources say Sir Nigel Sheinwald will be made the scapegoat for the diplomatic spat because he helped broker Tony Blair’s ‘deal in the desert’ with Libyan dictator Colonel Gadaffi.
British sources say they have been told by American officials that Sir Nigel is too close to Lockerbie case because he helped arrange lucrative Libyan contracts on behalf of BP, the company at the heart of the row.
The ambassador, who took up his post in 2007, would usually be expected to serve another two years. (...)
Senior coalition figures want to push Sir Nigel into retirement since he is also seen as a New Labour throwback after serving as Tony Blair’s senior foreign policy adviser.
A British source in Washington with close links to the Embassy said: ‘Sir Nigel is seen as tainted by the Lockerbie affair. The Tories have been looking for a way to ease him out for a while and this should help speed things along nicely.’
While the Scottish Government took the final decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on ‘health grounds’ after he was given just three months to live, the Government had already signed a prisoner transfer agreement paving the way for his return.
[You read it first here.]
Megrahi release legal, US says
Scottish authorities had the right to release the convicted Lockerbie bomber, though Washington believes the decision was a poor one, a spokesman said. (...)
Embattled British oil company BP, which is to begin drilling off the coast of Libya later this year, has acknowledged it was involved in talks on the prisoner exchange but the company said it wasn't involved directly with Megrahi.
Clinton in response to lawmakers' complaints said that, while Washington was "strongly opposed" to the decision to release Megrahi, the move was carried out according to Scottish law.
PJ Crowley, a spokesman for the US State Department, clarified the government's stance by referring to Scottish authority.
"We have not doubted for a second that this was within the purview of Scottish authorities to make this decision," he said. "We just happen to believe it was a wrong decision."
[From a report on the website of the news agency UPI.]
Embattled British oil company BP, which is to begin drilling off the coast of Libya later this year, has acknowledged it was involved in talks on the prisoner exchange but the company said it wasn't involved directly with Megrahi.
Clinton in response to lawmakers' complaints said that, while Washington was "strongly opposed" to the decision to release Megrahi, the move was carried out according to Scottish law.
PJ Crowley, a spokesman for the US State Department, clarified the government's stance by referring to Scottish authority.
"We have not doubted for a second that this was within the purview of Scottish authorities to make this decision," he said. "We just happen to believe it was a wrong decision."
[From a report on the website of the news agency UPI.]
Cameron: ‘Megrahi should have died in jail’
[This is the headline over a report on the STV News website. It reads in part:]
David Cameron has said Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi "should have died in jail".
The Prime Minister made the comments as he sought to calm renewed criticism in the United States of his release amid fresh questions over the role played by oil giant BP.
Mr Cameron, making his first official visit to Washington since taking office, said the decision to free al-Megrahi had been "profoundly misguided" but denied that the beleaguered oil giant had been in any way involved.
Earlier, No 10 said that Mr Cameron had now agreed to meet a group of US senators who are pressing for a new investigation into the case.
Previously, officials had said that Mr Cameron was unable to find time for talks with the senators in his "very full schedule" and had instead offered them a meeting with the British ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald. (...)
During a radio interview in Washington, he said: "I will say to them (the senators) that I agree that the decision to release al-Megrahi was wrong. I said it was wrong at the time.
"It was the Scottish Government that took that decision. They took it after proper process and what they saw as the right, compassionate reasons. I just happen to think it was profoundly misguided.
"He was convicted of the biggest mass murder and in my view he should have died in jail. I said that very, very clearly at the time; that is my view today.
"Of course BP has got to do everything necessary to cap the oil well, to clean up the spill, to pay compensation. I have met with BP and I know they want to do that and will do that.
"But let's be clear about who released al-Megrahi... it was a Government decision in the UK. It was the wrong decision. It was not the decision of BP - it was the decision of Scottish ministers."
[So much for the "respect" that the Tories said would characterise the new government's dealings with the Scottish government (and other devolved administrations). So much also for the policy of building bridges to the Libyan regime.]
David Cameron has said Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi "should have died in jail".
The Prime Minister made the comments as he sought to calm renewed criticism in the United States of his release amid fresh questions over the role played by oil giant BP.
Mr Cameron, making his first official visit to Washington since taking office, said the decision to free al-Megrahi had been "profoundly misguided" but denied that the beleaguered oil giant had been in any way involved.
Earlier, No 10 said that Mr Cameron had now agreed to meet a group of US senators who are pressing for a new investigation into the case.
Previously, officials had said that Mr Cameron was unable to find time for talks with the senators in his "very full schedule" and had instead offered them a meeting with the British ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald. (...)
During a radio interview in Washington, he said: "I will say to them (the senators) that I agree that the decision to release al-Megrahi was wrong. I said it was wrong at the time.
"It was the Scottish Government that took that decision. They took it after proper process and what they saw as the right, compassionate reasons. I just happen to think it was profoundly misguided.
"He was convicted of the biggest mass murder and in my view he should have died in jail. I said that very, very clearly at the time; that is my view today.
"Of course BP has got to do everything necessary to cap the oil well, to clean up the spill, to pay compensation. I have met with BP and I know they want to do that and will do that.
"But let's be clear about who released al-Megrahi... it was a Government decision in the UK. It was the wrong decision. It was not the decision of BP - it was the decision of Scottish ministers."
[So much for the "respect" that the Tories said would characterise the new government's dealings with the Scottish government (and other devolved administrations). So much also for the policy of building bridges to the Libyan regime.]
Lockerbie questions 'for British government'
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads:]
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has said questions being asked about the Lockerbie bomber are matters for the UK government.
Prime Minister David Cameron is to meet US senators to discuss allegations BP lobbied for his release.
Mr MacAskill said he refused a bid to move Abelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to a Libyan jail under a prisoner transfer agreement between the UK and Libya.
Instead he released him on health grounds due to his terminal cancer.
Senators from New York and New Jersey want to meet Mr Cameron over the release of al-Megrahi.
BP has admitted lobbying the UK government in 2007 over a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Libya, but denied specifically discussing the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
A prisoner transfer request was made by Libya in May 2009, less than a week after a treaty allowing prisoners to be transferred was ratified.
However, Mr MacAskill stressed that when he released al-Megrahi in August last year it was not under that deal.
"We can understand the questions that are being asked in the United States regarding oil and what may or may not have been done by the British government," he said.
"These relate to the prisoner transfer agreement, to the application made by Mr al-Megrahi.
"I refused that because I too had concerns as to what may or may not have been done and whether it had been made an assurance to families that he would serve his sentence here."
He said he could understand the questions being raised by the US Secretary of State and senators.
"But these are questions that have to be answered by the British government," he said.
"It was the British government that perhaps did a deal in the desert but that will be for them to state and for the senators to discover."
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has said questions being asked about the Lockerbie bomber are matters for the UK government.
Prime Minister David Cameron is to meet US senators to discuss allegations BP lobbied for his release.
Mr MacAskill said he refused a bid to move Abelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to a Libyan jail under a prisoner transfer agreement between the UK and Libya.
Instead he released him on health grounds due to his terminal cancer.
Senators from New York and New Jersey want to meet Mr Cameron over the release of al-Megrahi.
BP has admitted lobbying the UK government in 2007 over a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Libya, but denied specifically discussing the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
A prisoner transfer request was made by Libya in May 2009, less than a week after a treaty allowing prisoners to be transferred was ratified.
However, Mr MacAskill stressed that when he released al-Megrahi in August last year it was not under that deal.
"We can understand the questions that are being asked in the United States regarding oil and what may or may not have been done by the British government," he said.
"These relate to the prisoner transfer agreement, to the application made by Mr al-Megrahi.
"I refused that because I too had concerns as to what may or may not have been done and whether it had been made an assurance to families that he would serve his sentence here."
He said he could understand the questions being raised by the US Secretary of State and senators.
"But these are questions that have to be answered by the British government," he said.
"It was the British government that perhaps did a deal in the desert but that will be for them to state and for the senators to discover."
Barack Obama please note: you're wrong about David Cameron and the Lockerbie Bomber
[This is the heading over a post by James Kirkup on his blog on the Telegraph website. It reads:]
Some American political people appear to be unhappy about the Lockerbie bomber’s continuing failure to die.
Now, I accept that it’s rather ill-mannered of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi to cling to life having implicitly promised to go the way of all flesh within three months of his return to Libya.
But I’m more concerned that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and a diverse cast of senators appear intent on holding David Cameron accountable for both Megrahi’s freedom and his longevity.
The President will apparently raise the issue with the PM in Washington today. And Mrs Clinton has asked the UK government to “review” the circumstances of Megrahi’s release last year. The lady and gentlemen from the Senate, meanwhile, are intent on exploring what role BP’s relationship with Tony Blair had in the decision to release the bomber.
Whether for reasons of ignorance or (much more likely) political convenience, the president, his secretary of state and the senators are perpetuating a misunderstanding: the idea that Mr Cameron (or his predecessor) has any responsibility for Megrahi’s release. He doesn’t.
What’s really odd is that this misunderstanding is taking place in country that has a federal system. How can US politicians steeped in the concept of states’ rights and the limits to federal authority not grasp the concept of Scottish devolution?
Devolution means power over – and legal responsibility for – certain issues rests in Edinburgh with the administration elected by the people of Scotland. And not, repeat not, with the Government in London. One of those issues was the release of Megrahi. That’s because Scotland has its own legal system, quite distinct from that of England, and over which ministers in London have precisely no influence.
Since this point doesn’t seem to be properly appreciated in Washington, let me repeat it: the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was made by ministers in Scotland before the current UK government came to power.
So perhaps our American friends would do well to consider this: holding David Cameron responsible for the actions of Scottish Nationalist Party ministers in 2009 is like holding Barack Obama responsible for the actions of the Supreme Court of Texas and its Republican governor in 2007.
In other words, you’ve got the wrong man. Try directing your attentions to Edinburgh. You can start by calling +44 131 556 8400 and ask for Alex.
Some American political people appear to be unhappy about the Lockerbie bomber’s continuing failure to die.
Now, I accept that it’s rather ill-mannered of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi to cling to life having implicitly promised to go the way of all flesh within three months of his return to Libya.
But I’m more concerned that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and a diverse cast of senators appear intent on holding David Cameron accountable for both Megrahi’s freedom and his longevity.
The President will apparently raise the issue with the PM in Washington today. And Mrs Clinton has asked the UK government to “review” the circumstances of Megrahi’s release last year. The lady and gentlemen from the Senate, meanwhile, are intent on exploring what role BP’s relationship with Tony Blair had in the decision to release the bomber.
Whether for reasons of ignorance or (much more likely) political convenience, the president, his secretary of state and the senators are perpetuating a misunderstanding: the idea that Mr Cameron (or his predecessor) has any responsibility for Megrahi’s release. He doesn’t.
What’s really odd is that this misunderstanding is taking place in country that has a federal system. How can US politicians steeped in the concept of states’ rights and the limits to federal authority not grasp the concept of Scottish devolution?
Devolution means power over – and legal responsibility for – certain issues rests in Edinburgh with the administration elected by the people of Scotland. And not, repeat not, with the Government in London. One of those issues was the release of Megrahi. That’s because Scotland has its own legal system, quite distinct from that of England, and over which ministers in London have precisely no influence.
Since this point doesn’t seem to be properly appreciated in Washington, let me repeat it: the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was made by ministers in Scotland before the current UK government came to power.
So perhaps our American friends would do well to consider this: holding David Cameron responsible for the actions of Scottish Nationalist Party ministers in 2009 is like holding Barack Obama responsible for the actions of the Supreme Court of Texas and its Republican governor in 2007.
In other words, you’ve got the wrong man. Try directing your attentions to Edinburgh. You can start by calling +44 131 556 8400 and ask for Alex.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)