[This is the heading over four readers' letters in today's edition of The Herald. They are all worth reading. Here are the first two:]
Senator Robert Menendez and his Committee have been supplied with written evidence about who took the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, how it was taken and why (“US calls off Megrahi inquiry”, The Herald, July 29). The logical step would have been to scrutinise this material, to narrow down the issues and to focus on the matters over which there might be genuine uncertainty. If additional evidence was needed, witnesses could then have been asked for assistance – which might have been done by correspondence. To effectively abandon the inquiry at this stage shows that it never was a serious exercise.
The Senator shows that he has not briefed himself about the respective jurisdictions of the Scottish and UK Governments, he has not distinguished between compassionate release and prisoner transfer, and he doesn’t know about the differences between Scots Law and that of the US. Moreover, that he is deeply uninterested in these matters, because they do not fit his conspiracy theory about a BP plot to swap Megrahi for oil concessions from Libya.
He wanted witnesses to appear in person because this was meant to be a show trial of people over whom his Committee has no constitutional jurisdiction. He has vindicated the Scottish and UK ministers who declined his invitation.
(Dr) Bob Purdie,
Kirkcaldy.
Has it occurred to the US senators and others who maintain that Megrahi should have remained in prison, that if that had happened, his appeal would not have been withdrawn and would have been decided by now? Any rational examination of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) findings and the evidence as a whole must concede the overwhelming probability it would have been successful, and Megrahi would now be home by right as a free man. Kenny MacAskill may be prevented from “looking behind the appeal”, but the rest of us are under no such constraints, and the conclusion is not difficult to reach.
The notes of MacAskill’s meeting with Megrahi are now public, and reveal an unpleasant picture of a sick and desperate man being treated like a mushroom (kept in the dark and fed manure) in an attempt to pressurise him into dropping his appeal. The hand-written letter from Megrahi is really quite distressing, when read in the light of the SCCRC report and the striking weakness of the case against him in general. This is not someone who should have escaped on a technicality; this is an innocent man sitting in jail looking at a medical death sentence.
Our criminal justice system and we as a nation are guilty of a far worse crime than taking international relations and trade deals into account when releasing a foreign prisoner. We have convicted a man on evidence that, in my view, wouldn’t support the issuing of a parking ticket, imprisoned him 1,800 miles from home and family, and turned him into an international hate figure while he is in the terminal stages of aggressive prostate cancer.
If any wide-ranging inquiry is appropriate, surely this is the matter that should concern us, rather than silly conspiracy theories linking Megrahi’s release to the Gulf oil spill.
Morag Kerr,
Peeblesshire.
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Salmond hits back at Lockerbie inquiry jibe
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper circulating primarily in Aberdeen and the north of Scotland. It reads in part:]
The first minister has hit back at accusations a US senate hearing into the release of the Lockerbie bomber was “stonewalled” and said senators should focus on getting information from their own government. (...)
Senator Robert Menendez, who was due to chair the hearing into the release of Abdelbaset al Megrahi, said “no witness of consequence has the courage” to testify.
Mr Salmond said yesterday he and Mr MacAskill had a “responsibility to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people”, but added they would give evidence at an international inquiry if it had the “authority and power” to summon every witness and collect every document related to Megrahi’s release. (...)
Speaking in Aberdeen yesterday, Mr Salmond said Scottish ministers could not give evidence on something they “knew nothing about”.
He said: “We cannot help Senator Menendez with the inquiry into BP’s influence on Mr Megrahi’s release, because BP had no influence. There was no contact, formal or informal, between the Scottish Government and BP.”
He added the Scottish Government has “given every facility” to senators, and said: “If I was a senator I would concentrate on getting all the documents relevant to Mr Megrahi’s case from the UK and US governments. From there they might be better placed to consider another hearing.
“Otherwise, I am sure Senator Menendez acknowledges what was said by Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the committee, when he said our replies to the committee have been thoughtful and thorough.
“If there were to be a properly constituted, all-encompassing and internationally-based inquiry with the authority and power to requisition all documents and summon all witnesses we would be happy to co-operate.
“The US Senate is a powerful body, but it is not an international tribunal.”
The first minister has hit back at accusations a US senate hearing into the release of the Lockerbie bomber was “stonewalled” and said senators should focus on getting information from their own government. (...)
Senator Robert Menendez, who was due to chair the hearing into the release of Abdelbaset al Megrahi, said “no witness of consequence has the courage” to testify.
Mr Salmond said yesterday he and Mr MacAskill had a “responsibility to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people”, but added they would give evidence at an international inquiry if it had the “authority and power” to summon every witness and collect every document related to Megrahi’s release. (...)
Speaking in Aberdeen yesterday, Mr Salmond said Scottish ministers could not give evidence on something they “knew nothing about”.
He said: “We cannot help Senator Menendez with the inquiry into BP’s influence on Mr Megrahi’s release, because BP had no influence. There was no contact, formal or informal, between the Scottish Government and BP.”
He added the Scottish Government has “given every facility” to senators, and said: “If I was a senator I would concentrate on getting all the documents relevant to Mr Megrahi’s case from the UK and US governments. From there they might be better placed to consider another hearing.
“Otherwise, I am sure Senator Menendez acknowledges what was said by Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the committee, when he said our replies to the committee have been thoughtful and thorough.
“If there were to be a properly constituted, all-encompassing and internationally-based inquiry with the authority and power to requisition all documents and summon all witnesses we would be happy to co-operate.
“The US Senate is a powerful body, but it is not an international tribunal.”
Money and US politics conspire in bid to link BP with Megrahi
[This is the headline over a column in today's edition of The Scotsman by commentator George Kerevan. It reads in part:]
Why has the mighty US Senate Foreign Relations Committee decided to open investigations into BP and the compassionate release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi? Why did it demand the appearance of Kenny MacAskill, BP chief executive Tony Hayward, Jack Straw and even David Cameron for questioning?
Actually, the mighty US Senate Foreign Relations Committee is not particularly interested in this subject. What happened is that a couple of Democratic members of the committee, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, asked the chairman, ex-presidential candidate John Kerry, if they could hold a single day's hearings as a publicity stunt. The patrician Kerry agreed as a favour.
It should be no surprise that Senate Democrats are giving BP a public kicking and trying to stage television-friendly Senate hearings on the emotive subject of Megrahi. For November sees crucial midterm elections in which the Democrats are predicted to do badly. The latest polls suggest they will lose seven Senate seats, 30 House seats and ten governorships.
Four Democratic senators are pushing the implausible allegation that BP and the former Labour government influenced Kenny MacAskill to let Megrahi go. As well as Menendez and Gillibrand, the quartet includes Charles Schumer, from New York, and Frank Lautenberg, from New Jersey.
Only a third of the Senate is up for re-election but, crucially, that includes both New York seats, which explains why Schumer and Gillibrand are being so outspoken. Also, the New York State upper house is under threat from the Republicans. Ditto in New Jersey, where the Republicans won the governorship last year.
Who are these four senators and what is their personal agenda? [There then follows a lengthy exploration of the murky backgrounds of the four. The article concludes:]
I commiserate with those families who lost loved ones in the Lockerbie massacre. Rather than playing political games for election purposes, I think there should be a genuine inquiry into who really did the bombing. Perhaps the US and British governments would like to open their secret files and tell us what they know.
[The website of USA Today contains an editorial headed "Our view on Lockerbie bomber: The terrorist who didn't die leaves a trail of red faces" and a condensed version of Alex Salmond's letter to Senator John Kerry under the heading "Opposing view on Lockerbie bomber: A good-faith decision".]
Why has the mighty US Senate Foreign Relations Committee decided to open investigations into BP and the compassionate release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi? Why did it demand the appearance of Kenny MacAskill, BP chief executive Tony Hayward, Jack Straw and even David Cameron for questioning?
Actually, the mighty US Senate Foreign Relations Committee is not particularly interested in this subject. What happened is that a couple of Democratic members of the committee, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, asked the chairman, ex-presidential candidate John Kerry, if they could hold a single day's hearings as a publicity stunt. The patrician Kerry agreed as a favour.
It should be no surprise that Senate Democrats are giving BP a public kicking and trying to stage television-friendly Senate hearings on the emotive subject of Megrahi. For November sees crucial midterm elections in which the Democrats are predicted to do badly. The latest polls suggest they will lose seven Senate seats, 30 House seats and ten governorships.
Four Democratic senators are pushing the implausible allegation that BP and the former Labour government influenced Kenny MacAskill to let Megrahi go. As well as Menendez and Gillibrand, the quartet includes Charles Schumer, from New York, and Frank Lautenberg, from New Jersey.
Only a third of the Senate is up for re-election but, crucially, that includes both New York seats, which explains why Schumer and Gillibrand are being so outspoken. Also, the New York State upper house is under threat from the Republicans. Ditto in New Jersey, where the Republicans won the governorship last year.
Who are these four senators and what is their personal agenda? [There then follows a lengthy exploration of the murky backgrounds of the four. The article concludes:]
I commiserate with those families who lost loved ones in the Lockerbie massacre. Rather than playing political games for election purposes, I think there should be a genuine inquiry into who really did the bombing. Perhaps the US and British governments would like to open their secret files and tell us what they know.
[The website of USA Today contains an editorial headed "Our view on Lockerbie bomber: The terrorist who didn't die leaves a trail of red faces" and a condensed version of Alex Salmond's letter to Senator John Kerry under the heading "Opposing view on Lockerbie bomber: A good-faith decision".]
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Lockerbie inquiry widened to stop "stonewalling"
[This is the headline over a report just published on the Telegraph website. It reads in part:]
The senators originally wanted to investigate whether BP “directly or indirectly influenced the decision” to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi in August last year on compassionate grounds.
It has been alleged that a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) was signed by Tony Blair's government and Libya in return for BP being granted a £550 million exploration deal. (...)
Senators have decided to circumvent what they regard as buck-passing by widening their investigation to include everything regarding the release.
Explaining the new plan, Senator Robert Menéndez, who will chair the hearing, said: “We are at a place where no witness of consequence has the courage to step forward and clear the air. They would prefer to sweep this under the rug.
“Because of this stonewalling, we are shifting our efforts to a longer-term, multidimensional inquiry into the release of al-Megrahi.
“The hearing will be postponed and rescheduled, and it will be coupled with an investigation into al-Megrahi’s release.”
He said the committee would take up the Scottish Executive’s decision to provide more information on the case, warning SNP ministers: “Our requests will be frequent and public.”
Senator Chuck Schumer added it was time for Scottish and British ministers “to prove they are part of the solution here and not part of the problem.” (...)
But a spokesman for the First Minister indicated that Mr MacAskill would still refuse to appear before the wider inquiry, adding: “We are responsible as Scottish Ministers to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish people have great respect for the Senate but we are not responsible to the American Senate.”
[Do the Scottish people have great respect for the US Senate? I hae ma douts. Certainly the senators' recent conduct over the Megrahi repatriation has done nothing to engender respect.]
The senators originally wanted to investigate whether BP “directly or indirectly influenced the decision” to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi in August last year on compassionate grounds.
It has been alleged that a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) was signed by Tony Blair's government and Libya in return for BP being granted a £550 million exploration deal. (...)
Senators have decided to circumvent what they regard as buck-passing by widening their investigation to include everything regarding the release.
Explaining the new plan, Senator Robert Menéndez, who will chair the hearing, said: “We are at a place where no witness of consequence has the courage to step forward and clear the air. They would prefer to sweep this under the rug.
“Because of this stonewalling, we are shifting our efforts to a longer-term, multidimensional inquiry into the release of al-Megrahi.
“The hearing will be postponed and rescheduled, and it will be coupled with an investigation into al-Megrahi’s release.”
He said the committee would take up the Scottish Executive’s decision to provide more information on the case, warning SNP ministers: “Our requests will be frequent and public.”
Senator Chuck Schumer added it was time for Scottish and British ministers “to prove they are part of the solution here and not part of the problem.” (...)
But a spokesman for the First Minister indicated that Mr MacAskill would still refuse to appear before the wider inquiry, adding: “We are responsible as Scottish Ministers to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish people have great respect for the Senate but we are not responsible to the American Senate.”
[Do the Scottish people have great respect for the US Senate? I hae ma douts. Certainly the senators' recent conduct over the Megrahi repatriation has done nothing to engender respect.]
Menendez at work
[This is the heading over a post by Greg Milam on the American Pie blog on the Sky News website. It reads as follows:]
British diplomats in Washington are ‘surprised’ at the rant from US Senator Robert Menendez over his aborted hearing on the Lockerbie bomber.
They had no idea that Mr Menendez was going to give the UK both barrels for, in his eyes, helping to scupper the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting this week.
Maybe Mr Menendez feels a little foolish that he so heavily advertised a hearing before waiting for replies to his witness invitations.
But his announcement of the postponement came perilously close to accusing the UK and Scottish authorities of having something to hide.
Some here have labelled what the committee is investigating as a ‘conspiracy theory’.
Pointing the finger at BP is a pretty easy way of earning popularity in the US at the moment but the planned hearing seemed to cross a line.
Here is the evidence: Scotland says the Lockerbie bomber was freed on compassionate ground.
David Cameron (who even changed his schedule to meet Menendez’s team) says he’s seen nothing to suggest BP played any part in the release.
Both parties have co-operated with the committee and sent over a stack of documents.
For these reasons, it is not surprising that the invited witnesses didn’t fancy a few hours of haranguing from American politicians when the answers had already been provided.
It would set quite a precedent for one country’s legislature to feel it can investigate decisions taken by another.
What the committee, and many Americans, don’t seem to like is that BP was lobbying the UK government at all.
But people in glass houses… Many Americans don’t like the lobbying money bunged at senators to stop, for example, healthcare reform.
If they want a clampdown on lobbying, there are a few senators who would see a big black hole appear in their campaign funding.
They might not like BP very much at the moment – but should it really be one rule for one and another for everyone else?
[And the following is from a post by David Hughes, the chief leader writer of the Daily Telegraph, on a blog hosted by that newspaper.]
BP has hardly covered itself in glory over the Gulf oil spill and, as predicted last week, at least one head had to roll before the oil company could start to draw a line under the business. But the mood is changing fast, not only because the company has shown that it can carry the truly colossal cost of this disaster without going down the tubes. It also appears that the slick is vanishing far faster than thought. (...)
It is against this rather encouraging background that we should view the shameless political show-boating of the US Senate in trying to haul BP’s departing chief executive Tony Hayward to Washington (along with former Justice Secretary Jack Straw and Scotland’s Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill) to interrogate them on whether BP lobbied for the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdulbaset al-Megrahi. Wisely, all three have told the Senate to take a running jump. There is something nauseating about this continued hounding of BP by American law-makers. They live in the most oil-dependent country on the planet yet seem obsessed with kicking the companies that have to do the dirty work of getting the black stuff into their gas-guzzlers.
BP has every right to lobby in defence of its commercial interests – are American senators saying it hasn’t? But it is the job of elected politicians – in this case the Scottish Executive – to take the decisions. Perhaps members of the Senate, so used to being manipulated by lobbyists, have lost sight of that distinction. Their attempt to make political mileage out of this should be treated with the contempt it deserves
British diplomats in Washington are ‘surprised’ at the rant from US Senator Robert Menendez over his aborted hearing on the Lockerbie bomber.
They had no idea that Mr Menendez was going to give the UK both barrels for, in his eyes, helping to scupper the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting this week.
Maybe Mr Menendez feels a little foolish that he so heavily advertised a hearing before waiting for replies to his witness invitations.
But his announcement of the postponement came perilously close to accusing the UK and Scottish authorities of having something to hide.
Some here have labelled what the committee is investigating as a ‘conspiracy theory’.
Pointing the finger at BP is a pretty easy way of earning popularity in the US at the moment but the planned hearing seemed to cross a line.
Here is the evidence: Scotland says the Lockerbie bomber was freed on compassionate ground.
David Cameron (who even changed his schedule to meet Menendez’s team) says he’s seen nothing to suggest BP played any part in the release.
Both parties have co-operated with the committee and sent over a stack of documents.
For these reasons, it is not surprising that the invited witnesses didn’t fancy a few hours of haranguing from American politicians when the answers had already been provided.
It would set quite a precedent for one country’s legislature to feel it can investigate decisions taken by another.
What the committee, and many Americans, don’t seem to like is that BP was lobbying the UK government at all.
But people in glass houses… Many Americans don’t like the lobbying money bunged at senators to stop, for example, healthcare reform.
If they want a clampdown on lobbying, there are a few senators who would see a big black hole appear in their campaign funding.
They might not like BP very much at the moment – but should it really be one rule for one and another for everyone else?
[And the following is from a post by David Hughes, the chief leader writer of the Daily Telegraph, on a blog hosted by that newspaper.]
BP has hardly covered itself in glory over the Gulf oil spill and, as predicted last week, at least one head had to roll before the oil company could start to draw a line under the business. But the mood is changing fast, not only because the company has shown that it can carry the truly colossal cost of this disaster without going down the tubes. It also appears that the slick is vanishing far faster than thought. (...)
It is against this rather encouraging background that we should view the shameless political show-boating of the US Senate in trying to haul BP’s departing chief executive Tony Hayward to Washington (along with former Justice Secretary Jack Straw and Scotland’s Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill) to interrogate them on whether BP lobbied for the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdulbaset al-Megrahi. Wisely, all three have told the Senate to take a running jump. There is something nauseating about this continued hounding of BP by American law-makers. They live in the most oil-dependent country on the planet yet seem obsessed with kicking the companies that have to do the dirty work of getting the black stuff into their gas-guzzlers.
BP has every right to lobby in defence of its commercial interests – are American senators saying it hasn’t? But it is the job of elected politicians – in this case the Scottish Executive – to take the decisions. Perhaps members of the Senate, so used to being manipulated by lobbyists, have lost sight of that distinction. Their attempt to make political mileage out of this should be treated with the contempt it deserves
Scottish 'travesty'
[This is the headline over an article in the Embassy Row section of The Washington Times website. It reads in part:]
President Obama's top counterterrorism aide denounced Scotland's decision last year to release the Lockerbie bomber as a "travesty" and categorically denied a widespread report that the United States secretly endorsed the decision to free the Libyan terrorist, who was sentenced to life in prison. (...)
John Brennan, deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism, this week wrote Frank Duggan, president of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, in response to a major British newspaper's report Sunday that the Obama administration "secretly" agreed to al-Megrahi's release. (...)
The Sunday Times of London based its story on a letter dated Aug 12, 2009, from Richard LeBaron, the top diplomat at the US Embassy in London at the time, and Alex Salmond, the first minister of the Scottish government. Conservative talk-show hosts in the United States picked up the story the next day and accused Mr Obama of being soft on terrorism.
Mr Brennan sent Mr Duggan a copy of the LeBaron letter, and the State Department released the document Monday to show that the United States never acquiesced in al-Megrahi's release.
Mr Brennan said he personally made that position clear to Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill (...)
Al-Megrahi's "crime was unforgivable and his sentence was just, and MacAskill's decision was a travesty that should be strongly denounced by all," Mr Brennan said.
Mr Duggan on Tuesday praised the Obama administration for quickly releasing the letter.
President Obama's top counterterrorism aide denounced Scotland's decision last year to release the Lockerbie bomber as a "travesty" and categorically denied a widespread report that the United States secretly endorsed the decision to free the Libyan terrorist, who was sentenced to life in prison. (...)
John Brennan, deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism, this week wrote Frank Duggan, president of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, in response to a major British newspaper's report Sunday that the Obama administration "secretly" agreed to al-Megrahi's release. (...)
The Sunday Times of London based its story on a letter dated Aug 12, 2009, from Richard LeBaron, the top diplomat at the US Embassy in London at the time, and Alex Salmond, the first minister of the Scottish government. Conservative talk-show hosts in the United States picked up the story the next day and accused Mr Obama of being soft on terrorism.
Mr Brennan sent Mr Duggan a copy of the LeBaron letter, and the State Department released the document Monday to show that the United States never acquiesced in al-Megrahi's release.
Mr Brennan said he personally made that position clear to Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill (...)
Al-Megrahi's "crime was unforgivable and his sentence was just, and MacAskill's decision was a travesty that should be strongly denounced by all," Mr Brennan said.
Mr Duggan on Tuesday praised the Obama administration for quickly releasing the letter.
UK government has "learned lessons" over Megrahi affair
The UK government said that "significant lessons" have been learned in relations with Scotland after the row over the Lockerbie bomber's release.
The Tory-Lib Dem coalition said it wants to build more "positive relations" with Edinburgh after the fallout from the freeing of Abdelbaset ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
The comments came in a response to a recent Scottish Affairs Select Committee report into relations between the two administrations.
"We believe that there are significant lessons from this disagreement that have already been learnt," the UK government response said.
"The government's priority is to build more positive relations with the Scottish Government in all areas."
The SNP Government clashed with the previous Labour administration at Westminster over a controversial "deal in the desert" agreed with Libya three years ago without Edinburgh's knowledge.
The Memorandum of Understanding paved the way for a prisoner transfer agreement, which Megrahi unsuccessfully applied for to Scottish ministers.
Yesterday's response states: "In future the government will consider carefully the appropriate balance between interests of confidentiality and the responsibility to keep the Scottish Government informed of international agreements made on its behalf.
"This includes consultation with the devolved administrations on matters relating to international relations which touch upon devolved matters."
[From a report in today's edition of The Scotsman.]
The Tory-Lib Dem coalition said it wants to build more "positive relations" with Edinburgh after the fallout from the freeing of Abdelbaset ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
The comments came in a response to a recent Scottish Affairs Select Committee report into relations between the two administrations.
"We believe that there are significant lessons from this disagreement that have already been learnt," the UK government response said.
"The government's priority is to build more positive relations with the Scottish Government in all areas."
The SNP Government clashed with the previous Labour administration at Westminster over a controversial "deal in the desert" agreed with Libya three years ago without Edinburgh's knowledge.
The Memorandum of Understanding paved the way for a prisoner transfer agreement, which Megrahi unsuccessfully applied for to Scottish ministers.
Yesterday's response states: "In future the government will consider carefully the appropriate balance between interests of confidentiality and the responsibility to keep the Scottish Government informed of international agreements made on its behalf.
"This includes consultation with the devolved administrations on matters relating to international relations which touch upon devolved matters."
[From a report in today's edition of The Scotsman.]
Senate postpones BP-Lockerbie hearing
[This is the headline over a Reuters news agency report on the ABC News website. It reads in part:]
Senators postponed a hearing on whether British oil giant BP plc influenced the release of the Lockerbie bomber, saying on Tuesday key witnesses had "stonewalled" the investigation by refusing to appear.
Senator Robert Menendez announced the postponement of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing set for Thursday and said it would be rescheduled "in the near future." (...)
Menendez said the Senate committee had called two Scottish officials, former British Justice Secretary Jack Straw and two BP executives -- including departing chief executive Tony Hayward -- but all had declined to testify.
"It is utterly disappointing and I think pretty outrageous that none of these key witnesses will cooperate with our request to answer questions before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They have stonewalled," Menendez told reporters.
"It is a game of diplomatic tennis that is worthy of Wimbledon but not worthy on behalf of the lives of the families who still have to deal with this terrorist act and the consequences of the lost loved ones."
He said the panel would conduct a longer-term investigation of the release of the Lockerbie bomber, noting the Scottish government did offer to provide answers to further questions.
"We appreciate that and we will take them up on their offer," he said.
[The report on the BBC News website can be read here.
The Herald's report contains the following:]
Dr Jim Swire, who daughter was killed in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and who has protested the innocence of Megrahi, said: “Kenny MacAskill made himself pretty clear that he used compassionate release in line with Scots law and explained to the Senators that he had nothing further to add.
“I suppose it is quite embarrassing for the Senate if they have no one to testify.”
[The report in The Independent includes the following:]
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the crash, said today that the US senators were looking at links between BP's commercial interest in Libya and the return of Megrahi.
"That's a question that if anyone from Britain could address, it would be people from Westminster," Dr Swire told BBC Radio Scotland.
"People have forgotten that there is no real link between his release and the so-called 'deal in the desert', because Kenny MacAskill and Alex Salmond didn't want to touch the prisoner transfer agreement which was set up in the deal in the desert."
Megrahi was eventually freed under compassionate release after medical evidence indicated the bomber had three months to live.
Dr Swire believes that Megrahi has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
"Are we not interested that the man who has been freed by Kenny MacAskill might, in fact, not be the man who was involved in causing the tragedy?" he said.
"That seems to me over-ridingly a more important question than the question of the minutiae of why he was freed.
"I can understand why they major in on those aspects of it, but I do think it's relatively peripheral."
[The Newsnet Scotland report on the issue can be read here. Newsnet Scotland's coverage of the whole saga of the US Senate circus has been exemplary.]
Senators postponed a hearing on whether British oil giant BP plc influenced the release of the Lockerbie bomber, saying on Tuesday key witnesses had "stonewalled" the investigation by refusing to appear.
Senator Robert Menendez announced the postponement of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing set for Thursday and said it would be rescheduled "in the near future." (...)
Menendez said the Senate committee had called two Scottish officials, former British Justice Secretary Jack Straw and two BP executives -- including departing chief executive Tony Hayward -- but all had declined to testify.
"It is utterly disappointing and I think pretty outrageous that none of these key witnesses will cooperate with our request to answer questions before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They have stonewalled," Menendez told reporters.
"It is a game of diplomatic tennis that is worthy of Wimbledon but not worthy on behalf of the lives of the families who still have to deal with this terrorist act and the consequences of the lost loved ones."
He said the panel would conduct a longer-term investigation of the release of the Lockerbie bomber, noting the Scottish government did offer to provide answers to further questions.
"We appreciate that and we will take them up on their offer," he said.
[The report on the BBC News website can be read here.
The Herald's report contains the following:]
Dr Jim Swire, who daughter was killed in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and who has protested the innocence of Megrahi, said: “Kenny MacAskill made himself pretty clear that he used compassionate release in line with Scots law and explained to the Senators that he had nothing further to add.
“I suppose it is quite embarrassing for the Senate if they have no one to testify.”
[The report in The Independent includes the following:]
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the crash, said today that the US senators were looking at links between BP's commercial interest in Libya and the return of Megrahi.
"That's a question that if anyone from Britain could address, it would be people from Westminster," Dr Swire told BBC Radio Scotland.
"People have forgotten that there is no real link between his release and the so-called 'deal in the desert', because Kenny MacAskill and Alex Salmond didn't want to touch the prisoner transfer agreement which was set up in the deal in the desert."
Megrahi was eventually freed under compassionate release after medical evidence indicated the bomber had three months to live.
Dr Swire believes that Megrahi has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
"Are we not interested that the man who has been freed by Kenny MacAskill might, in fact, not be the man who was involved in causing the tragedy?" he said.
"That seems to me over-ridingly a more important question than the question of the minutiae of why he was freed.
"I can understand why they major in on those aspects of it, but I do think it's relatively peripheral."
[The Newsnet Scotland report on the issue can be read here. Newsnet Scotland's coverage of the whole saga of the US Senate circus has been exemplary.]
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
Senate interested in trade group letter urging Megrahi release
[This is the headline over an article on the US Politico website. It reads in part:]
Senate aides looking into the release of Abdulbaset Al-Megrahi are focusing on a letter from the chairman of a British Libyan trade group that includes British Petroleum warning that not releasing him from a Scottish prison before his death would cause serious harm to UK-Libyan relations and for its business members.
The letter was written to the Scottish justice secretary in July, 2009 by Lord David Trefgarne, a peer in the British House of Lords and chairman of the trade group, the Libyan British Business Council. (...)
BP has said that it never lobbied either the UK or Scottish government for Megrahi’s release.
BP told Politico Tuesday it knew nothing about the letter until it appeared in the press.
Among the LBBC's members, according to its website, are BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil, HSBC, Barclays Bank, the British Arab Commercial Bank, DLA Piper UK LLP, KPMG, and the Wood Group Engineering International.
[The article completely fails to mention Kenny MacAskill's reply to Lord Trefgarne, which contains the sentence "I have said quite clearly that my decision will be one based on judicial grounds alone and that economic and political considerations have no place in the process."
Is what we are now hearing from the USA the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped?]
Senate aides looking into the release of Abdulbaset Al-Megrahi are focusing on a letter from the chairman of a British Libyan trade group that includes British Petroleum warning that not releasing him from a Scottish prison before his death would cause serious harm to UK-Libyan relations and for its business members.
The letter was written to the Scottish justice secretary in July, 2009 by Lord David Trefgarne, a peer in the British House of Lords and chairman of the trade group, the Libyan British Business Council. (...)
BP has said that it never lobbied either the UK or Scottish government for Megrahi’s release.
BP told Politico Tuesday it knew nothing about the letter until it appeared in the press.
Among the LBBC's members, according to its website, are BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil, HSBC, Barclays Bank, the British Arab Commercial Bank, DLA Piper UK LLP, KPMG, and the Wood Group Engineering International.
[The article completely fails to mention Kenny MacAskill's reply to Lord Trefgarne, which contains the sentence "I have said quite clearly that my decision will be one based on judicial grounds alone and that economic and political considerations have no place in the process."
Is what we are now hearing from the USA the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped?]
BP says Hayward won't testify at hearing
BP has said that outgoing chief executive Tony Hayward will not testify at a US Senate hearing examining whether the British oil giant influenced the release of the Lockerbie bomber, the office of Senator Robert Menendez said on Tuesday. (...)
BP has offered to send another representative to testify at Thursday's hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to be chaired by Menendez, an aide to the senator told Reuters, without giving the BP official's name.
[From a Reuters news agency report on the ABC News website.
Perhaps Sen Menendez might learn some lessons or pick up some hints from "What if you threw a party and no-one came?"]
BP has offered to send another representative to testify at Thursday's hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to be chaired by Menendez, an aide to the senator told Reuters, without giving the BP official's name.
[From a Reuters news agency report on the ABC News website.
Perhaps Sen Menendez might learn some lessons or pick up some hints from "What if you threw a party and no-one came?"]
Genuine respect for the truth must be at the centre of any system of justice
[This is the heading over a letter from Mrs Jo Greenhorn in today's edition of The Herald. It reads:]
Chris Parton suggests we should put the whole Megrahi affair down to experience and move on (Letters, Monday July 26). I cannot agree. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s release is one thing, the truth about Lockerbie is quite another. Recent events, involving the US, have very much backfired on the Americans as newspapers, including The Herald, are calling for a full investigation into Lockerbie, not just Megrahi’s release. I hope such calls grow louder by the day until those who stand in the way of an independent investigation – and they are mainly politicians – are defeated.
I have lately listened to certain politicians, including the current Prime Minister, speak about “justice” and found myself wondering where their particular definition of that word comes from. It is certainly from no dictionary. Those who speak about justice with phoney passion, while at the same time doing all in their power to ensure there is no role for the truth in proceedings, are hypocrites. They insult all of us who truly do believe in justice and who believe, with a genuine passion, that if respect for the truth isn’t at the centre of any justice system then that system is not entitled to use the word justice in its title.
Mr Parton doubts the truth can be uncovered anyway. What we certainly do know is that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission cited six separate grounds to suggest the man convicted for the crime committed over Lockerbie was possibly not the person responsible. I would not apply the “hindsight” or the “spilt milk” approach to such a revelation. My preferred route would be the Court of Appeal, which is where Megrahi’s journey should have taken him ultimately had any sort of justice prevailed.
[The other four letters on the topic are also worth reading.]
Chris Parton suggests we should put the whole Megrahi affair down to experience and move on (Letters, Monday July 26). I cannot agree. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s release is one thing, the truth about Lockerbie is quite another. Recent events, involving the US, have very much backfired on the Americans as newspapers, including The Herald, are calling for a full investigation into Lockerbie, not just Megrahi’s release. I hope such calls grow louder by the day until those who stand in the way of an independent investigation – and they are mainly politicians – are defeated.
I have lately listened to certain politicians, including the current Prime Minister, speak about “justice” and found myself wondering where their particular definition of that word comes from. It is certainly from no dictionary. Those who speak about justice with phoney passion, while at the same time doing all in their power to ensure there is no role for the truth in proceedings, are hypocrites. They insult all of us who truly do believe in justice and who believe, with a genuine passion, that if respect for the truth isn’t at the centre of any justice system then that system is not entitled to use the word justice in its title.
Mr Parton doubts the truth can be uncovered anyway. What we certainly do know is that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission cited six separate grounds to suggest the man convicted for the crime committed over Lockerbie was possibly not the person responsible. I would not apply the “hindsight” or the “spilt milk” approach to such a revelation. My preferred route would be the Court of Appeal, which is where Megrahi’s journey should have taken him ultimately had any sort of justice prevailed.
[The other four letters on the topic are also worth reading.]
US declines to allow release of note of MacAskill-Holder phone call
The Obama administration has no plans to release any further correspondence with Scotland relating to the release of the Libyan convicted in the Lockerbie bombing.
“Nothing more needs to be released,” State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told CNSNews on Monday, after the department made public the text of a letter sent to Scottish ministers eight days before Abdel Baset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was freed and flown home to Libya.
Earlier, the Scottish government said there were two documents relating to last year’s correspondence between Scottish and US officials on Megrahi, which the US government had withheld permission for Edinburgh to release. (...)
The second document cited by Scotland was described as “our note of the conversation” between Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill and Attorney General Eric Holder. The two apparently spoke by telephone on June 26, 2009.
Ahead of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the matter scheduled for Thursday, CNSNews asked Crowley whether that final, still-unreleased document would now be made available.
Crowley said there were multiple phone conversations “over a number of months” with Scottish officials relating to Megrahi, involving Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials.
He questioned how the US would be in a position to verify the authenticity of a Scottish description of a single conversation. “How can we agree on a Scottish account of a phone conversation between leaders?”
Crowley said that all phone conversations on the matter were consistent with the position laid out in the LeBaron letter – “that Megrahi should never leave Scotland.”
[The above are excerpts from a report just published on the CNS News website.]
“Nothing more needs to be released,” State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told CNSNews on Monday, after the department made public the text of a letter sent to Scottish ministers eight days before Abdel Baset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was freed and flown home to Libya.
Earlier, the Scottish government said there were two documents relating to last year’s correspondence between Scottish and US officials on Megrahi, which the US government had withheld permission for Edinburgh to release. (...)
The second document cited by Scotland was described as “our note of the conversation” between Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill and Attorney General Eric Holder. The two apparently spoke by telephone on June 26, 2009.
Ahead of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the matter scheduled for Thursday, CNSNews asked Crowley whether that final, still-unreleased document would now be made available.
Crowley said there were multiple phone conversations “over a number of months” with Scottish officials relating to Megrahi, involving Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials.
He questioned how the US would be in a position to verify the authenticity of a Scottish description of a single conversation. “How can we agree on a Scottish account of a phone conversation between leaders?”
Crowley said that all phone conversations on the matter were consistent with the position laid out in the LeBaron letter – “that Megrahi should never leave Scotland.”
[The above are excerpts from a report just published on the CNS News website.]
The frame-up of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi
This is the heading over an article on the US website Veterans Today. It is by Alexander Cockburn and incorporates the work on Lockerbie done by his brother, Andrew. I draw attention to it, not simply for its content which is well-known to those who have taken the trouble to follow the Lockerbie saga, but because of the website that has published it. Normally in the United States the only places that will even think of publishing anything other than strict Lockerbie orthodoxy, US-style, are left-wing, radical, pinko, liberal, weirdo, counterculture sites. Veterans Today does not fall into this category.
US politics struts the stage over Lockerbie bomber row
[This is the headline over an article by journalist, commentator and clergyman Ron Ferguson in today's edition of The Press and Journal a daily newspaper circulating mainly in Aberdeen and the north of Scotland. It reads in part:]
The Scottish Government is quite right to turn down the invitation from Washington to appear before the US Senate. Why on earth should Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill accept a summons to cross the Atlantic and be interrogated by senators who are posturing before their own electorates?
Let's be clear: this furore is more about domestic politics in the US than it is about an international incident. Senators who are nervous about their prospects at forthcoming elections are trying to gain political kudos by grandstanding in front of the TV cameras.
“Thanks, but no thanks," is the correct response from the Scottish Government. Scotland may be a small country, but our elected representatives should not roll over just because America snaps its fingers. (...)
What about the fact that al Megrahi is still alive? Kenny MacAskill could deal only with the expert medical information he was given. He is not a medical man. He depended on the reports of the experts.
As any doctor knows, predicting how long someone with a terminal illness will last is far from being an exact science. Various factors can come into play, such as the morale of the person suffering the illness.
Al Megrahi’s return to his family may well have had a positive effect on his inner wellbeing. What no one disputes is that al Megrahi is suffering from terminal cancer.
I applaud First Minister Alex Salmond's statement that he will not let the US “bully” Scotland. He is right to point out that American anger at the huge BP oil spill has fuelled the attacks on his government by politicians from across the Atlantic.
“This is all about BP,” he said. “We don’t object to people asking us questions, but the point about going to the Senate hearing is quite clear. Serving ministers are responsible to their parliaments and their people. I am responsible to the people and parliament of Scotland – not, with great respect, to the American senators.
“No American senator or government official would ever turn to any other parliament’s committee to be held responsible. No American came to the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War, for example.”
Mr Salmond has written to Senator John Kerry, who will chair the US Senate committee, laying out the Scottish Government’s position on the matter. He added: “John Kerry described the letter of evidence that I sent as thoughtful and thorough and asked if it could be read on to the record of the committee, and I said yes.
“That tells everything that we have got to say on the issue. They are inquiring into BP’s influence, as they see it, in securing the release of al Megrahi. BP had no influence over the Scottish Government and there was no contact between BP and the Scottish Government – formal or informal – in this entire process. Fact.”
We could do with an inquiry into the whole Pan Am case, but it should be an independent inquiry, not a piece of political theatre designed to save skins in Washington.
The Scottish Government is quite right to turn down the invitation from Washington to appear before the US Senate. Why on earth should Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill accept a summons to cross the Atlantic and be interrogated by senators who are posturing before their own electorates?
Let's be clear: this furore is more about domestic politics in the US than it is about an international incident. Senators who are nervous about their prospects at forthcoming elections are trying to gain political kudos by grandstanding in front of the TV cameras.
“Thanks, but no thanks," is the correct response from the Scottish Government. Scotland may be a small country, but our elected representatives should not roll over just because America snaps its fingers. (...)
What about the fact that al Megrahi is still alive? Kenny MacAskill could deal only with the expert medical information he was given. He is not a medical man. He depended on the reports of the experts.
As any doctor knows, predicting how long someone with a terminal illness will last is far from being an exact science. Various factors can come into play, such as the morale of the person suffering the illness.
Al Megrahi’s return to his family may well have had a positive effect on his inner wellbeing. What no one disputes is that al Megrahi is suffering from terminal cancer.
I applaud First Minister Alex Salmond's statement that he will not let the US “bully” Scotland. He is right to point out that American anger at the huge BP oil spill has fuelled the attacks on his government by politicians from across the Atlantic.
“This is all about BP,” he said. “We don’t object to people asking us questions, but the point about going to the Senate hearing is quite clear. Serving ministers are responsible to their parliaments and their people. I am responsible to the people and parliament of Scotland – not, with great respect, to the American senators.
“No American senator or government official would ever turn to any other parliament’s committee to be held responsible. No American came to the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War, for example.”
Mr Salmond has written to Senator John Kerry, who will chair the US Senate committee, laying out the Scottish Government’s position on the matter. He added: “John Kerry described the letter of evidence that I sent as thoughtful and thorough and asked if it could be read on to the record of the committee, and I said yes.
“That tells everything that we have got to say on the issue. They are inquiring into BP’s influence, as they see it, in securing the release of al Megrahi. BP had no influence over the Scottish Government and there was no contact between BP and the Scottish Government – formal or informal – in this entire process. Fact.”
We could do with an inquiry into the whole Pan Am case, but it should be an independent inquiry, not a piece of political theatre designed to save skins in Washington.
US warnings on Megrahi release have come true
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Pressure is mounting on Alex Salmond after it emerged that two warnings issued by the US Government about releasing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi back to Libya have been borne out by events.
Just eight days before the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing boarded a plane back to Tripoli, Richard LeBaron, a diplomat at the US embassy in London, wrote to the First Minister, raising concerns that, if he had to be released, Megrahi should stay in Scotland because if he returned to Libya, he would receive a hero’s welcome.
LeBaron also told Salmond that a release on compassionate grounds would become increasingly hard to justify the longer the Libyan survived beyond the three-month prognosis.
The warnings from Washington have proved prescient as Megrahi was indeed given a hero’s welcome – complete with the flying of Scottish saltires at the airport, which caused revulsion across Scotland and beyond – and his survival after 11 months has prolonged the controversy about his release. (...)
The Herald revealed in 2005 that UK and US officials were meeting in secret to agree a way to transfer Megrahi back to Libya.
[See also the report in this week's Sunday Express headed "US Spy's secret 'desert deal' before release of Lockerbie bomber".]
Pressure is mounting on Alex Salmond after it emerged that two warnings issued by the US Government about releasing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi back to Libya have been borne out by events.
Just eight days before the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing boarded a plane back to Tripoli, Richard LeBaron, a diplomat at the US embassy in London, wrote to the First Minister, raising concerns that, if he had to be released, Megrahi should stay in Scotland because if he returned to Libya, he would receive a hero’s welcome.
LeBaron also told Salmond that a release on compassionate grounds would become increasingly hard to justify the longer the Libyan survived beyond the three-month prognosis.
The warnings from Washington have proved prescient as Megrahi was indeed given a hero’s welcome – complete with the flying of Scottish saltires at the airport, which caused revulsion across Scotland and beyond – and his survival after 11 months has prolonged the controversy about his release. (...)
The Herald revealed in 2005 that UK and US officials were meeting in secret to agree a way to transfer Megrahi back to Libya.
[See also the report in this week's Sunday Express headed "US Spy's secret 'desert deal' before release of Lockerbie bomber".]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)