[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
The leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland is facing criticism after he attacked America’s “culture of vengeance” and defended the decision to release the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing on compassionate grounds.
In a dramatic intervention into the furious row over the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, Cardinal Keith O’Brien said that Americans should assess their own judicial decisions before criticising those of other countries.
He compared America to Iran and Saudi Arabia because of its use of the death penalty, and defended Scottish officials’ decision to refuse to appear before American senators investigating the circumstances of the release. Scottish politicians should not go “crawling” to America, he said.
A spokesman for Senator Robert Menendez, the New Jersey senator heading the investigation into Megrahi’s release, last night declined to comment, but Frank Duggan, spokesman for the Victims of Pan Am 103 group, criticised the Cardinal’s intervention.
He said: “I’m a Catholic and we know that the Catholic Church has long opposed the death penalty.
“But I think the bishop here should stick to his knitting, and render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” (...)
Experts said yesterday that the calculation should have taken into account further treatment for the Libyan’s prostate cancer. Medics who made the prediction should have recognised that planned chemotherapy would extend his life, according to a group of doctors.
One of them, Professor Roger Kirby, director of the Prostate Centre in London, said that the Scottish Government had made a mistake because it did not “ask the right questions to the right people”.
But a Government spokesman said that Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care for the Scottish Prison Service, who provided the clinical assessment of Megrahi’s condition for Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, was “a professional of unimpeachable integrity”.
He added: “Dr Fraser drew on expert advice from a number of cancer specialists in coming to his clinical assessment that a three-month prognosis was a reasonable estimate for Megrahi – it was not based on the opinion of any one doctor. These specialists included two consultant oncologists, two consultant urologists and a number of other specialists, including a palliative care team, and Mr Megrahi’s primary care physician.”
Last night Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the tragedy, said America was too keen to “kick ass” without asking if they had got the right man, and said he was glad Megrahi had never faced the death penalty.
Dr Swire said that he agreed with the Cardinal’s comments.
“We should look for justice rather than vengeance,” he said. “I agree with him in criticising that culture.
“American culture is bordering on the search for vengeance and the desire to kick ass, without asking if it is the right ass to kick.
“We have always said that we need to know the truth and would like to extract something good from this, and vengeance is a disgraceful way for a self-confessed Christian nation to behave.”
“What about the question of whether Megrahi is guilty or not?” he added.
However, he said he was not criticising the American relatives of Lockerbie victims and that it would be wrong to say they belonged to that culture.
Dr Swire also revealed that he had written a letter to the Cardinal praising him for speaking out but warning him that with such comments “you have to expect flak, unfortunately”.
Mr MacAskill, who made the decision to release Megrahi, described the Cardinal’s comments as “considered” and “thoughtful”.
[The Scotsman's report on the issue can be read here.]
Monday, 9 August 2010
It remains crucial we find out the truth of the atrocity that happened at Lockerbie
[This is the heading over three letters published in today's edition of The Herald. They read as follows:]
Fred McManus reminds us all of the terrible scenes facing police officers in the immediate aftermath of the Lockerbie atrocity (“Still haunted by the scale of the slaughter at Lockerbie”, Letters, August 7).
I am sure those scenes will remain with them for ever. I must, however, disagree that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s guilt was proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
Information now in the public domain, and which has been around for some time, suggests otherwise. I would highly recommend the writings of Professor Robert Black, a man who is undoubtedly part of the establishment, but who makes abundantly clear his absolute shame over the manner in which the original trial was conducted. He is not alone. [Note by RB: If I was ever part of the establishment, which is doubtful, my membership has been revoked because of my activities following the Lockerbie trial.]
Mr McManus says Megrahi is guilty “until the due process of law shows otherwise”. That is why I would question the reluctance of so many politicians, and the judiciary, to set that due process of law in motion and examine properly the doubts raised about the original conviction. Megrahi dropped his appeal but we weren’t told why or what pressures were applied. But the myth, that with the appeal gone we cannot now investigate, is simply that: a myth.
What is true is this: if the political will to investigate existed in Scotland, at Westminster or within the Scottish judiciary then we would indeed get an investigation. The attempts by all of these groups to obstruct such an investigation surely represent a heinous crime too.
Mr McManus concedes that perhaps the verdict is unsafe but, bizarrely, emphasises only perhaps. I’m not sure what point he seeks to make. Is he saying it doesn’t matter that a man could have been wrongly convicted? I do hope not.
For in a crime of this enormity, surely there can be no room for doubt. That is what politicians, the judiciary and, yes, those police officers who had to go to the site and witness unimaginable horror should believe. They should want to know we convicted the right man – and if there are doubts, they, more than anyone, should want those doubts tested publicly and thoroughly in the interests of justice.
Jo Greenhorn
As a one-time ambulance driver, I can only be at the threshold of appreciation of the horrendous trauma experienced by former police inspector Fred McManus and his team of unsung heroes in front-line emergency duties after the Lockerbie bombing. He and his colleagues have my utmost gratitude and respect for work which is unthinkingly taken for granted by us all, and consequently I can empathise with his views on Megrahi.
However, I am one of those who believes there is a prima facie case that he was not responsible and that it also appears he did not act alone.
I fear that until questions being asked by Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the atrocity, and others are openly addressed, this wound to our communal sense of justice will fester into infinity. I also believe that grieving families are not best served by American and British Governments avoiding important outstanding issues while allowing focus to centre on the development of a relatively minor storm over the nature of terminal cancer and on compassionate release. (...)
George Devlin
I was greatly heartened to read Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s open letter admonishing the vengeance culture in the United States which feeds an emotion that can never be quenched and which proves that to be the case with recent hounding of the Scottish Parliament and the UK to answer for the release of Megrahi.
I hope that the plain speaking of both the cardinal and Prime Minister David Cameron heralds a new age of international relationships built on truth and justice, painful though that may be. Our lives depend upon it.
Janet Cunningham
[The Herald also runs an editorial headed "Inquiry needed into release of Megrahi" which contains the following]:
Next week it will be exactly one year since Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, was released from prison on compassionate grounds.
This newspaper said at the time that it was the right decision to release Megrahi and we still believe that.
However, it is clear that the longer Megrahi survives, the more problematic it becomes to defend a release on compassionate grounds and the easier it becomes for critics of the decision, particularly in America, to suggest there were other factors at play, most notably the trading interests of BP. (...)
If Mr MacAskill did all he reasonably could to establish good medical grounds for the release of Megrahi, we wholeheartedly support his decision. However, it may be that the only way to establish this for certain – and to rebuff those critics in America who have so angered Cardinal O’Brien – is to hold a full, public inquiry into the decision to release Megrahi.
It is something we have consistently called for and the case for one remains strong.
[The leader writer's memory is at fault. The Herald has never in the past called for a public inquiry into Megrahi's release. What the newspaper has called for is a full independent inquiry into the Lockerbie case, including Mr Megrahi's conviction.]
Fred McManus reminds us all of the terrible scenes facing police officers in the immediate aftermath of the Lockerbie atrocity (“Still haunted by the scale of the slaughter at Lockerbie”, Letters, August 7).
I am sure those scenes will remain with them for ever. I must, however, disagree that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s guilt was proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
Information now in the public domain, and which has been around for some time, suggests otherwise. I would highly recommend the writings of Professor Robert Black, a man who is undoubtedly part of the establishment, but who makes abundantly clear his absolute shame over the manner in which the original trial was conducted. He is not alone. [Note by RB: If I was ever part of the establishment, which is doubtful, my membership has been revoked because of my activities following the Lockerbie trial.]
Mr McManus says Megrahi is guilty “until the due process of law shows otherwise”. That is why I would question the reluctance of so many politicians, and the judiciary, to set that due process of law in motion and examine properly the doubts raised about the original conviction. Megrahi dropped his appeal but we weren’t told why or what pressures were applied. But the myth, that with the appeal gone we cannot now investigate, is simply that: a myth.
What is true is this: if the political will to investigate existed in Scotland, at Westminster or within the Scottish judiciary then we would indeed get an investigation. The attempts by all of these groups to obstruct such an investigation surely represent a heinous crime too.
Mr McManus concedes that perhaps the verdict is unsafe but, bizarrely, emphasises only perhaps. I’m not sure what point he seeks to make. Is he saying it doesn’t matter that a man could have been wrongly convicted? I do hope not.
For in a crime of this enormity, surely there can be no room for doubt. That is what politicians, the judiciary and, yes, those police officers who had to go to the site and witness unimaginable horror should believe. They should want to know we convicted the right man – and if there are doubts, they, more than anyone, should want those doubts tested publicly and thoroughly in the interests of justice.
Jo Greenhorn
As a one-time ambulance driver, I can only be at the threshold of appreciation of the horrendous trauma experienced by former police inspector Fred McManus and his team of unsung heroes in front-line emergency duties after the Lockerbie bombing. He and his colleagues have my utmost gratitude and respect for work which is unthinkingly taken for granted by us all, and consequently I can empathise with his views on Megrahi.
However, I am one of those who believes there is a prima facie case that he was not responsible and that it also appears he did not act alone.
I fear that until questions being asked by Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the atrocity, and others are openly addressed, this wound to our communal sense of justice will fester into infinity. I also believe that grieving families are not best served by American and British Governments avoiding important outstanding issues while allowing focus to centre on the development of a relatively minor storm over the nature of terminal cancer and on compassionate release. (...)
George Devlin
I was greatly heartened to read Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s open letter admonishing the vengeance culture in the United States which feeds an emotion that can never be quenched and which proves that to be the case with recent hounding of the Scottish Parliament and the UK to answer for the release of Megrahi.
I hope that the plain speaking of both the cardinal and Prime Minister David Cameron heralds a new age of international relationships built on truth and justice, painful though that may be. Our lives depend upon it.
Janet Cunningham
[The Herald also runs an editorial headed "Inquiry needed into release of Megrahi" which contains the following]:
Next week it will be exactly one year since Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, was released from prison on compassionate grounds.
This newspaper said at the time that it was the right decision to release Megrahi and we still believe that.
However, it is clear that the longer Megrahi survives, the more problematic it becomes to defend a release on compassionate grounds and the easier it becomes for critics of the decision, particularly in America, to suggest there were other factors at play, most notably the trading interests of BP. (...)
If Mr MacAskill did all he reasonably could to establish good medical grounds for the release of Megrahi, we wholeheartedly support his decision. However, it may be that the only way to establish this for certain – and to rebuff those critics in America who have so angered Cardinal O’Brien – is to hold a full, public inquiry into the decision to release Megrahi.
It is something we have consistently called for and the case for one remains strong.
[The leader writer's memory is at fault. The Herald has never in the past called for a public inquiry into Megrahi's release. What the newspaper has called for is a full independent inquiry into the Lockerbie case, including Mr Megrahi's conviction.]
Fringe play tells Swire story
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Herald. The following are excerpts:]
An Edinburgh Fringe play about the Lockerbie bombing has sparked poignant memories for Dr Jim Swire on whose original writings it is based.
Dr Swire and his wife Jane were haunted by the soundtrack of Lockerbie: Unfinished Business, in which their daughter Flora sings some of her favourite songs as a child.
She wanted to follow in her father’s footsteps and study medicine at Cambridge University, but died along with 269 others in the Lockerbie disaster of December 21, 1988, the day before her 24th birthday.
Dr Swire, 74, said: “My daughter was a free spirit and her death was such a waste of all the energy and effort she put into life.
“It was so hard at first. We were numb with grief and misery. Often I wondered if we could survive the experience – but we have.
“At the time, it was impossible to relate words like terrorism and bombs to our beautiful daughter.
“Lockerbie never goes away. It is like a big heavy overcoat that you never seem quite able to take off.
“When you’ve got children and something bad happens to one of them, you torture yourself with thoughts about how much they might have suffered.
“Every parent wants to prevent their child from suffering and we couldn’t because we weren’t there. That is what really hurts.”
The new play by David Benson is based on an unpublished book, Moving the World, written by Dr Swire and Peter Biddulph.
It covers the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and his co-accused Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah at at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands as well as Dr Swire’s belief that Megrahi was wrongly convicted and his continued efforts to find out the truth about the disaster.
Dr Swire described his campaign as “an outlet not just for my grief but my intense rage as well, at the way we relatives were treated”. (...)
Speaking about the play, Dr Swire said: “David Benson did very well. The play is very accurate and I think it will have a big impact on Edinburgh audiences.”
His wife, Jane, added: “It was very good; a thumbnail sketch of Jim’s campaign to get at the truth. It’s just that I have never before had to face somebody playing the part of my husband on a stage.
“It was a strange experience, but then nothing after Lockerbie has ever been normal.”
Lockerbie: Unfinished Business is at the Gilded Balloon until August 20.
[The Washington Post has published the Associated Press news agency report about the play that was mentioned on this blog a few days ago.]
An Edinburgh Fringe play about the Lockerbie bombing has sparked poignant memories for Dr Jim Swire on whose original writings it is based.
Dr Swire and his wife Jane were haunted by the soundtrack of Lockerbie: Unfinished Business, in which their daughter Flora sings some of her favourite songs as a child.
She wanted to follow in her father’s footsteps and study medicine at Cambridge University, but died along with 269 others in the Lockerbie disaster of December 21, 1988, the day before her 24th birthday.
Dr Swire, 74, said: “My daughter was a free spirit and her death was such a waste of all the energy and effort she put into life.
“It was so hard at first. We were numb with grief and misery. Often I wondered if we could survive the experience – but we have.
“At the time, it was impossible to relate words like terrorism and bombs to our beautiful daughter.
“Lockerbie never goes away. It is like a big heavy overcoat that you never seem quite able to take off.
“When you’ve got children and something bad happens to one of them, you torture yourself with thoughts about how much they might have suffered.
“Every parent wants to prevent their child from suffering and we couldn’t because we weren’t there. That is what really hurts.”
The new play by David Benson is based on an unpublished book, Moving the World, written by Dr Swire and Peter Biddulph.
It covers the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and his co-accused Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah at at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands as well as Dr Swire’s belief that Megrahi was wrongly convicted and his continued efforts to find out the truth about the disaster.
Dr Swire described his campaign as “an outlet not just for my grief but my intense rage as well, at the way we relatives were treated”. (...)
Speaking about the play, Dr Swire said: “David Benson did very well. The play is very accurate and I think it will have a big impact on Edinburgh audiences.”
His wife, Jane, added: “It was very good; a thumbnail sketch of Jim’s campaign to get at the truth. It’s just that I have never before had to face somebody playing the part of my husband on a stage.
“It was a strange experience, but then nothing after Lockerbie has ever been normal.”
Lockerbie: Unfinished Business is at the Gilded Balloon until August 20.
[The Washington Post has published the Associated Press news agency report about the play that was mentioned on this blog a few days ago.]
Sunday, 8 August 2010
Cardinal in attack on US 'vengeance'
[This is the headline over the front page lead in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads in part:]
The leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics has hit out at America's "culture of vengeance" and told US Senators they have no right to question the standards of Scotland's justice system over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
In an extraordinary intervention into the row over Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, Cardinal Keith O'Brien condemns the American justice system and highlights a "conveyor belt of killing" in its use of the death penalty.
He accuses the American system of being based on "vengeance and retribution" and says he is glad to live in a country where "justice is tempered with mercy". He also likens America's executions to those in China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran and highlights those countries' poor human rights records.
He says the US Senators seeking to question Scottish and British government ministers should instead "direct their gaze inwards". (...)
O'Brien's comments, contained in an article in today's Scotland on Sunday, come after US senators revealed plans last month to hold an inquiry into the release of Megrahi, the only man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity, in which 270 people were killed.
The Cardinal says today he backs the decision by First Minister Alex Salmond not to send his ministers to the US for a Senate hearing, saying that Scottish ministers are answerable to Scots and not to the US. He then turns attention back onto the American system of justice. He writes:
"Perhaps the consciences of some Americans, especially members of the US Senate, should be stirred by the ways in which justice is administered in so many of their own states."
Quoting the Bible, he adds: "Perhaps it is time for them to cast out the beam from their own eye before seeking the mote in their brothers'. Perhaps they should direct their gaze inwards, rather than scrutinising the working of the Scottish justice system." (...)
While not explicitly endorsing the decision to release Megrahi, O'Brien offers a clear hint he believes Scottish ministers were right to do just that. "It is in the midst of such inhuman barbarism (shown by Megrahi] that we must act to affirm our own humanity," he writes. "They may plunge to the depths of human conduct but we will not follow them."
He adds: "I believe that only God can forgive and show ultimate compassion to those who commit terrible crimes and I would rather live in a country where justice is tempered by mercy than exist in one where vengeance and retribution are the norm." (...)
Frank Duggan, spokesman of the Victims of Pan Am 103 group, which represents the views of US relatives, said: "I'm a Catholic and we know that the Catholic Church has long opposed the death penalty. But I think the bishop here should stick to his knitting, and render unto Caeser's what is Caesar's."
[The report on the Cardinal's views on the BBC News website can be read here and that on the Newsnet Scotland website can be read here. Dr Jim Swire's reaction to Cardinal O'Brien's article, as contained in an e-mail to me, is as follows:]
When I first went to see Colonel Gaddafi in 1991, a week or two after Mr Al-Megrahi and Kalifa Fhima were first publicly accused of this terrible crime, it was to ask the Colonel to allow his citizens to appear in front of a Scottish court.
Why? There were three reasons: first, even then I felt sure that if tried in the USA both men would be judicially executed by a system which operates perilously close to the doctrine that might is right, and that truth can be bought.
Second, that for those deemed to be the enemy of 'God's Own Country' the quality of the evidence against them might be less important than the opportunity for vengeance to be seen to be done: that death should be delivered summarily. Unfortunately the notion that God is on your country's side has led men to commit so much malevolent slaughter down the ages that the whole name of religion can be criticised.
The third reason was that I believed the Scottish system of justice to be among the fairest. Those who seem to lust for this man's death should look not at the details of why he was released, but the question of whether he really was guilty. It was Scotland's SCCRC which studied his case and decided that the trial might have been a miscarriage of justice, and it is Scotland which has not yet found a way to follow up that finding with a vehicle allowing re-examination of the whole case, under the rigour of our law.
We must find that way now. Scotland must have an honest second look at the evidence, accommodating all the new evidence that has arisen since Megrahi's trial. Unless she does, our reputation for fairness and compassion will be destroyed at the bar of history. Our overall adherence to the need to prove cases 'beyond reasonable doubt' must be re-established.
Meanwhile let us join with the Cardinal in giving thanks to our God if we admit One, that this man, who may well be innocent, has not been judicially executed in our names.
[The following is from a report on the website of The Guardian:]
A spokesman for the Scottish justice secretary welcomed O'Brien's "thoughtful and considered contribution". He said: "The justice secretary … granted compassionate release to al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds alone, based on the rules and regulations of Scots law. And as the cardinal correctly observes, it is to the Scottish parliament and people that Holyrood ministers are accountable, not the US Senate."
The leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics has hit out at America's "culture of vengeance" and told US Senators they have no right to question the standards of Scotland's justice system over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
In an extraordinary intervention into the row over Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, Cardinal Keith O'Brien condemns the American justice system and highlights a "conveyor belt of killing" in its use of the death penalty.
He accuses the American system of being based on "vengeance and retribution" and says he is glad to live in a country where "justice is tempered with mercy". He also likens America's executions to those in China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran and highlights those countries' poor human rights records.
He says the US Senators seeking to question Scottish and British government ministers should instead "direct their gaze inwards". (...)
O'Brien's comments, contained in an article in today's Scotland on Sunday, come after US senators revealed plans last month to hold an inquiry into the release of Megrahi, the only man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity, in which 270 people were killed.
The Cardinal says today he backs the decision by First Minister Alex Salmond not to send his ministers to the US for a Senate hearing, saying that Scottish ministers are answerable to Scots and not to the US. He then turns attention back onto the American system of justice. He writes:
"Perhaps the consciences of some Americans, especially members of the US Senate, should be stirred by the ways in which justice is administered in so many of their own states."
Quoting the Bible, he adds: "Perhaps it is time for them to cast out the beam from their own eye before seeking the mote in their brothers'. Perhaps they should direct their gaze inwards, rather than scrutinising the working of the Scottish justice system." (...)
While not explicitly endorsing the decision to release Megrahi, O'Brien offers a clear hint he believes Scottish ministers were right to do just that. "It is in the midst of such inhuman barbarism (shown by Megrahi] that we must act to affirm our own humanity," he writes. "They may plunge to the depths of human conduct but we will not follow them."
He adds: "I believe that only God can forgive and show ultimate compassion to those who commit terrible crimes and I would rather live in a country where justice is tempered by mercy than exist in one where vengeance and retribution are the norm." (...)
Frank Duggan, spokesman of the Victims of Pan Am 103 group, which represents the views of US relatives, said: "I'm a Catholic and we know that the Catholic Church has long opposed the death penalty. But I think the bishop here should stick to his knitting, and render unto Caeser's what is Caesar's."
[The report on the Cardinal's views on the BBC News website can be read here and that on the Newsnet Scotland website can be read here. Dr Jim Swire's reaction to Cardinal O'Brien's article, as contained in an e-mail to me, is as follows:]
When I first went to see Colonel Gaddafi in 1991, a week or two after Mr Al-Megrahi and Kalifa Fhima were first publicly accused of this terrible crime, it was to ask the Colonel to allow his citizens to appear in front of a Scottish court.
Why? There were three reasons: first, even then I felt sure that if tried in the USA both men would be judicially executed by a system which operates perilously close to the doctrine that might is right, and that truth can be bought.
Second, that for those deemed to be the enemy of 'God's Own Country' the quality of the evidence against them might be less important than the opportunity for vengeance to be seen to be done: that death should be delivered summarily. Unfortunately the notion that God is on your country's side has led men to commit so much malevolent slaughter down the ages that the whole name of religion can be criticised.
The third reason was that I believed the Scottish system of justice to be among the fairest. Those who seem to lust for this man's death should look not at the details of why he was released, but the question of whether he really was guilty. It was Scotland's SCCRC which studied his case and decided that the trial might have been a miscarriage of justice, and it is Scotland which has not yet found a way to follow up that finding with a vehicle allowing re-examination of the whole case, under the rigour of our law.
We must find that way now. Scotland must have an honest second look at the evidence, accommodating all the new evidence that has arisen since Megrahi's trial. Unless she does, our reputation for fairness and compassion will be destroyed at the bar of history. Our overall adherence to the need to prove cases 'beyond reasonable doubt' must be re-established.
Meanwhile let us join with the Cardinal in giving thanks to our God if we admit One, that this man, who may well be innocent, has not been judicially executed in our names.
[The following is from a report on the website of The Guardian:]
A spokesman for the Scottish justice secretary welcomed O'Brien's "thoughtful and considered contribution". He said: "The justice secretary … granted compassionate release to al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds alone, based on the rules and regulations of Scots law. And as the cardinal correctly observes, it is to the Scottish parliament and people that Holyrood ministers are accountable, not the US Senate."
Saturday, 7 August 2010
My family's Lockerbie rage
[This is the headline over an article in The Daily Beast by Brian Flynn, brother of one of the US victims of the destruction of Pan Am 103. It reads in part:]
During the next two decades [after the disaster] , we lobbied to hold responsible the companies that could have prevented the attack: Pan Am was convicted of gross negligence and willful misconduct. My mother served on both presidential commissions that investigated the causes of the bombing and improved airline security, and I helped her as a researcher. We lobbied Congress to enact the Iran Libya Sanctions Act, which ultimately put enough pressure on Libya to hand over the indicted Libyan agents who perpetrated the crime. And, we sat in that courtroom listening to months of damning—and conclusive—evidence. Eventually, Abdel Baset al Megrahi was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. And although he would be the only man to pay for the atrocity, we felt in a small way that some justice had been served.
Little did we know, we would be betrayed. Out of the blue, I got a phone call from the British Embassy, telling me that Megrahi was being considered for release. Days later, we found ourselves in a surreal argument via videoconference with the minister of justice in Scotland. We thought we made inarguable points: “You cannot release an unrepentant mass murder for any reason, especially to the people and government that paid him to do it,” I told him. “Releasing him would make a mockery of the justice system and embolden terrorists around the world. It doesn’t matter if he is sick. He can get palliative care in prison like the dozens of people that die of natural causes in Scottish prisons every year.”
How could they not know that Megrahi would receive a hero’s welcome in Libya? How could they not suspect that he might miraculously be cured and live for years?
When Megrahi was released days later, this blatant act of betrayal robbed us of that one shred of justice. It made us feel that our decades of effort were worth nothing. As we have now learned, the Scots did it for the least surprising reason: money. The deal seemed to have been a perfect storm of ulterior motives: BP was directly lobbying the UK government to get Megrahi released so they could win oil contracts while, at the same time, Scotland’s first minister, Alex Salmond, was traveling around the Middle East raising capital from sovereign wealth funds there. One of them, the Qatar Investment Authority, directly stated that it would “not be good for Megrahi to die in prison.” This was two months before we met with the Scottish minister.
Since Megrahi’s release, we have demanded to see proof that he was to die in three months. It seemed all too convenient and, as we now know, the reason given was inherently fraudulent. The Scottish justice department ignored specific medical evidence about life expectancy. In fact, not ONE cancer specialist consulted would give the three-month death sentence required for compassionate release.
So, it seems I am not done pursuing justice for my older brother as people continue to dishonor the 270 victims. Our mission now is to hold these charlatans responsible. The Scottish ministers should be forced to resign, and then tried on corruption charges. Megrahi should be returned to prison.
Daniel Webster said justice is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together. Through the years, I often thought: Am I really just seeking revenge, veiled in a cloak called justice? But I don’t think so. Justice—in and of itself—is worthy of relentless pursuit. If we let convicted mass murderers out of prison, or allow our public servants to sell prison releases, then we tear at that ligament apart, and threaten the very fabric of civilized society itself.
[It is sad to see such a passionate article ignoring completely the fundamental aspects of justice (a) that accused persons should be convicted only where the evidence warrants it and where evidence that might cast doubt on guilt is not withheld by the prosecution and (b) that when miscarriages of justice occur and are detected they should be speedily rectified.]
During the next two decades [after the disaster] , we lobbied to hold responsible the companies that could have prevented the attack: Pan Am was convicted of gross negligence and willful misconduct. My mother served on both presidential commissions that investigated the causes of the bombing and improved airline security, and I helped her as a researcher. We lobbied Congress to enact the Iran Libya Sanctions Act, which ultimately put enough pressure on Libya to hand over the indicted Libyan agents who perpetrated the crime. And, we sat in that courtroom listening to months of damning—and conclusive—evidence. Eventually, Abdel Baset al Megrahi was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. And although he would be the only man to pay for the atrocity, we felt in a small way that some justice had been served.
Little did we know, we would be betrayed. Out of the blue, I got a phone call from the British Embassy, telling me that Megrahi was being considered for release. Days later, we found ourselves in a surreal argument via videoconference with the minister of justice in Scotland. We thought we made inarguable points: “You cannot release an unrepentant mass murder for any reason, especially to the people and government that paid him to do it,” I told him. “Releasing him would make a mockery of the justice system and embolden terrorists around the world. It doesn’t matter if he is sick. He can get palliative care in prison like the dozens of people that die of natural causes in Scottish prisons every year.”
How could they not know that Megrahi would receive a hero’s welcome in Libya? How could they not suspect that he might miraculously be cured and live for years?
When Megrahi was released days later, this blatant act of betrayal robbed us of that one shred of justice. It made us feel that our decades of effort were worth nothing. As we have now learned, the Scots did it for the least surprising reason: money. The deal seemed to have been a perfect storm of ulterior motives: BP was directly lobbying the UK government to get Megrahi released so they could win oil contracts while, at the same time, Scotland’s first minister, Alex Salmond, was traveling around the Middle East raising capital from sovereign wealth funds there. One of them, the Qatar Investment Authority, directly stated that it would “not be good for Megrahi to die in prison.” This was two months before we met with the Scottish minister.
Since Megrahi’s release, we have demanded to see proof that he was to die in three months. It seemed all too convenient and, as we now know, the reason given was inherently fraudulent. The Scottish justice department ignored specific medical evidence about life expectancy. In fact, not ONE cancer specialist consulted would give the three-month death sentence required for compassionate release.
So, it seems I am not done pursuing justice for my older brother as people continue to dishonor the 270 victims. Our mission now is to hold these charlatans responsible. The Scottish ministers should be forced to resign, and then tried on corruption charges. Megrahi should be returned to prison.
Daniel Webster said justice is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together. Through the years, I often thought: Am I really just seeking revenge, veiled in a cloak called justice? But I don’t think so. Justice—in and of itself—is worthy of relentless pursuit. If we let convicted mass murderers out of prison, or allow our public servants to sell prison releases, then we tear at that ligament apart, and threaten the very fabric of civilized society itself.
[It is sad to see such a passionate article ignoring completely the fundamental aspects of justice (a) that accused persons should be convicted only where the evidence warrants it and where evidence that might cast doubt on guilt is not withheld by the prosecution and (b) that when miscarriages of justice occur and are detected they should be speedily rectified.]
Still haunted by the scale of slaughter that was perpetrated at Lockerbie
[This is the headline over a letter from Fred McManus in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
I was a police inspector serving in Strathclyde Police B Division when the Lockerbie mass murder occurred. Strathclyde mobilised huge resources to support Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary in the management and investigation of this outrage.
Officers were sent from each territorial division of the force, but inspectors initially went only from alternate divisions – A, C, E, G and so forth – and so I thought that I would play no part in the massive operation. I was wrong.
Several weeks into the inquiry, it was decided that the bodies of each of the victims, including their individual limbs, should undergo X-ray examination. Two teams of police officers were established to facilitate this. I was in charge of the night shift team, working from 6pm-6am, and spent three nights in the Lockerbie temporary mortuary opening the caskets, removing the bodies and washing them before each was taken for X-ray examination, after which they were replaced in their caskets with all due dignity and respect.
My team of experienced officers were initially visibly distraught but got on with the job, as good police officers do. I was particularly impressed by the courage and stoicism of the radiographers, some of whom were young girls who looked about 19, in carrying out their duties.
Out of respect to all concerned I will not go into detail, but I will say that the experience left me with the passionate view, as strong today as it was almost 23 years ago, that those responsible had forfeited the right to be considered human and to be treated accordingly. I regard myself as a decent, compassionate man, but to this day I firmly believe that whoever perpetrated this atrocious mass murder, made even more disgusting by the cowardly means of its slaughter, should be afforded no compassion whatsoever, Christian or otherwise.
At this moment in time, as upon his release, the one person who stands convicted, proven beyond reasonable doubt in a Scottish High Court, as guilty of this inhuman act is Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. Perhaps, and I emphasise perhaps, as some of your readers clearly believe, there is a prima facie case that he was not responsible. It also appears self-evident that he did not act alone. But until the due process of law shows otherwise, he is guilty of this most heinous and horrible mass murder. Having seen at first hand, and in graphic detail, the effects of Megrahi’s wicked criminality, I share the Americans’ outrage that he should have been released for any reason other than vindication under that due process.
I was a police inspector serving in Strathclyde Police B Division when the Lockerbie mass murder occurred. Strathclyde mobilised huge resources to support Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary in the management and investigation of this outrage.
Officers were sent from each territorial division of the force, but inspectors initially went only from alternate divisions – A, C, E, G and so forth – and so I thought that I would play no part in the massive operation. I was wrong.
Several weeks into the inquiry, it was decided that the bodies of each of the victims, including their individual limbs, should undergo X-ray examination. Two teams of police officers were established to facilitate this. I was in charge of the night shift team, working from 6pm-6am, and spent three nights in the Lockerbie temporary mortuary opening the caskets, removing the bodies and washing them before each was taken for X-ray examination, after which they were replaced in their caskets with all due dignity and respect.
My team of experienced officers were initially visibly distraught but got on with the job, as good police officers do. I was particularly impressed by the courage and stoicism of the radiographers, some of whom were young girls who looked about 19, in carrying out their duties.
Out of respect to all concerned I will not go into detail, but I will say that the experience left me with the passionate view, as strong today as it was almost 23 years ago, that those responsible had forfeited the right to be considered human and to be treated accordingly. I regard myself as a decent, compassionate man, but to this day I firmly believe that whoever perpetrated this atrocious mass murder, made even more disgusting by the cowardly means of its slaughter, should be afforded no compassion whatsoever, Christian or otherwise.
At this moment in time, as upon his release, the one person who stands convicted, proven beyond reasonable doubt in a Scottish High Court, as guilty of this inhuman act is Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. Perhaps, and I emphasise perhaps, as some of your readers clearly believe, there is a prima facie case that he was not responsible. It also appears self-evident that he did not act alone. But until the due process of law shows otherwise, he is guilty of this most heinous and horrible mass murder. Having seen at first hand, and in graphic detail, the effects of Megrahi’s wicked criminality, I share the Americans’ outrage that he should have been released for any reason other than vindication under that due process.
US senators demand more info from UK on Lockerbie
[This is the headline over a report that has just been published on the Reuters news agency website. It reads in part:]
Four US senators have written to the Foreign Secretary curtly demanding more information to help clear up the "public pall" over the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya.
In an accusing tone rarely used with the United States' closest ally, the senators said it appeared British trade interests with Libya had "won out over justice" in last year's release of the man convicted of the 1988 bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland.
"It would behoove all of us if you can bring greater transparency to these matters," the four senators told Foreign Secretary William Hague.
They asked whether the previous Labour government could have prevented Abdel Basset al-Megrahi from being returned to Libya after he was released by Scottish authorities on compassionate grounds because of ill health. (...)
The letter was signed by the two US senators from New Jersey, Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, as well as the two senators from New York, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillebrand. All four are Democrats. (...)
Hague wrote a seven-page letter to the Senate last month saying there was no evidence BP was connected to the release.
But the senators said comments by former Foreign Secretary David Miliband -- quoted in Hague's letter -- as well as a letter to Scottish authorities from the Libyan British Business Council urging Megrahi's release, showed trade considerations and British government attitudes may have been influential.
Miliband, who worked for the previous Labour government, was quoted as saying that "British interests, including those of UK nationals, British businesses and possibly security cooperation, would be damaged -- perhaps badly -- if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison." (...)
A British diplomat said the letter would be given the same consideration as earlier correspondence from the senators, but "we've already released quite a lot of information."
[Having been the recipients of a bloody nose from Wee Eck, the Bash Street Kids have now turned their attention to Oor Wullie. Note for non-Scottish readers: this is an arcane Scottish cultural reference.
There is a report in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph headed "Lockerbie bomber freed over 'low mood'". The story that follows does not, of course, justify the inflammatory headline. We can expect more such gutter journalism as the anniversary of Abdelbaset Megrahi's release approaches.]
Four US senators have written to the Foreign Secretary curtly demanding more information to help clear up the "public pall" over the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya.
In an accusing tone rarely used with the United States' closest ally, the senators said it appeared British trade interests with Libya had "won out over justice" in last year's release of the man convicted of the 1988 bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland.
"It would behoove all of us if you can bring greater transparency to these matters," the four senators told Foreign Secretary William Hague.
They asked whether the previous Labour government could have prevented Abdel Basset al-Megrahi from being returned to Libya after he was released by Scottish authorities on compassionate grounds because of ill health. (...)
The letter was signed by the two US senators from New Jersey, Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, as well as the two senators from New York, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillebrand. All four are Democrats. (...)
Hague wrote a seven-page letter to the Senate last month saying there was no evidence BP was connected to the release.
But the senators said comments by former Foreign Secretary David Miliband -- quoted in Hague's letter -- as well as a letter to Scottish authorities from the Libyan British Business Council urging Megrahi's release, showed trade considerations and British government attitudes may have been influential.
Miliband, who worked for the previous Labour government, was quoted as saying that "British interests, including those of UK nationals, British businesses and possibly security cooperation, would be damaged -- perhaps badly -- if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison." (...)
A British diplomat said the letter would be given the same consideration as earlier correspondence from the senators, but "we've already released quite a lot of information."
[Having been the recipients of a bloody nose from Wee Eck, the Bash Street Kids have now turned their attention to Oor Wullie. Note for non-Scottish readers: this is an arcane Scottish cultural reference.
There is a report in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph headed "Lockerbie bomber freed over 'low mood'". The story that follows does not, of course, justify the inflammatory headline. We can expect more such gutter journalism as the anniversary of Abdelbaset Megrahi's release approaches.]
Friday, 6 August 2010
US House of Representatives Resolution
[The following resolution was introduced into the US House of Representatives on 30 July by Representatives Maffei (D, N-Y), Lee (R, N-Y) and McMahon (D, N-Y). It was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.]
RESOLUTION
Encouraging the United Kingdom to investigate British Petroleum (BP) for foreign corrupt practices.
Whereas Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was convicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people, including 189 United States citizens;
Whereas the Scottish courts released al-Megrahi from prison on August 20, 2009, under the understanding that he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer;
Whereas the Scottish authorities have never clarified why al-Megrahi could not receive humane treatment while still in captivity;
Whereas al-Megrahi seems to have well outlived his original diagnosis;
Whereas it is very troubling that al-Megrahi received a hero’s welcome to his home country of Libya;
Whereas British Petroleum (BP) admitted on July 15, 2010, that a delayed prisoner-transfer between Britain and Libya ‘could have a negative impact’ on BP’s oil negotiations;
Whereas there are allegations that BP inappropriately attempted to affect the Scottish Government’s decision and possibly even the doctor’s diagnosis; and
Whereas al-Megrahi’s release sends an incredibly offensive message to the families that lost loved ones on Pan Am Flight 103:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives encourages the United Kingdom to investigate British Petroleum (BP) for foreign corrupt practices.
[It is hugely entertaining to see politicians jumping onto a bandwagon just as its wheels come off.]
RESOLUTION
Encouraging the United Kingdom to investigate British Petroleum (BP) for foreign corrupt practices.
Whereas Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was convicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people, including 189 United States citizens;
Whereas the Scottish courts released al-Megrahi from prison on August 20, 2009, under the understanding that he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer;
Whereas the Scottish authorities have never clarified why al-Megrahi could not receive humane treatment while still in captivity;
Whereas al-Megrahi seems to have well outlived his original diagnosis;
Whereas it is very troubling that al-Megrahi received a hero’s welcome to his home country of Libya;
Whereas British Petroleum (BP) admitted on July 15, 2010, that a delayed prisoner-transfer between Britain and Libya ‘could have a negative impact’ on BP’s oil negotiations;
Whereas there are allegations that BP inappropriately attempted to affect the Scottish Government’s decision and possibly even the doctor’s diagnosis; and
Whereas al-Megrahi’s release sends an incredibly offensive message to the families that lost loved ones on Pan Am Flight 103:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives encourages the United Kingdom to investigate British Petroleum (BP) for foreign corrupt practices.
[It is hugely entertaining to see politicians jumping onto a bandwagon just as its wheels come off.]
Lockerbie play draws attention at Edinburgh Fringe
[This is the headline over a recent Associated Press news agency report. It reads in part:]
Amid the creative mayhem, organizers are bracing to see whether ticket sales will be hurt by Britain's battered economic state. And one attention-grabbing show is asking audiences to revisit a raw and divisive subject: the Lockerbie bombing.
The attack on a New York-bound jet over a small town, just 60 miles (100 kilometers) from here, killed 270 people, many of them American.
The tragedy moved back into the headlines a year ago, when the Scottish government released the Libyan convicted of the bombing, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi. His release infuriated relatives of many Lockerbie victims, especially those in the United States.
Al-Megrahi, who has cancer, was freed on compassionate grounds after doctors said he had three months to live. A year later he is still alive, which ensures the wound remains open.
It's also back in the news because a group of US senators is investigating whether BP-linked oil deals in Libya had any connection to al-Megrahi's release.
Writer-performer David Benson was at the Fringe last year when al-Megrahi was freed and an international furor erupted. It inspired him to write the one-man show Lockerbie: Unfinished Business.
The play is based on an unpublished memoir by Jim Swire, a British doctor who lost his daughter in the attack. Swire has become well known in Britain for his campaign to prove that al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted and that evidence points to Iranian-backed Palestinian militants as the perpetrators.
"He is engaged in a single-minded mission to get justice for his daughter, Flora," said Benson, a Fringe veteran who has created plays about Noel Coward, Samuel Johnson and the death of Princess Diana. "He can't rest knowing the men who did it are still at large."
Benson knows many disagree with Swire, but hopes dissenters will come see the show, which offers both a — somewhat patchy — lesson in murky recent history and a moving depiction of Swire's restrained, intense, very British grief — he hides his pain with a stiff upper lip, but at memories of his daughter it quivers.
"It's not just about the evidence," Benson said. "It's about his personal tragedy, his loss and how he's dealt with his grief."
Amid the creative mayhem, organizers are bracing to see whether ticket sales will be hurt by Britain's battered economic state. And one attention-grabbing show is asking audiences to revisit a raw and divisive subject: the Lockerbie bombing.
The attack on a New York-bound jet over a small town, just 60 miles (100 kilometers) from here, killed 270 people, many of them American.
The tragedy moved back into the headlines a year ago, when the Scottish government released the Libyan convicted of the bombing, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi. His release infuriated relatives of many Lockerbie victims, especially those in the United States.
Al-Megrahi, who has cancer, was freed on compassionate grounds after doctors said he had three months to live. A year later he is still alive, which ensures the wound remains open.
It's also back in the news because a group of US senators is investigating whether BP-linked oil deals in Libya had any connection to al-Megrahi's release.
Writer-performer David Benson was at the Fringe last year when al-Megrahi was freed and an international furor erupted. It inspired him to write the one-man show Lockerbie: Unfinished Business.
The play is based on an unpublished memoir by Jim Swire, a British doctor who lost his daughter in the attack. Swire has become well known in Britain for his campaign to prove that al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted and that evidence points to Iranian-backed Palestinian militants as the perpetrators.
"He is engaged in a single-minded mission to get justice for his daughter, Flora," said Benson, a Fringe veteran who has created plays about Noel Coward, Samuel Johnson and the death of Princess Diana. "He can't rest knowing the men who did it are still at large."
Benson knows many disagree with Swire, but hopes dissenters will come see the show, which offers both a — somewhat patchy — lesson in murky recent history and a moving depiction of Swire's restrained, intense, very British grief — he hides his pain with a stiff upper lip, but at memories of his daughter it quivers.
"It's not just about the evidence," Benson said. "It's about his personal tragedy, his loss and how he's dealt with his grief."
Are the BBC influencing the Megrahi agenda?
[This is the headline over a report on the Newsnet Scotland website. It reads in part:]
This morning many Scots will awake to ‘new’ news broadcasts on the BBC about the compassionate release of the man known as the Lockerbie Bomber.
The reports are based around a BBC online article that appeared at around 02:00 hrs this morning (Friday) headlined ‘Lockerbie bomber cancer 'no fake'’; it is the BBC’s lead political article in Scotland.
The article centres around comments made by Professor Karol Sikora. Professor Sikora was paid to examine Al Megrahi on behalf of the Libyan government prior to his release in 2009. Professor Sikora’s views played no part in the decision to release Al Megrahi, indeed Kenny MacAskill was not even aware of Sikora’s opinion when he decided on Megrahi’s compassionate release. (...)
What is so puzzling about this article is that it presents nothing new, both the “surprised” claim and the “no fake” claim are months old.
In February Professor Sikora told the Daily Mail: "I am very surprised that he is still alive. He is not receiving any active treatment."
In March Professor Sikora said: "A lot of people believe that he’s never had cancer and that it’s all faked, but that’s not the case. The evidence was really clear-cut."
However, more alarming is the wording of the actual article, for it is worded in such a way that a reader may believe that Karol Sikora provided the three month prognosis on which the decision to release Megrahi was based.
From the BBC article:
'Leading oncologist Professor Karol Sikora examined Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, in prison and estimated he had about three months to live.
'"I am surprised he is still alive," said Professor Sikora, who was asked by the Libyans to give a medical opinion on Megrahi's health prior to his release.'
So just why have the BBC decided to headline views that are already in the public domain and word the article in such a manner?
The timing of this latest BBC foray into the release of Al Megrahi is very suspicious. For it coincides with statements from Senator Robert Menendez that the US Senate ‘inquiry’ may increase its scope beyond the (now debunked) BP oil deal and encompasse the medical evidence that led to the release.
This BBC report will now serve to feed the cycle of misinformation and misunderstanding that has epitomised all too many statements from the US. It is precisely this kind of confusing media report that led to the Senator’s ridiculous claims in the first place. (...)
This decision by the BBC to run with an old ‘cancer no fake’ story is sure to be picked up by other UK media outlets and will no doubt lead to yet another plethora of headlines questioning the medical evidence. You can also be sure that several Holyrood opposition figures will re-surface making all sorts of baseless accusations and demand ‘inquiries’ and release of medical files.
However, it will also add fuel to the transatlantic fire that was beginning to burn out as it became clear that there was absolutely no evidence to back up the claims that BP played any role in the decision to release Al Megrahi.
Was this the intention of the BBC? We don’t know, but it will be interesting to see if the usual suspects now gobble up and regurgitate this unexpected state sponsored feast.
This morning many Scots will awake to ‘new’ news broadcasts on the BBC about the compassionate release of the man known as the Lockerbie Bomber.
The reports are based around a BBC online article that appeared at around 02:00 hrs this morning (Friday) headlined ‘Lockerbie bomber cancer 'no fake'’; it is the BBC’s lead political article in Scotland.
The article centres around comments made by Professor Karol Sikora. Professor Sikora was paid to examine Al Megrahi on behalf of the Libyan government prior to his release in 2009. Professor Sikora’s views played no part in the decision to release Al Megrahi, indeed Kenny MacAskill was not even aware of Sikora’s opinion when he decided on Megrahi’s compassionate release. (...)
What is so puzzling about this article is that it presents nothing new, both the “surprised” claim and the “no fake” claim are months old.
In February Professor Sikora told the Daily Mail: "I am very surprised that he is still alive. He is not receiving any active treatment."
In March Professor Sikora said: "A lot of people believe that he’s never had cancer and that it’s all faked, but that’s not the case. The evidence was really clear-cut."
However, more alarming is the wording of the actual article, for it is worded in such a way that a reader may believe that Karol Sikora provided the three month prognosis on which the decision to release Megrahi was based.
From the BBC article:
'Leading oncologist Professor Karol Sikora examined Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, in prison and estimated he had about three months to live.
'"I am surprised he is still alive," said Professor Sikora, who was asked by the Libyans to give a medical opinion on Megrahi's health prior to his release.'
So just why have the BBC decided to headline views that are already in the public domain and word the article in such a manner?
The timing of this latest BBC foray into the release of Al Megrahi is very suspicious. For it coincides with statements from Senator Robert Menendez that the US Senate ‘inquiry’ may increase its scope beyond the (now debunked) BP oil deal and encompasse the medical evidence that led to the release.
This BBC report will now serve to feed the cycle of misinformation and misunderstanding that has epitomised all too many statements from the US. It is precisely this kind of confusing media report that led to the Senator’s ridiculous claims in the first place. (...)
This decision by the BBC to run with an old ‘cancer no fake’ story is sure to be picked up by other UK media outlets and will no doubt lead to yet another plethora of headlines questioning the medical evidence. You can also be sure that several Holyrood opposition figures will re-surface making all sorts of baseless accusations and demand ‘inquiries’ and release of medical files.
However, it will also add fuel to the transatlantic fire that was beginning to burn out as it became clear that there was absolutely no evidence to back up the claims that BP played any role in the decision to release Al Megrahi.
Was this the intention of the BBC? We don’t know, but it will be interesting to see if the usual suspects now gobble up and regurgitate this unexpected state sponsored feast.
Medical mystery behind bomber's release
This is the headline over an article just published on the website of The Wall Street Journal, in which the medical evidence available to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice when he took his decision is described and a number of US oncologists express disagreement that it warranted the conclusion that Mr Megrahi's likely life expectancy was three months. An accompanying article headed "Lockerbie release flawed: Scotland lacked medical consensus in returning convicted bomber to Libya" can be read here.
A report on the BBC News website headed "Lockerbie bomber Megrahi's cancer not fake - Sikora" can be read here. A further article on the BBC News website headed Can you really predict a prisoner's death? deals with the cases of Ronnie Biggs and Abdelbaset Megrahi and with the general problem for doctors of attaching a period to the survival of a patient with a terminal illness.
On his valuable blog The Lockerbie Divide Caustic Logic is currently running a series on the known influences on the release decision.
A report on the BBC News website headed "Lockerbie bomber Megrahi's cancer not fake - Sikora" can be read here. A further article on the BBC News website headed Can you really predict a prisoner's death? deals with the cases of Ronnie Biggs and Abdelbaset Megrahi and with the general problem for doctors of attaching a period to the survival of a patient with a terminal illness.
On his valuable blog The Lockerbie Divide Caustic Logic is currently running a series on the known influences on the release decision.
Thursday, 5 August 2010
Why the US Senate should question Tony Blair
[This is the headline over an article by Mark Seddon, the former United Nations Correspondent and New York Bureau Chief for Al-Jazeera English TV, on the Left Futures website. It reads in part:]
Silence speaks volume. In the unmitigated disaster that is the Gulf of Mexico, two silent partners watch as BP endures a hurricane of criticism, Transocean and Haliburton, who it has been alleged are at least as complicit over the oil spill as the company that has been re-born in sections of the US media as “British Petroleum”. (...)
Just because big business and Government frequently fuse and lobby in such a way all of the time, and just because ‘Big Oil’ has such political and economic power, does not mean that Senator Menendez is wrong to try and pursue answers. Far from it. And just because the British lawmakers he wants to invite in front of his Committee have not taken up his offer, doesn’t mean that his Committee should allow itself to get side-lined. In truth it is difficult to see US lawmakers agree to fly to London to be quizzed by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, just as it is for British and Scottish lawmakers to break all conventions and appear in front of a foreign legislature. Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom are supplicants.
However, there is nothing stopping Senator Menendez and others coming to London and Edinburgh to find out for themselves what really want on behind the scenes in the run up to the signing of al-Megrahi’s release, they might discover that the whole affair is a good deal murkier than even they imagine.
I interviewed al-Megrahi in Tripoli at a time when the Libyans were refusing to extradite him, and while Libya’s pedigree in backing terrorist outrages was not in doubt. I remember then thinking that something did not quite seem right, and wondering if al-Megrahi – the only man to be convicted for the downing of the Pan Am flight – was being set-up as some kind of scapegoat. A body of evidence amassed in the years since, not least by the now sadly deceased investigative journalist, Paul Foot, does indeed reach the conclusion that al-Megrahi was the scapegoat. The Senator and his team only need visit the offices of Private Eye magazine in Soho, London, and they can see the evidence for themselves. It is also worthy of note that many of the British families who lost family in the Lockerbie bombing also happen to agree that al-Megrahi could be innocent.
That then is one angle. But here is another. In recent days we have seen and heard much from the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, easily the most erudite and informed politician in these islands, a visible reminder of the calibre of politician we have lost. Senator Menendez certainly needs to meet Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, where he will discover I suspect that the Scottish authorities played the release of al-Megrahi by the book. I may of course be wrong, but somehow I do not see that Salmond in particular would have been swayed by lobbying by BP, still less by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. In fact Salmond is adamant that, when it came to the Scottish Parliament, there was no lobbying by BP at all.
And so to the other silent voice, the loudest silence of all, from the man who was the architect of the rapprochement with Libya, the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Blair’s ties to BP were so close that the company was at one time nicknamed as ‘Blair Petroleum’. A revolving door existed between Number 10 Downing Street and BP’s head office, and while there is a good argument to suggest that Blair was right to want to lift relations with Libya out of deep freeze, it is probably time to ask exactly why.
Was it because Britain, a perennial target for Libyan inspired terrorist attacks, or Libyan financed terrorist attacks, genuinely wanted to turn over a new leaf with the unpredictable Libyan strongman, Colonel Gadaffi , or was the prospect of black gold too tempting a prospect? Or was it, more likely, a combination of the two?
Big companies such as BP have incredible clout, yet it takes Governments to legislate and Governments to agree prisoner transfer agreements. It takes Governments to revive trade and diplomatic ties. It therefore follows that Governments can if they wish resist the pressure and refuse to legislate or revive diplomatic ties. But when it came to Libya, still ruled by a despot who had never even apologised for the State sponsored financing of terrorism and whose agents shot Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher in cold blood outside the Libyan Embassy in London, Tony Blair’s Government wanted to re-open economic ties.
If Senator Menendez wants to get to the bottom of this whole sorry affair he could do no better than inviting Tony Blair to testify on Capitol Hill. After all, Blair has close links with both BP and the Libyan authorities, and is no longer a Parliamentarian but a private citizen. Why should he refuse to go?
Silence speaks volume. In the unmitigated disaster that is the Gulf of Mexico, two silent partners watch as BP endures a hurricane of criticism, Transocean and Haliburton, who it has been alleged are at least as complicit over the oil spill as the company that has been re-born in sections of the US media as “British Petroleum”. (...)
Just because big business and Government frequently fuse and lobby in such a way all of the time, and just because ‘Big Oil’ has such political and economic power, does not mean that Senator Menendez is wrong to try and pursue answers. Far from it. And just because the British lawmakers he wants to invite in front of his Committee have not taken up his offer, doesn’t mean that his Committee should allow itself to get side-lined. In truth it is difficult to see US lawmakers agree to fly to London to be quizzed by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, just as it is for British and Scottish lawmakers to break all conventions and appear in front of a foreign legislature. Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom are supplicants.
However, there is nothing stopping Senator Menendez and others coming to London and Edinburgh to find out for themselves what really want on behind the scenes in the run up to the signing of al-Megrahi’s release, they might discover that the whole affair is a good deal murkier than even they imagine.
I interviewed al-Megrahi in Tripoli at a time when the Libyans were refusing to extradite him, and while Libya’s pedigree in backing terrorist outrages was not in doubt. I remember then thinking that something did not quite seem right, and wondering if al-Megrahi – the only man to be convicted for the downing of the Pan Am flight – was being set-up as some kind of scapegoat. A body of evidence amassed in the years since, not least by the now sadly deceased investigative journalist, Paul Foot, does indeed reach the conclusion that al-Megrahi was the scapegoat. The Senator and his team only need visit the offices of Private Eye magazine in Soho, London, and they can see the evidence for themselves. It is also worthy of note that many of the British families who lost family in the Lockerbie bombing also happen to agree that al-Megrahi could be innocent.
That then is one angle. But here is another. In recent days we have seen and heard much from the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, easily the most erudite and informed politician in these islands, a visible reminder of the calibre of politician we have lost. Senator Menendez certainly needs to meet Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, where he will discover I suspect that the Scottish authorities played the release of al-Megrahi by the book. I may of course be wrong, but somehow I do not see that Salmond in particular would have been swayed by lobbying by BP, still less by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. In fact Salmond is adamant that, when it came to the Scottish Parliament, there was no lobbying by BP at all.
And so to the other silent voice, the loudest silence of all, from the man who was the architect of the rapprochement with Libya, the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Blair’s ties to BP were so close that the company was at one time nicknamed as ‘Blair Petroleum’. A revolving door existed between Number 10 Downing Street and BP’s head office, and while there is a good argument to suggest that Blair was right to want to lift relations with Libya out of deep freeze, it is probably time to ask exactly why.
Was it because Britain, a perennial target for Libyan inspired terrorist attacks, or Libyan financed terrorist attacks, genuinely wanted to turn over a new leaf with the unpredictable Libyan strongman, Colonel Gadaffi , or was the prospect of black gold too tempting a prospect? Or was it, more likely, a combination of the two?
Big companies such as BP have incredible clout, yet it takes Governments to legislate and Governments to agree prisoner transfer agreements. It takes Governments to revive trade and diplomatic ties. It therefore follows that Governments can if they wish resist the pressure and refuse to legislate or revive diplomatic ties. But when it came to Libya, still ruled by a despot who had never even apologised for the State sponsored financing of terrorism and whose agents shot Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher in cold blood outside the Libyan Embassy in London, Tony Blair’s Government wanted to re-open economic ties.
If Senator Menendez wants to get to the bottom of this whole sorry affair he could do no better than inviting Tony Blair to testify on Capitol Hill. After all, Blair has close links with both BP and the Libyan authorities, and is no longer a Parliamentarian but a private citizen. Why should he refuse to go?
Wednesday, 4 August 2010
Rottweiler Alex is right to stand up to American bullies
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Press and Journal by columnist Nicola Barry. It reads in part:]
You have to hand it to Alex Salmond. Yes, OK, at times the first minister can be loud, irritating, bumptious even, but, when the knives are out and the going gets tough, he is never afraid to stick his head above the parapet.
Scotland’s first minister has delivered a right royal raspberry to the US over the al Megrahi and BP affair. Not before time. Instead of skulking around, furiously passing the buck like many of his colleagues, Mr Salmond has said “no” to America.
No, we will not obey. No, the justice secretary will not go to America for a grilling in front of a Senate committee. Neither will Alex Salmond. There will be no grilled Salmond on the menu.
Now, had it been Tony Blair, our former prime minister, things would have been different. Mr Blair would have been at Heathrow Airport, in an instant, tail wagging furiously, on his way to Washington. Not for nothing was old Tone known as Bush’s poodle.
Alex Salmond is no one’s poodle. Rottweiler, maybe, but never a poodle. (...)
When a small country such as Scotland, with a remit as big as the al Megrahi decision, made a compassionate choice, America chose to vilify us.
In all the criticisms of the Scottish Government over the Megrahi decision, none of the American politicians has so much as mentioned the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. Why not? Because the truth does not interest them.
The wonderful Mr Salmond said there was no way the Senate foreign relations committee would be allowed to hold hearings or interview ministers in either London or Edinburgh, as it was unconstitutional and unprecedented.
He also said that the Scottish and UK governments had already answered the committee's questions by letter and supplied all the relevant documents related to al Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds. (...)
I doubt we will ever know the ins and outs of Tony Blair’s deal with Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi in the desert, back in 2004, but the fallout from that meeting lingers on into this present crisis.
Scotland, a small country, has been singled out by the US so that certain politicians over there can flex their muscles at our expense. This has gone on for some time now.
Kenny MacAskill showed a great deal of integrity by refusing to buckle under intense international pressure. He made a difficult, controversial decision off his own bat. And, by the way, the fact that an unruly bunch of Saltire-waving Libyans greeted al Megrahi on his return home has nothing to do with the Scottish Government. Also, it has to be said that the justice secretary proved Scotland was very capable of independence, because we made our own decision in the devolved area of criminal justice, and stuck to our guns.
Therefore, I respect Alex Salmond, our occasionally pugnacious first minister, for getting on his high horse and telling the US Senate that he will not be dispatching members of his government to Washington to be grilled by senators who, let’s be honest, sense there is blood in the water.
[In The Herald a letter from Jo Greenhorn headed "Leaders should be vociferous in condemning American interference in our sovereign affairs" reads as follows:]
For how much longer will the parliaments at Westminster and Holyrood tolerate interference in British and Scottish affairs by the United States?
When will we hear public condemnation of recent US behaviour from every single party leader at Westminster, including the Prime Minister, and from all opposition leaders at Holyrood? It really is time the gloves came off.
The US has now crossed many lines in what we know is nothing more than a blatant attempt by four insignificant politicians there to use the recent oil spill, and the involvement of BP in that matter, to rustle up some votes ahead of their elections later this year.
They are now breaching not only diplomatic protocol but sailing dangerously close to disregarding the right of every sovereign country, under UN regulations, to manage its own business. What next? Will they invade?
The Herald is to be congratulated for supporting the approach taken by Alex Salmond in dealing with the increasingly bizarre behaviour of the US in a recent powerful editorial on the subject.
It is a pity Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott would not do the same, regardless of their feelings about the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi last year. This is no time for party politics, and their silence is something all Scots should view with alarm. Ultimately, they should condemn outright what the US is doing by openly interfering in British and Scottish business. They should also be supporting calls from The Herald and elsewhere for a full investigation into Lockerbie.
If the Americans want an inquiry, let’s give them one, but let’s make it worthwhile. Let’s investigate Lockerbie from start to finish, including the public doubts expressed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission regarding Megrahi’s original trial and conviction. Megrahi’s appeal may be gone but the findings of the SCCRC are still on record and they will not go away.
You have to hand it to Alex Salmond. Yes, OK, at times the first minister can be loud, irritating, bumptious even, but, when the knives are out and the going gets tough, he is never afraid to stick his head above the parapet.
Scotland’s first minister has delivered a right royal raspberry to the US over the al Megrahi and BP affair. Not before time. Instead of skulking around, furiously passing the buck like many of his colleagues, Mr Salmond has said “no” to America.
No, we will not obey. No, the justice secretary will not go to America for a grilling in front of a Senate committee. Neither will Alex Salmond. There will be no grilled Salmond on the menu.
Now, had it been Tony Blair, our former prime minister, things would have been different. Mr Blair would have been at Heathrow Airport, in an instant, tail wagging furiously, on his way to Washington. Not for nothing was old Tone known as Bush’s poodle.
Alex Salmond is no one’s poodle. Rottweiler, maybe, but never a poodle. (...)
When a small country such as Scotland, with a remit as big as the al Megrahi decision, made a compassionate choice, America chose to vilify us.
In all the criticisms of the Scottish Government over the Megrahi decision, none of the American politicians has so much as mentioned the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. Why not? Because the truth does not interest them.
The wonderful Mr Salmond said there was no way the Senate foreign relations committee would be allowed to hold hearings or interview ministers in either London or Edinburgh, as it was unconstitutional and unprecedented.
He also said that the Scottish and UK governments had already answered the committee's questions by letter and supplied all the relevant documents related to al Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds. (...)
I doubt we will ever know the ins and outs of Tony Blair’s deal with Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi in the desert, back in 2004, but the fallout from that meeting lingers on into this present crisis.
Scotland, a small country, has been singled out by the US so that certain politicians over there can flex their muscles at our expense. This has gone on for some time now.
Kenny MacAskill showed a great deal of integrity by refusing to buckle under intense international pressure. He made a difficult, controversial decision off his own bat. And, by the way, the fact that an unruly bunch of Saltire-waving Libyans greeted al Megrahi on his return home has nothing to do with the Scottish Government. Also, it has to be said that the justice secretary proved Scotland was very capable of independence, because we made our own decision in the devolved area of criminal justice, and stuck to our guns.
Therefore, I respect Alex Salmond, our occasionally pugnacious first minister, for getting on his high horse and telling the US Senate that he will not be dispatching members of his government to Washington to be grilled by senators who, let’s be honest, sense there is blood in the water.
[In The Herald a letter from Jo Greenhorn headed "Leaders should be vociferous in condemning American interference in our sovereign affairs" reads as follows:]
For how much longer will the parliaments at Westminster and Holyrood tolerate interference in British and Scottish affairs by the United States?
When will we hear public condemnation of recent US behaviour from every single party leader at Westminster, including the Prime Minister, and from all opposition leaders at Holyrood? It really is time the gloves came off.
The US has now crossed many lines in what we know is nothing more than a blatant attempt by four insignificant politicians there to use the recent oil spill, and the involvement of BP in that matter, to rustle up some votes ahead of their elections later this year.
They are now breaching not only diplomatic protocol but sailing dangerously close to disregarding the right of every sovereign country, under UN regulations, to manage its own business. What next? Will they invade?
The Herald is to be congratulated for supporting the approach taken by Alex Salmond in dealing with the increasingly bizarre behaviour of the US in a recent powerful editorial on the subject.
It is a pity Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott would not do the same, regardless of their feelings about the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi last year. This is no time for party politics, and their silence is something all Scots should view with alarm. Ultimately, they should condemn outright what the US is doing by openly interfering in British and Scottish business. They should also be supporting calls from The Herald and elsewhere for a full investigation into Lockerbie.
If the Americans want an inquiry, let’s give them one, but let’s make it worthwhile. Let’s investigate Lockerbie from start to finish, including the public doubts expressed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission regarding Megrahi’s original trial and conviction. Megrahi’s appeal may be gone but the findings of the SCCRC are still on record and they will not go away.
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
Alex Salmond attacks senator for Megrahi deal 'insinuation'
[This is the headline over The Scotsman's report on the First Minister's latest letter to Senator Menendez. The following are excerpts:]
The transatlantic row over the Lockerbie bomber has intensified after Alex Salmond accused a US senator of attempting to "insinuate" a false link between his release and a lobbying campaign by BP, and US politicians claimed the Scottish investigations into the affair had been "limited".
In an angry letter to Senator Robert Menendez yesterday, the First Minister defended his decision to snub a US Senate inquiry into the affair as he restated his denial that the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had been linked to a lucrative Libyan oil deal.
His comments came as two US politicians sent a terse missive to the Scottish Government, complaining that receiving information in writing was not an "adequate replacement" for witnesses appearing in person and claiming that the Scottish Parliamentary inquest into the compassionate release had not been carried out by an independent investigator and had therefore been restricted. (...)
Mr Salmond said that decision had been made "on principle rather than on any issue of practicality" and claimed the most appropriate way for him to provide information to the senators was in writing.
He added: "It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which serving members of the US government would agree to appear as witnesses in hearings or inquiries held by the legislature of another country."
Mr Salmond reiterated his insistence there was no evidence of a link between the release and the prisoner transfer agreement, signed by the UK and Libyan governments shortly before BP reached an oil exploration deal with the African country.
"It was with concern I watched you attempt to insinuate such a link on BBC Newsnight on 30 July by citing a letter from Conservative Party peer Lord Trefgarne, the chair of the Libyan British Business Council, to justice secretary MacAskill last year," he wrote. "This was one of approximately one thousand representations received by the Scottish Government last year." [Note by RB: The Scotsman, for some reason, chooses not to quote the sentences which immediately follow: 'You have this letter because the Scottish Government published this last year as part of our comprehensive issue of documentation related to the decision. That being the case, you must also have seen the reply from Mr MacAskill, also published, which stated that his decisions would be "based on judicial grounds alone and economic and political considerations have no part in the process". In order to avoid any suggestion of misrepresentation, I trust that you will include that fact in future references.']
He added: "Please do not ascribe to the Scottish Government economic or commercial motives for this decision when there is no evidence whatsoever for such a claim." (...)
Later a Holyrood spokesman said questions over the justice committee's handling of the case were not for the First Minister to address.
[The same newspaper has an editorial on the issue. It reads as follows:]
It is clear from Alex Salmond's latest letter to US Senator Robert Menendez that the First Minister is, understandably, beginning to lose patience with the persistent demands and allegations levelled at Scotland from across the Atlantic Ocean.
In his latest missive Mr Salmond is fully justified in taking Senator Menendez to task over the claims the Scottish government released Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to pave the way for the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) between the UK government and Libya for which the oil company BP lobbied.
As the First Minister rightly points out, there has never been any evidence the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill took his decision to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds as part of this deal and the insinuation by the Senator in a recent interview that this was the case casts an unwarranted slur on the reputation of the Holyrood government and Scottish justice.
And as if these exchanges were not enough, the water was further muddied last night by another letter, addressed to the Scottish government, from Senator Menendez and his Senatorial colleague Frank Lautenberg which questioned the conduct of an inquiry by the Scottish parliament into the Lockerbie affair.
In response the Scottish government was right to point out that this latest Senate salvo is constitutionally illiterate. Scotland has a separation of powers between the executive arm of government and the elected body to which it is answerable. Just like America.
These latest exchanges have been sparked by the continuing controversy over what happened on that terrible night over Lockerbie in 1988: who was responsible; whether the right man was convicted; and if the PTA agreed by the UK government was linked to BP's bid for business in Libya, once held responsible for bringing down Pan Am 103, but brought into the international fold over the past decade.
In their determination to keep the issue alive - in an election period for them - the Senators are seeing matters from a narrow, US-centric, perspective and conveniently ignoring the doubts over their own country's involvement in the wider Lockerbie story.
There are still questions over the US's warship's downing of an Iran Air A300 Airbus in July 1988 in which 290 passengers were killed, and whether the supposedly retaliatory bombing of Pan Am 103 was the responsibility of Palestinian terrorists linked to Syria, and not Libyans as the US subsequently claimed.
If the Senators are serious in their search for the truth behind the Lockerbie tragedy then, with the same self-proclaimed objective of establishing that truth objectively from evidence, they might care to look a little deeper at the involvement of their own country.
But if, as we suspect, they are not interested in the wider issue and are using the deaths of hundreds of innocent people for partisan electoral purposes then the transatlantic flow of letters from Washington should cease.
In short, a period of silence from Senator Menendez and his colleagues would be welcome.
[The Herald's report, headlined "War of words escalates as Salmond rebukes US senator" can be read here.
The CNN website has a report on the news conference held yesterday by Senators Lautenberg and Menendez. I draw attention to it because of the readers' comments that follow the story. Could it be that the senatorial grandstanding is beginning to backfire even in the United States?
A further report on the CNN website now deals with the First Minister's letter to Senator Menendez.]
The transatlantic row over the Lockerbie bomber has intensified after Alex Salmond accused a US senator of attempting to "insinuate" a false link between his release and a lobbying campaign by BP, and US politicians claimed the Scottish investigations into the affair had been "limited".
In an angry letter to Senator Robert Menendez yesterday, the First Minister defended his decision to snub a US Senate inquiry into the affair as he restated his denial that the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had been linked to a lucrative Libyan oil deal.
His comments came as two US politicians sent a terse missive to the Scottish Government, complaining that receiving information in writing was not an "adequate replacement" for witnesses appearing in person and claiming that the Scottish Parliamentary inquest into the compassionate release had not been carried out by an independent investigator and had therefore been restricted. (...)
Mr Salmond said that decision had been made "on principle rather than on any issue of practicality" and claimed the most appropriate way for him to provide information to the senators was in writing.
He added: "It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which serving members of the US government would agree to appear as witnesses in hearings or inquiries held by the legislature of another country."
Mr Salmond reiterated his insistence there was no evidence of a link between the release and the prisoner transfer agreement, signed by the UK and Libyan governments shortly before BP reached an oil exploration deal with the African country.
"It was with concern I watched you attempt to insinuate such a link on BBC Newsnight on 30 July by citing a letter from Conservative Party peer Lord Trefgarne, the chair of the Libyan British Business Council, to justice secretary MacAskill last year," he wrote. "This was one of approximately one thousand representations received by the Scottish Government last year." [Note by RB: The Scotsman, for some reason, chooses not to quote the sentences which immediately follow: 'You have this letter because the Scottish Government published this last year as part of our comprehensive issue of documentation related to the decision. That being the case, you must also have seen the reply from Mr MacAskill, also published, which stated that his decisions would be "based on judicial grounds alone and economic and political considerations have no part in the process". In order to avoid any suggestion of misrepresentation, I trust that you will include that fact in future references.']
He added: "Please do not ascribe to the Scottish Government economic or commercial motives for this decision when there is no evidence whatsoever for such a claim." (...)
Later a Holyrood spokesman said questions over the justice committee's handling of the case were not for the First Minister to address.
[The same newspaper has an editorial on the issue. It reads as follows:]
It is clear from Alex Salmond's latest letter to US Senator Robert Menendez that the First Minister is, understandably, beginning to lose patience with the persistent demands and allegations levelled at Scotland from across the Atlantic Ocean.
In his latest missive Mr Salmond is fully justified in taking Senator Menendez to task over the claims the Scottish government released Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to pave the way for the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) between the UK government and Libya for which the oil company BP lobbied.
As the First Minister rightly points out, there has never been any evidence the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill took his decision to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds as part of this deal and the insinuation by the Senator in a recent interview that this was the case casts an unwarranted slur on the reputation of the Holyrood government and Scottish justice.
And as if these exchanges were not enough, the water was further muddied last night by another letter, addressed to the Scottish government, from Senator Menendez and his Senatorial colleague Frank Lautenberg which questioned the conduct of an inquiry by the Scottish parliament into the Lockerbie affair.
In response the Scottish government was right to point out that this latest Senate salvo is constitutionally illiterate. Scotland has a separation of powers between the executive arm of government and the elected body to which it is answerable. Just like America.
These latest exchanges have been sparked by the continuing controversy over what happened on that terrible night over Lockerbie in 1988: who was responsible; whether the right man was convicted; and if the PTA agreed by the UK government was linked to BP's bid for business in Libya, once held responsible for bringing down Pan Am 103, but brought into the international fold over the past decade.
In their determination to keep the issue alive - in an election period for them - the Senators are seeing matters from a narrow, US-centric, perspective and conveniently ignoring the doubts over their own country's involvement in the wider Lockerbie story.
There are still questions over the US's warship's downing of an Iran Air A300 Airbus in July 1988 in which 290 passengers were killed, and whether the supposedly retaliatory bombing of Pan Am 103 was the responsibility of Palestinian terrorists linked to Syria, and not Libyans as the US subsequently claimed.
If the Senators are serious in their search for the truth behind the Lockerbie tragedy then, with the same self-proclaimed objective of establishing that truth objectively from evidence, they might care to look a little deeper at the involvement of their own country.
But if, as we suspect, they are not interested in the wider issue and are using the deaths of hundreds of innocent people for partisan electoral purposes then the transatlantic flow of letters from Washington should cease.
In short, a period of silence from Senator Menendez and his colleagues would be welcome.
[The Herald's report, headlined "War of words escalates as Salmond rebukes US senator" can be read here.
The CNN website has a report on the news conference held yesterday by Senators Lautenberg and Menendez. I draw attention to it because of the readers' comments that follow the story. Could it be that the senatorial grandstanding is beginning to backfire even in the United States?
A further report on the CNN website now deals with the First Minister's letter to Senator Menendez.]
Monday, 2 August 2010
Salmond's latest letter to Menendez
[What follows is the text of a press release just issued by the Scottish Government.]
First Minister Alex Salmond has today replied to the letter from Senator Menendez of July 29.
This follows the First Minister's previous letter to Senator Menendez on July 26, which answered five detailed questions from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and also provided copies of documents.
The First Minister has also previously written to Senator John Kerry on July 21, providing comprehensive information and assistance ahead of the planned hearing which was later postponed. Senator Kerry described this correspondence as "thoughtful and thorough".
The letter is copied below:
Dear Senator Menendez
Thank you for your letter of 29 July.
I have made clear in my letters to you and to Senator Kerry that the Scottish Government's decision to decline your previous invitation for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Dr Fraser to attend a hearing in the US was based on principle rather than on any issue of practicality.
The most appropriate way for us to assist the Foreign Relations Committee is to provide a statement of the position of the Scottish Government, as I have done, and to answer any questions that the Committee may have in writing, as we have also done.
Scottish Ministers and public officials are properly accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not to other legislatures. It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which serving members of the US Government would agree to appear as witnesses in hearings or inquiries held by the legislature of another country, and there are many high-profile and indeed current examples of the US Government declining such invitations.
Your letter again seeks to link BP with the decision made by the Scottish Government to grant Mr Al-Megrahi compassionate release. No-one has produced any evidence of such a link because there is none. We have said repeatedly that there has never, at any point, been any contact between BP and the Scottish Government in relation to Al-Megrahi. The statements we have made on this issue are entirely clear and consistent.
It was with concern that I watched you attempt to insinuate such a link on BBC Newsnight on 30th July by citing a letter from Conservative Party peer Lord Trefgarne, the chair of the Libyan British Business Council, to Justice Secretary MacAskill last year. This was one of approximately one thousand representations received by the Scottish Government last year, including many from the USA. You have this letter because the Scottish Government published this last year as part of our comprehensive issue of documentation related to the decision. That being the case, you must also have seen the reply from Mr MacAskill, also published, which stated that his decisions would be "based on judicial grounds alone and economic and political considerations have no part in the process". In order to avoid any suggestion of misrepresentation, I trust that you will include that fact in future references.
BP's admitted lobbying on this issue referred to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) and with the UK Government. As you must by now be aware, the Scottish Government opposed this agreement from its inception, a position that we have maintained publicly and privately since. Indeed, I revealed the existence of the proposed PTA to the Scottish Parliament in a statement on 7 June 2007. It is perhaps to be regretted that our warnings about the circumstances in which this agreement came into being found no response at that time from the UK Government, the then opposition in the UK Parliament, or indeed from the United States Senate.
Finally, you and some of your Senatorial colleagues, have suggested that the Scottish Government have sought to pass responsibility to others for the release of Al-Megrahi. That is simply not the case. Secretary MacAskill took the decision following the precepts and due process of Scots law and jurisdiction - the same jurisdiction which over a period of some 20 years led Scotland to play the leading role in investigating, trying, convicting and incarcerating Al-Megrahi. We do not resile from our responsibility in making that decision.
The point we make is a different but a quite simple one. Please do not ascribe to the Scottish Government economic or commercial motives for this decision when there is no evidence whatsoever for such a claim.
If you wish to investigate commercial or indeed other motivations surrounding this case, then call the former UK Ministers and Prime Ministers who were involved in proposing, negotiating and then signing the PTA and, of course, where there is a public record of admission that business and trade, along with other issues, were factors. In this light your decision not to proceed with the draft invitation to offer evidence to former Prime Minister Blair, who actually signed the proposed PTA in May 2007, seems puzzling.
These people, of course, may have had, and indeed in some cases have conceded, motivations other than justice considerations. However, they did not take the decision on Mr Megrahi.
I am copying this letter to Senator Kerry.
Alex Salmond
[The following are excerpts from a related report on the BBC News website.]
Meanwhile Mr Menendez announced an "investigative phase" to the inquiry.
During a press conference at Newark Liberty International Airport, Mr Menendez and fellow New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg also released the first in a series of letters to the Scottish government requesting new information.
And they said requests to interview "key individuals", potentially outside of the US, would be made. (...)
Mr Menendez and Mr Lautenberg have pledged to carry out a thorough review of all documents already made public by the UK and Scottish governments, and all documents newly released to them by the UK government.
The senators said they would also make requests for specific additional documents from sources potentially including the UK, Scottish, Libyan and US governments, as well as BP.
In a fresh letter to Mr Salmond, they wrote: "One of your stated reasons for not participating in our hearing process is that you judge that the inquiry by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee was sufficient.
"In reviewing the documents available from your inquiry in the absence of direct testimony, it seems that the inquiry was quite limited, which leads me to the first series of questions we would appreciate your help in answering."
[An Agence France Presse news agency report on the senators' press conference and letter can be read here.]
First Minister Alex Salmond has today replied to the letter from Senator Menendez of July 29.
This follows the First Minister's previous letter to Senator Menendez on July 26, which answered five detailed questions from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and also provided copies of documents.
The First Minister has also previously written to Senator John Kerry on July 21, providing comprehensive information and assistance ahead of the planned hearing which was later postponed. Senator Kerry described this correspondence as "thoughtful and thorough".
The letter is copied below:
Dear Senator Menendez
Thank you for your letter of 29 July.
I have made clear in my letters to you and to Senator Kerry that the Scottish Government's decision to decline your previous invitation for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Dr Fraser to attend a hearing in the US was based on principle rather than on any issue of practicality.
The most appropriate way for us to assist the Foreign Relations Committee is to provide a statement of the position of the Scottish Government, as I have done, and to answer any questions that the Committee may have in writing, as we have also done.
Scottish Ministers and public officials are properly accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not to other legislatures. It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which serving members of the US Government would agree to appear as witnesses in hearings or inquiries held by the legislature of another country, and there are many high-profile and indeed current examples of the US Government declining such invitations.
Your letter again seeks to link BP with the decision made by the Scottish Government to grant Mr Al-Megrahi compassionate release. No-one has produced any evidence of such a link because there is none. We have said repeatedly that there has never, at any point, been any contact between BP and the Scottish Government in relation to Al-Megrahi. The statements we have made on this issue are entirely clear and consistent.
It was with concern that I watched you attempt to insinuate such a link on BBC Newsnight on 30th July by citing a letter from Conservative Party peer Lord Trefgarne, the chair of the Libyan British Business Council, to Justice Secretary MacAskill last year. This was one of approximately one thousand representations received by the Scottish Government last year, including many from the USA. You have this letter because the Scottish Government published this last year as part of our comprehensive issue of documentation related to the decision. That being the case, you must also have seen the reply from Mr MacAskill, also published, which stated that his decisions would be "based on judicial grounds alone and economic and political considerations have no part in the process". In order to avoid any suggestion of misrepresentation, I trust that you will include that fact in future references.
BP's admitted lobbying on this issue referred to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) and with the UK Government. As you must by now be aware, the Scottish Government opposed this agreement from its inception, a position that we have maintained publicly and privately since. Indeed, I revealed the existence of the proposed PTA to the Scottish Parliament in a statement on 7 June 2007. It is perhaps to be regretted that our warnings about the circumstances in which this agreement came into being found no response at that time from the UK Government, the then opposition in the UK Parliament, or indeed from the United States Senate.
Finally, you and some of your Senatorial colleagues, have suggested that the Scottish Government have sought to pass responsibility to others for the release of Al-Megrahi. That is simply not the case. Secretary MacAskill took the decision following the precepts and due process of Scots law and jurisdiction - the same jurisdiction which over a period of some 20 years led Scotland to play the leading role in investigating, trying, convicting and incarcerating Al-Megrahi. We do not resile from our responsibility in making that decision.
The point we make is a different but a quite simple one. Please do not ascribe to the Scottish Government economic or commercial motives for this decision when there is no evidence whatsoever for such a claim.
If you wish to investigate commercial or indeed other motivations surrounding this case, then call the former UK Ministers and Prime Ministers who were involved in proposing, negotiating and then signing the PTA and, of course, where there is a public record of admission that business and trade, along with other issues, were factors. In this light your decision not to proceed with the draft invitation to offer evidence to former Prime Minister Blair, who actually signed the proposed PTA in May 2007, seems puzzling.
These people, of course, may have had, and indeed in some cases have conceded, motivations other than justice considerations. However, they did not take the decision on Mr Megrahi.
I am copying this letter to Senator Kerry.
Alex Salmond
[The following are excerpts from a related report on the BBC News website.]
Meanwhile Mr Menendez announced an "investigative phase" to the inquiry.
During a press conference at Newark Liberty International Airport, Mr Menendez and fellow New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg also released the first in a series of letters to the Scottish government requesting new information.
And they said requests to interview "key individuals", potentially outside of the US, would be made. (...)
Mr Menendez and Mr Lautenberg have pledged to carry out a thorough review of all documents already made public by the UK and Scottish governments, and all documents newly released to them by the UK government.
The senators said they would also make requests for specific additional documents from sources potentially including the UK, Scottish, Libyan and US governments, as well as BP.
In a fresh letter to Mr Salmond, they wrote: "One of your stated reasons for not participating in our hearing process is that you judge that the inquiry by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee was sufficient.
"In reviewing the documents available from your inquiry in the absence of direct testimony, it seems that the inquiry was quite limited, which leads me to the first series of questions we would appreciate your help in answering."
[An Agence France Presse news agency report on the senators' press conference and letter can be read here.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)