[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of the Maltese newspaper The Times. It refers to the SNP's Christine Grahame who is, of course, a MSP not a MP. The article reads in part:]
A Scottish television documentary alleging the Lockerbie bomb was loaded in an unaccompanied luggage in Malta was “biased” and “deeply misleading”, Scottish MP Christine Grahame insists.
Ms Grahame, a Scottish National Party representative in the Scottish Parliament, wrote to STV’s chief executive officer Rob Woodward expressing concern at the allegations repeated in the documentary broadcast earlier this month.
She said Air Malta had won a significant out-of-court settlement against Granada TV in 1993 when the same “unfounded allegations” about the airline’s involvement in the Lockerbie story had been made.
The documentary claimed the bomb was loaded in Malta on an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, something that has always been denied by the airline and the government.
The unaccompanied luggage then purportedly made its way to Heathrow where it eventually found its way onto Pan Am flight 103, which exploded over the Scottish village of Lockerbie killing 270 people in December 1988.
“There were a number of misleading statements made in the film but I think the most worrying from STV’s perspective will be the unfounded allegation that the baggage alleged to have carried the bomb was transported, unaccompanied, on an Air Malta flight,” Ms Grahame said.
She insisted Air Malta was able to prove that all 55 bags loaded onto the flight to Frankfurt were ascribed to passengers.
“To this day, not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced showing the bomb was on the Air Malta flight,” Ms Grahame said, insisting she was extremely disappointed with the way the STV documentary recounted the events surrounding the atrocity in “a one-sided and biased manner”.
Air Malta yesterday stood by its initial reaction last week, insisting it was following developments closely. An airline spokesman said the company had nothing to add when asked whether it had instructed its lawyers to initiate legal action against STV. (...)
Concerns over the Scottish documentary were also raised by the father of one of the victims, Jim Swire, who asked the broadcaster to apologise and correct the wrong impression given about Malta.
“I wrote to STV because, being a seeker of truth myself, I do not like to see lies promulgated in public. It simply isn’t true that the Lockerbie bomb was carried by Air Malta. Indeed, it is not true that the bomb started its awful journey from Malta at all,” Dr Swire said.
Dr Swire and other Lockerbie investigators developed a theory that the bomb was most probably introduced on the fatal flight through a break-in that occurred the night before the bombing at Heathrow airport allowing access for an untraced person to the baggage loading area for Pan Am and the facility allocated in those days to Iran Air.
“Why would a state terrorist choose to risk two changes of aircraft and set his timer so that the final plane only cleared Heathrow by 38 minutes when his digital timer would have allowed him to set it to go off over the mid-Atlantic? What a crazy plot,” the embittered father said of the prosecution’s theory that pinned the blame on Mr al-Megrahi, who, at the time, was a secret service agent for the Libyan government stationed in Malta with Libyan Arab Airlines.
“How much simpler to break into Heathrow and leave a case with the explosive device for the Iranians to put into a Pan Am container at the next available opportunity,” Dr Swire said, insisting Iran had the strongest motive to retaliate after an Iran Air Airbus was shot down six months earlier by a US warship in the Persian Gulf , killing all 290 passengers. According to the US government, the crew mistakenly identified the Iranian airliner as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter.
“I did not want the viewers in Scotland to believe a fallacy of that magnitude, now re-broadcast by STV,” Dr Swire said of his Air Malta defence. (...)
Malta has always denied the bomb was loaded at Luqa airport.
Friday, 20 August 2010
UK Lockerbie families call US senators to Scotland
[This is the headline over a news agency report from The Associated Press. It reads in part:]
Some families of the British victims of the Lockerbie bombing have challenged four US senators to speak to them about their take on the 1988 terror attack.
Although the American relatives of those who died in the attack have largely focused on the controversy surrounding the release of former Libyan agent Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of playing any role in the atrocity, many here in the UK harbor lingering doubts about his guilt — and want the US to know it.
"The senators should not be asking why Mr. al-Megrahi was released, but why he was convicted in the first place," said Rev. John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, was among those who perished in the attack. "This is not about one man, but about the 270 people who died."
Lawyers for al-Megrahi have long argued that the attack was actually the result of an Iranian-financed Palestinian plot, and that authorities in Britain and the United States tampered with evidence, disregarded witness statements and steered investigators toward the conclusion that Libya, not Iran, was to blame.
Libya accepted responsibility and pay compensation for the Lockerbie bombing, the argument goes, as a quick and easy way to shake off its pariah status.
The theory remains a matter of debate in Scotland. Retired Detective Chief Superintendent Stuart Henderson, who helped link al-Megrahi to the bombing, recently told Scottish television that the idea that anyone would attempt to frame al-Megrahi was ridiculous. (...)
Mosey said that US officials needed to change their focus.
"Instead of hounding the doctors and Scottish politicians in the case, I would like them to come over to speak to us, the UK families of Flight 103," he said. "We are not in uniform agreement, but I think they need to hear our voices.
"We have not learned the truth about Lockerbie."
Still, it does have some traction and Mosey and others have called for a public inquiry into the case.
Some families of the British victims of the Lockerbie bombing have challenged four US senators to speak to them about their take on the 1988 terror attack.
Although the American relatives of those who died in the attack have largely focused on the controversy surrounding the release of former Libyan agent Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of playing any role in the atrocity, many here in the UK harbor lingering doubts about his guilt — and want the US to know it.
"The senators should not be asking why Mr. al-Megrahi was released, but why he was convicted in the first place," said Rev. John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, was among those who perished in the attack. "This is not about one man, but about the 270 people who died."
Lawyers for al-Megrahi have long argued that the attack was actually the result of an Iranian-financed Palestinian plot, and that authorities in Britain and the United States tampered with evidence, disregarded witness statements and steered investigators toward the conclusion that Libya, not Iran, was to blame.
Libya accepted responsibility and pay compensation for the Lockerbie bombing, the argument goes, as a quick and easy way to shake off its pariah status.
The theory remains a matter of debate in Scotland. Retired Detective Chief Superintendent Stuart Henderson, who helped link al-Megrahi to the bombing, recently told Scottish television that the idea that anyone would attempt to frame al-Megrahi was ridiculous. (...)
Mosey said that US officials needed to change their focus.
"Instead of hounding the doctors and Scottish politicians in the case, I would like them to come over to speak to us, the UK families of Flight 103," he said. "We are not in uniform agreement, but I think they need to hear our voices.
"We have not learned the truth about Lockerbie."
Still, it does have some traction and Mosey and others have called for a public inquiry into the case.
Call for public inquiry into bombing
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Dignitaries and campaigners including Desmond Tutu have called for the Scottish Government to launch a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.
In an open letter, some 24 signatories including relatives of the victims, such as Dr Jim Swire and Jean Berkley, today call for a full and open inquiry.
The letter questions recent moves by the Scottish Government “to abrogate its responsibility and pass the buck to London” in relation to calls for a public inquiry.
First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill have said that Scotland has neither the power nor the resources to hold an investigation.
The letter states: “When it came to granting compassionate release to Mr Megrahi, the Scottish Government was adamant that the matter fell under Scottish jurisdiction and would brook no interference in the nation’s affairs.
“When it comes to the establishment of an inquiry, why does Edinburgh appear so keen to abrogate its responsibility and pass the buck?
“One cannot have one’s cake and eat it. The excuse frequently offered is that a Scottish inquiry would not possess the requisite power of subpoena when it comes to requiring evidence to be produced.
“This same argument not only applies to Westminster but to the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation also. In fact, the only body with the powers that Mr Salmond is looking for is the Security Council of the UN.
“In other words, given this, and the fact that the General Assembly appears to be reluctant to take the bull by the horns, it is down to individual nation states.
“The Scottish Government should not be allowed to shirk its duties and responsibilities to the bereaved and its electorate by expecting other, foreign, authorities to pick up the gauntlet.”
The letter, sent to ministers to coincide with the anniversary of Megrahi’s release, makes the point that Holyrood should be fully able to assess the details of what happened because the case was investigated by Scottish police, the trial was conducted under Scots law, and Megrahi was held in a Scottish prison and released on compassionate grounds by a Scottish minister.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “On the broader questions of inquiry, the Scottish Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr Megrahi. [Note by RB: Another instance of the SCCRC's conclusion that, on six grounds, the conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice, being blithely swept under the carpet.] Nevertheless, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the atrocity.
“The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would therefore need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”
Scots back Salmond on US inquiry decision
Almost three-quarters of Scots believe First Minister Alex Salmond was correct to snub requests to appear before a US inquiry.
The SNP-commissioned YouGov poll of 1212 people showed 72% agreed they were right not to attend and said the Scottish Government is accountable to itself, not US politicians.
A total of 14% think lobbying by BP played a part in Megrahi’s release, while 54% agreed with the Scottish Government that he was released “solely in line with Scots law”.
And 76% said it was proper that the decision on whether to release Megrahi was made by the Scottish Justice Secretary, not a minister in the UK Government.
Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “This poll demonstrates overwhelmingly that the people of Scotland believe that the Justice Secretary took the decision for the right reasons, that it was right for the Scottish Government and no one else to take the decision, and that it was right not to answer to a US Senate hearing on the issue.”
[The Scotsman publishes a long series of articles on the anniversary of Megrahi's release. The main one is tendentiously headlined "Freeing Megrahi 'will cost SNP the election'". It contains links to the other pieces and can be read here.]
Dignitaries and campaigners including Desmond Tutu have called for the Scottish Government to launch a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.
In an open letter, some 24 signatories including relatives of the victims, such as Dr Jim Swire and Jean Berkley, today call for a full and open inquiry.
The letter questions recent moves by the Scottish Government “to abrogate its responsibility and pass the buck to London” in relation to calls for a public inquiry.
First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill have said that Scotland has neither the power nor the resources to hold an investigation.
The letter states: “When it came to granting compassionate release to Mr Megrahi, the Scottish Government was adamant that the matter fell under Scottish jurisdiction and would brook no interference in the nation’s affairs.
“When it comes to the establishment of an inquiry, why does Edinburgh appear so keen to abrogate its responsibility and pass the buck?
“One cannot have one’s cake and eat it. The excuse frequently offered is that a Scottish inquiry would not possess the requisite power of subpoena when it comes to requiring evidence to be produced.
“This same argument not only applies to Westminster but to the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation also. In fact, the only body with the powers that Mr Salmond is looking for is the Security Council of the UN.
“In other words, given this, and the fact that the General Assembly appears to be reluctant to take the bull by the horns, it is down to individual nation states.
“The Scottish Government should not be allowed to shirk its duties and responsibilities to the bereaved and its electorate by expecting other, foreign, authorities to pick up the gauntlet.”
The letter, sent to ministers to coincide with the anniversary of Megrahi’s release, makes the point that Holyrood should be fully able to assess the details of what happened because the case was investigated by Scottish police, the trial was conducted under Scots law, and Megrahi was held in a Scottish prison and released on compassionate grounds by a Scottish minister.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “On the broader questions of inquiry, the Scottish Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr Megrahi. [Note by RB: Another instance of the SCCRC's conclusion that, on six grounds, the conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice, being blithely swept under the carpet.] Nevertheless, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the atrocity.
“The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would therefore need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”
Scots back Salmond on US inquiry decision
Almost three-quarters of Scots believe First Minister Alex Salmond was correct to snub requests to appear before a US inquiry.
The SNP-commissioned YouGov poll of 1212 people showed 72% agreed they were right not to attend and said the Scottish Government is accountable to itself, not US politicians.
A total of 14% think lobbying by BP played a part in Megrahi’s release, while 54% agreed with the Scottish Government that he was released “solely in line with Scots law”.
And 76% said it was proper that the decision on whether to release Megrahi was made by the Scottish Justice Secretary, not a minister in the UK Government.
Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “This poll demonstrates overwhelmingly that the people of Scotland believe that the Justice Secretary took the decision for the right reasons, that it was right for the Scottish Government and no one else to take the decision, and that it was right not to answer to a US Senate hearing on the issue.”
[The Scotsman publishes a long series of articles on the anniversary of Megrahi's release. The main one is tendentiously headlined "Freeing Megrahi 'will cost SNP the election'". It contains links to the other pieces and can be read here.]
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Lockerbie bombing 'should be investigated by independent inquiry'
[This is the headline over a report just published on The Guardian website. It reads in part:]
A senior human rights lawyer has called for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing as controversy intensifies over the convicted bomber's early release on medical grounds.
Professor Alan Miller, the head of the Scottish human rights commission, said there were still significant doubts about the guilt of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi after an independent investigation uncovered new evidence that undermined the conviction.
Miller told The Guardian that the UK government should release a secret intelligence report that the Scottish criminal cases review commission said could – on its own – have been enough to have freed Megrahi on appeal. It was withheld at his trial.
The document is believed to cast serious doubts on prosecution claims that Megrahi used a specific Swiss timer for the bomb. The release of the document was banned in 2008 by David Miliband, the then foreign secretary, leading to a lengthy legal battle by Megrahi's lawyers which ended when the Libyan abandoned his appeal because of his terminal cancer. (...)
Miller said the row over Megrahi's medical status was an "undignified and unhelpful distraction" from the more important issue of addressing unresolved questions about his guilt.
It has emerged that Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Noam Chomsky are among the signatories of a petition calling for an inquiry into the case.
[The list of signatories can be seen here. Kate Adie has just written to Justice for Megrahi asking that her name be added to the list.
Unsurprisingly, the Tory-supporting Telegraph website is running an editorial headed "Lockerbie bomber: MacAskill should resign". The Tories have minimal electoral support in Scotland.]
A senior human rights lawyer has called for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing as controversy intensifies over the convicted bomber's early release on medical grounds.
Professor Alan Miller, the head of the Scottish human rights commission, said there were still significant doubts about the guilt of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi after an independent investigation uncovered new evidence that undermined the conviction.
Miller told The Guardian that the UK government should release a secret intelligence report that the Scottish criminal cases review commission said could – on its own – have been enough to have freed Megrahi on appeal. It was withheld at his trial.
The document is believed to cast serious doubts on prosecution claims that Megrahi used a specific Swiss timer for the bomb. The release of the document was banned in 2008 by David Miliband, the then foreign secretary, leading to a lengthy legal battle by Megrahi's lawyers which ended when the Libyan abandoned his appeal because of his terminal cancer. (...)
Miller said the row over Megrahi's medical status was an "undignified and unhelpful distraction" from the more important issue of addressing unresolved questions about his guilt.
It has emerged that Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Noam Chomsky are among the signatories of a petition calling for an inquiry into the case.
[The list of signatories can be seen here. Kate Adie has just written to Justice for Megrahi asking that her name be added to the list.
Unsurprisingly, the Tory-supporting Telegraph website is running an editorial headed "Lockerbie bomber: MacAskill should resign". The Tories have minimal electoral support in Scotland.]
Media comment on the eve of the anniversary
The Middle East Online website runs an article headed "A year later, freed Lockerbie bomber lives in seclusion". It contains quotes from a Libyan doctor and from Shukri Ghanem (head of Libya's state-owned National Oil Corporation and a former Prime Minister).
The website of The Sydney Morning Herald contains an Agence France Presse news agency report headlined "Doctor defends Lockerbie bomber decision". It reads in part:
'The decision to free Megrahi was taken by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.
'"As an external adviser, I was involved in discussions leading up to the point where Mr Megrahi was considered for release on medical grounds," [Dr Grahame] Howard said in a statement.
'"The background medical portion of that application is a fair reflection of the specialist advice available at the time.
'"The final assessment of prognosis was made by Dr Andrew Fraser taking into account the deterioration in his clinical condition."'
A more detailed report of the statement by consultant oncologist Dr Grahame Howard now appears on The Scotsman website.
A Reuters news agency report headed "A year on, Lockerbie bomber casts a long shadow" contains the following:
'Retired British doctor Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the bombing, said he was delighted that Megrahi was alive.
'"We should be rejoicing about the fact that this guy has survived a year," Swire, who believes that Megrahi was framed, told Reuters.
'"I'm satisfied that this man was not responsible in any way for the murder of my daughter," he said.
'Swire urged the Libyan authorities to reveal what treatment Megrahi has been receiving in the hope that it might help other prostate cancer sufferers.
'He has also called on Libya to use its oil wealth to fund a research agency for cancer treatment.'
The Guardian website features an article by Middle East editor Ian Black headlined "Lockerbie bomber: Britain warns Libya over celebrating anniversary". It quotes a Foreign Office spokesman as saying:
"The celebrations that greeted Megrahi's return to Libya a year ago were insensitive and deeply distressing to the [Lockerbie bombing] victims' families. Any repetition of these celebrations this year would be completely unacceptable. Megrahi remains a convicted terrorist responsible for the worst act of terrorism in British history."
The article also states:
'Megrahi has not been seen in public since last September. But he has been reported to be undergoing new treatment, likely to be chemotherapy, which may further prolong his life expectancy.
'Ashour Shamis, editor of the Akhbar Libya website, said: "They are looking after him very well. He has 24-hour care in his home and wherever he goes he has doctors with him. I have been told by someone reliable that a medical source in Tripoli says Megrahi could live for up to seven years."'
The Newsnet Scotland website contains an article headlined "Labour in complete disarray over Megrahi release". The headline says it all (and is completely justified by the text that follows).
A review by Joyce McMillan of Lockerbie: Unfinished Business on the Edinburgh Festivals website contains the following:
'There is nothing fancy about Benson's show: it's delivered in the style of a brusque, forensic lecture, with projected images, about the state of the evidence.
'But Swire's grief and anger over his daughter's death is not suppressed in this version of the story - the character Benson creates is far too intelligent a man not to recognise that his long campaign is in part a way of coping with the crushing agony of Flora's loss, and the show uses some desperately poignant real-life recordings of Flora as a child, over images of her short life.
'The heart of the show, though, lies in Swire's rage at the abject failure of British - and Scottish - justice even to try to expose the truth about the bombings. In meticulous detail, Benson's script stacks up the detail which suggests that the story of Libyan involvement in the bombing was fabricated, that the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was a shocking miscarriage of justice - Swire actually fainted when he heard the guilty verdict - and that the men who probably did murder his daughter have never been brought to justice.
'And although the play occasionally loses pace and dramatic edge, and could perhaps be five minutes shorter, there is no denying its stunning final impact, which combines a respectful, subtle and profoundly moving performance with a mighty and unanswerable indictment of cover-up and injustice, in a show that every thinking citizen of this country should see, and act upon.'
The website of The Sydney Morning Herald contains an Agence France Presse news agency report headlined "Doctor defends Lockerbie bomber decision". It reads in part:
'The decision to free Megrahi was taken by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.
'"As an external adviser, I was involved in discussions leading up to the point where Mr Megrahi was considered for release on medical grounds," [Dr Grahame] Howard said in a statement.
'"The background medical portion of that application is a fair reflection of the specialist advice available at the time.
'"The final assessment of prognosis was made by Dr Andrew Fraser taking into account the deterioration in his clinical condition."'
A more detailed report of the statement by consultant oncologist Dr Grahame Howard now appears on The Scotsman website.
A Reuters news agency report headed "A year on, Lockerbie bomber casts a long shadow" contains the following:
'Retired British doctor Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the bombing, said he was delighted that Megrahi was alive.
'"We should be rejoicing about the fact that this guy has survived a year," Swire, who believes that Megrahi was framed, told Reuters.
'"I'm satisfied that this man was not responsible in any way for the murder of my daughter," he said.
'Swire urged the Libyan authorities to reveal what treatment Megrahi has been receiving in the hope that it might help other prostate cancer sufferers.
'He has also called on Libya to use its oil wealth to fund a research agency for cancer treatment.'
The Guardian website features an article by Middle East editor Ian Black headlined "Lockerbie bomber: Britain warns Libya over celebrating anniversary". It quotes a Foreign Office spokesman as saying:
"The celebrations that greeted Megrahi's return to Libya a year ago were insensitive and deeply distressing to the [Lockerbie bombing] victims' families. Any repetition of these celebrations this year would be completely unacceptable. Megrahi remains a convicted terrorist responsible for the worst act of terrorism in British history."
The article also states:
'Megrahi has not been seen in public since last September. But he has been reported to be undergoing new treatment, likely to be chemotherapy, which may further prolong his life expectancy.
'Ashour Shamis, editor of the Akhbar Libya website, said: "They are looking after him very well. He has 24-hour care in his home and wherever he goes he has doctors with him. I have been told by someone reliable that a medical source in Tripoli says Megrahi could live for up to seven years."'
The Newsnet Scotland website contains an article headlined "Labour in complete disarray over Megrahi release". The headline says it all (and is completely justified by the text that follows).
A review by Joyce McMillan of Lockerbie: Unfinished Business on the Edinburgh Festivals website contains the following:
'There is nothing fancy about Benson's show: it's delivered in the style of a brusque, forensic lecture, with projected images, about the state of the evidence.
'But Swire's grief and anger over his daughter's death is not suppressed in this version of the story - the character Benson creates is far too intelligent a man not to recognise that his long campaign is in part a way of coping with the crushing agony of Flora's loss, and the show uses some desperately poignant real-life recordings of Flora as a child, over images of her short life.
'The heart of the show, though, lies in Swire's rage at the abject failure of British - and Scottish - justice even to try to expose the truth about the bombings. In meticulous detail, Benson's script stacks up the detail which suggests that the story of Libyan involvement in the bombing was fabricated, that the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was a shocking miscarriage of justice - Swire actually fainted when he heard the guilty verdict - and that the men who probably did murder his daughter have never been brought to justice.
'And although the play occasionally loses pace and dramatic edge, and could perhaps be five minutes shorter, there is no denying its stunning final impact, which combines a respectful, subtle and profoundly moving performance with a mighty and unanswerable indictment of cover-up and injustice, in a show that every thinking citizen of this country should see, and act upon.'
Would Scottish Government be ‘not concerned’ if there were whistleblowers in the SCCRC?
[This is the heading over a letter from Thomas McLaughlin in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Just when you waved goodbye to that busted flush, New Labour, as the nadir in political show, along comes a bunch of electioneering US senators. First came their impertinent summons to ministers answerable to parliaments other than the United States Congress over the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Now they incite UK citizens to break the law by disclosing confidential patient information. More extraordinary than this bid by US lawmakers to make law-breakers out of Scottish doctors and nurses is the response of the Scottish Government (“Nothing to fear over US call for Megrahi ‘informers’”, The Herald, August 16). So, ministers are “not concerned” about the call for whistleblowers?
They will not worry, then, if I now appeal for whistleblowers to leak papers from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). Then we can all inspect Brian Quail’s “monstrous pachyderm in the living room – the manifestly unjust nature of the original verdict” (Letters, August 17).
Come along now, potential SCCRC whistleblowers. You have the green light from a “not concerned” Scottish Government. Join the ranks of the University of East Anglia “climategate” beans-spiller and Julian Assange of Wikileaks who dished the dirt on Afghanistan. The redemption of your country’s honour depends on you.
[A letter from Neil Robertson in today's edition of The Scotsman reads in part:]
George Foulkes's enthusiasm for full disclosure in the Lockerbie bombing case does, I hope, extend to making publicly available all the evidence reviewed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission - along with all intelligence reports withheld by the US and UK.
As a senior member of the parliamentary committee charged with oversight of the security services, his voice would certainly add weight to that of Jim Swire and the Lockerbie relatives.
His call for publication of "the full medical evidence" in respect of the decision by the Scottish justice secretary (Kenny MacAskill) to release Mr Megrahi risks being seen, however, as more contentious - and indeed partisan.
It was not the SNP government in Scotland, after all, that was trying hard to negotiate a Libyan prisoner transfer deal in the Libyan desert but George's old friend, Tony Blair.
Just when you waved goodbye to that busted flush, New Labour, as the nadir in political show, along comes a bunch of electioneering US senators. First came their impertinent summons to ministers answerable to parliaments other than the United States Congress over the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Now they incite UK citizens to break the law by disclosing confidential patient information. More extraordinary than this bid by US lawmakers to make law-breakers out of Scottish doctors and nurses is the response of the Scottish Government (“Nothing to fear over US call for Megrahi ‘informers’”, The Herald, August 16). So, ministers are “not concerned” about the call for whistleblowers?
They will not worry, then, if I now appeal for whistleblowers to leak papers from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). Then we can all inspect Brian Quail’s “monstrous pachyderm in the living room – the manifestly unjust nature of the original verdict” (Letters, August 17).
Come along now, potential SCCRC whistleblowers. You have the green light from a “not concerned” Scottish Government. Join the ranks of the University of East Anglia “climategate” beans-spiller and Julian Assange of Wikileaks who dished the dirt on Afghanistan. The redemption of your country’s honour depends on you.
[A letter from Neil Robertson in today's edition of The Scotsman reads in part:]
George Foulkes's enthusiasm for full disclosure in the Lockerbie bombing case does, I hope, extend to making publicly available all the evidence reviewed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission - along with all intelligence reports withheld by the US and UK.
As a senior member of the parliamentary committee charged with oversight of the security services, his voice would certainly add weight to that of Jim Swire and the Lockerbie relatives.
His call for publication of "the full medical evidence" in respect of the decision by the Scottish justice secretary (Kenny MacAskill) to release Mr Megrahi risks being seen, however, as more contentious - and indeed partisan.
It was not the SNP government in Scotland, after all, that was trying hard to negotiate a Libyan prisoner transfer deal in the Libyan desert but George's old friend, Tony Blair.
Abbott: releasing Megrahi was right
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Diane Abbott has backed the Scottish Government’s decision to release the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing – in sharp contrast to another high-profile Labour leadership contender.
Ms Abbott, the only woman in the race to succeed Gordon Brown, said she had “every confidence” that the move by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was the right one.
She made her comments on the eve of a 10-day visit to Scotland, and ahead of the first anniversary tomorrow of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds.
David Miliband, one of her rivals for the Labour leadership, last month condemned the decision to release Mr Megrahi, saying it was “clearly wrong, because it was done on the basis he had less than three months to live”.
But Ms Abbott argued that such predictions were not exact and that many cancer patients lived longer than expected.
In an exclusive interview with The Herald, she said: “It is not for me to second-guess the Scottish Government but I have every confidence that they made the best decision, the right decision, under Scottish law in relation to the evidence that they had before them.
“We all know of cancer patients who have lived longer than was expected, or lived for less time.
“He has got terminal cancer. He will die. The fact that he has lived a little bit longer than people thought ... he did go home and see his family.” (...)
Ms Abbott said: “I am not going to criticise the Scottish Government or Scottish ministers, and I felt very strongly that they should not go before a senate committee. British ministers are not accountable to American senators.” (...)
A spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said: “Diane Abbott’s position is both welcome and consistent, in contrast to the ridiculous about-turn by David Miliband. Last October, he told the House of Commons the UK Government did not want Megrahi to die in a Scottish prison.”
[Regrettably, Diane Abbott is very much an outsider in the UK Labour leadership race.]
Diane Abbott has backed the Scottish Government’s decision to release the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing – in sharp contrast to another high-profile Labour leadership contender.
Ms Abbott, the only woman in the race to succeed Gordon Brown, said she had “every confidence” that the move by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was the right one.
She made her comments on the eve of a 10-day visit to Scotland, and ahead of the first anniversary tomorrow of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds.
David Miliband, one of her rivals for the Labour leadership, last month condemned the decision to release Mr Megrahi, saying it was “clearly wrong, because it was done on the basis he had less than three months to live”.
But Ms Abbott argued that such predictions were not exact and that many cancer patients lived longer than expected.
In an exclusive interview with The Herald, she said: “It is not for me to second-guess the Scottish Government but I have every confidence that they made the best decision, the right decision, under Scottish law in relation to the evidence that they had before them.
“We all know of cancer patients who have lived longer than was expected, or lived for less time.
“He has got terminal cancer. He will die. The fact that he has lived a little bit longer than people thought ... he did go home and see his family.” (...)
Ms Abbott said: “I am not going to criticise the Scottish Government or Scottish ministers, and I felt very strongly that they should not go before a senate committee. British ministers are not accountable to American senators.” (...)
A spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said: “Diane Abbott’s position is both welcome and consistent, in contrast to the ridiculous about-turn by David Miliband. Last October, he told the House of Commons the UK Government did not want Megrahi to die in a Scottish prison.”
[Regrettably, Diane Abbott is very much an outsider in the UK Labour leadership race.]
Year since bomber freed, Lockerbie tries to move on
[This is the headline over an Agence France Presse news agency report. It reads in part:]
The quiet Scottish town of Lockerbie is determined to play down Friday's one-year anniversary of the freeing of the Libyan man convicted of blowing up an airliner over its skies.
The Scottish government released Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi from jail on compassionate grounds on August 20, 2009, allowing him to return to Libya to die from terminal prostate cancer.
A year on, Megrahi is still alive, a fact fuelling anger in the United States -- where most of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 were from -- at Scotland's decision to free him.
On December 21, 1988, Sherwood Crescent in Lockerbie was nearly wiped out when the wings of the jumbo jet fell from the sky and burst into a fireball.
Now rabbits nibble at the grass covering what was once a huge crater.
Eleven of the street's residents died, along with 259 passengers and crew on the jet travelling from London to New York when it was blown up. (...)
Across Lockerbie, people want to move on -- but that does not mean forgetting what happened 22 years ago.
One man who, like many in the town, was wary of giving his name said Megrahi should have ended his life behind bars in Scotland. (...)
But the lawmaker who represents Lockerbie in the Scottish Parliament, Elaine Murray, said most people in the town want to forget about the furore.
"People in Lockerbie are still affected by the tragedy but like most communities which are affected by disaster, people move on and do their best to put it behind them," said Murray, of the centre-left Labour Party.
"Mostly residents of Lockerbie want to move on and would prefer that the town was known for more than where Pan Am 103 came down."
For others, though, there are more questions to be answered before this can happen.
Father Patrick Keegans was the town's priest at the time of the bombing and lived in the only house on Sherwood Crescent not gutted by the fireball.
Despite his graphic memories, he believes there is "severe doubt" about the safety of Megrahi's conviction in 2001 by Scottish judges in a special court in the Netherlands.
"My strongest memory was the crash happening -- the noise of the jet engine seeming to hit the top of my roof, the sound of the explosion," Keegans, 64, recalled.
"I couldn't believe what I was looking at when I opened the front door. The whole street was just burning."
Keegans, now on the committee of a campaign group called Justice For Megrahi, said people's memories of the attack would not be laid to rest until there was a full review of the case.
"There's never, never going to be any peace in people's minds and hearts until this whole thing is resolved," he said.
"As I said at the time, this won't stand up to any scrutiny and that's proving to be the case. Constantly Lockerbie is coming up -- you would think this would have gone away after 20 years.
"Until the full truth is known, people can't lay this to rest because the truth allows us to deal with things and then reconstruct our lives".
The quiet Scottish town of Lockerbie is determined to play down Friday's one-year anniversary of the freeing of the Libyan man convicted of blowing up an airliner over its skies.
The Scottish government released Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi from jail on compassionate grounds on August 20, 2009, allowing him to return to Libya to die from terminal prostate cancer.
A year on, Megrahi is still alive, a fact fuelling anger in the United States -- where most of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 were from -- at Scotland's decision to free him.
On December 21, 1988, Sherwood Crescent in Lockerbie was nearly wiped out when the wings of the jumbo jet fell from the sky and burst into a fireball.
Now rabbits nibble at the grass covering what was once a huge crater.
Eleven of the street's residents died, along with 259 passengers and crew on the jet travelling from London to New York when it was blown up. (...)
Across Lockerbie, people want to move on -- but that does not mean forgetting what happened 22 years ago.
One man who, like many in the town, was wary of giving his name said Megrahi should have ended his life behind bars in Scotland. (...)
But the lawmaker who represents Lockerbie in the Scottish Parliament, Elaine Murray, said most people in the town want to forget about the furore.
"People in Lockerbie are still affected by the tragedy but like most communities which are affected by disaster, people move on and do their best to put it behind them," said Murray, of the centre-left Labour Party.
"Mostly residents of Lockerbie want to move on and would prefer that the town was known for more than where Pan Am 103 came down."
For others, though, there are more questions to be answered before this can happen.
Father Patrick Keegans was the town's priest at the time of the bombing and lived in the only house on Sherwood Crescent not gutted by the fireball.
Despite his graphic memories, he believes there is "severe doubt" about the safety of Megrahi's conviction in 2001 by Scottish judges in a special court in the Netherlands.
"My strongest memory was the crash happening -- the noise of the jet engine seeming to hit the top of my roof, the sound of the explosion," Keegans, 64, recalled.
"I couldn't believe what I was looking at when I opened the front door. The whole street was just burning."
Keegans, now on the committee of a campaign group called Justice For Megrahi, said people's memories of the attack would not be laid to rest until there was a full review of the case.
"There's never, never going to be any peace in people's minds and hearts until this whole thing is resolved," he said.
"As I said at the time, this won't stand up to any scrutiny and that's proving to be the case. Constantly Lockerbie is coming up -- you would think this would have gone away after 20 years.
"Until the full truth is known, people can't lay this to rest because the truth allows us to deal with things and then reconstruct our lives".
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Salmond defends the early release of Megrahi
The head of Scotland's government said Wednesday that he stands by his country's decision a year ago to release a man convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing from prison on compassionate grounds despite new questions about his prognosis.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said in an interview with The Associated Press that "everything we've done on the Lockerbie case over the last 20 years...has been done following the precepts of Scottish jurisdiction and Scots law." (...)
He said his government clearly stated, in announcing its decision to release al-Megrahi, that "this is an estimate, that Mr Megrahi may live shorter than three months, he may live longer than three months."
"Everybody knows from their own experience of friends and family that it's extraordinarily difficult to be precise over the exact term of life of somebody with a terminal illness," Salmond said. "Our doctors made a reasonable estimate at the time, and our ministers followed that medical advice."
He spoke to the AP in Oslo, Norway, where he was attending bilateral meetings on economic and energy ties between Scotland and the oil-rich Nordic country.
Scotland will not seek the return of al-Megrahi, Salmond said, noting that, in past instances, prisoners released on compassionate grounds were not returned to prison even if they lived longer than expected.
Last week, four Democratic US senators — Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, of New York, and Bob Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey — sent a letter to Salmond asking that al-Megrahi's full medical records be disclosed. (...)
"Clearly, we've made the point that the Scottish government...is not answerable to the United States Senate, nor is the American government answerable to the Scottish Parliament," Salmond said. "But we've tried to co-operate to answer all of the questions."
He said he'd responded to the letter, but that there was no more information to share since Scotland has "already published, and did last year, all relevant information because we have nothing to fear from the scrutiny and from the examination of anybody, domestically or internationally."
"The point I've made is that there's only one medical report" that informed Scotland's decision, he said.
That report — by Scottish Prison Service's medical chief, Andrew Fraser — shows Fraser was advised by four specialists at the time of al-Megrahi's release. The report describes the three-month prognosis for al-Megrahi as "reasonable," but confirms that none of those consulted ruled out that al-Megrahi might live longer.
Salmond categorically denied allegations that any outside influence — such as claims that oil giant BP pressured Scotland to free al-Megrahi so it could win access to Libyan oil reserves — affected Scotland's decision.
[From a report by The Associated Press news agency on the website of The Canadian Press.]
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said in an interview with The Associated Press that "everything we've done on the Lockerbie case over the last 20 years...has been done following the precepts of Scottish jurisdiction and Scots law." (...)
He said his government clearly stated, in announcing its decision to release al-Megrahi, that "this is an estimate, that Mr Megrahi may live shorter than three months, he may live longer than three months."
"Everybody knows from their own experience of friends and family that it's extraordinarily difficult to be precise over the exact term of life of somebody with a terminal illness," Salmond said. "Our doctors made a reasonable estimate at the time, and our ministers followed that medical advice."
He spoke to the AP in Oslo, Norway, where he was attending bilateral meetings on economic and energy ties between Scotland and the oil-rich Nordic country.
Scotland will not seek the return of al-Megrahi, Salmond said, noting that, in past instances, prisoners released on compassionate grounds were not returned to prison even if they lived longer than expected.
Last week, four Democratic US senators — Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, of New York, and Bob Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey — sent a letter to Salmond asking that al-Megrahi's full medical records be disclosed. (...)
"Clearly, we've made the point that the Scottish government...is not answerable to the United States Senate, nor is the American government answerable to the Scottish Parliament," Salmond said. "But we've tried to co-operate to answer all of the questions."
He said he'd responded to the letter, but that there was no more information to share since Scotland has "already published, and did last year, all relevant information because we have nothing to fear from the scrutiny and from the examination of anybody, domestically or internationally."
"The point I've made is that there's only one medical report" that informed Scotland's decision, he said.
That report — by Scottish Prison Service's medical chief, Andrew Fraser — shows Fraser was advised by four specialists at the time of al-Megrahi's release. The report describes the three-month prognosis for al-Megrahi as "reasonable," but confirms that none of those consulted ruled out that al-Megrahi might live longer.
Salmond categorically denied allegations that any outside influence — such as claims that oil giant BP pressured Scotland to free al-Megrahi so it could win access to Libyan oil reserves — affected Scotland's decision.
[From a report by The Associated Press news agency on the website of The Canadian Press.]
The correct decision
[This is the headline over an article which has just appeared on the website of the Scottish Review by Kenneth Roy, the editor. It reads in part:]
Friday would be a good day to be out of the country. The first anniversary of the release from Greenock prison of the man commonly described as the Lockerbie bomber will provoke an extreme reaction from the popular press and from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. The attack dogs are in place. They will soon be given the nod to do their rabid worst.
The most depressing aspect of the Lockerbie affair, as we approach this latest milestone, is the refusal of those opposed to Megrahi's liberation to contemplate the likelihood that a colossal miscarriage of justice took place. The flaky foundations of the prosecution case, the lack of credibility of the chief prosecution witness, the suggestion – never denied – that he was in the pay of the CIA, the judgement of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that there were compelling grounds for a second appeal, the existence of important new evidence which has never been divulged – all these matters have been squarely presented by those closest to the case, including one of the victims, the heroic Jim Swire.
But it has made very little if any difference. When Friday dawns, Megrahi will still be 'the bomber' rather than 'the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing' and there will be a shrill renewal of a deeply unpleasant question: why is this man not dead?
For believers in God, there ought to be a simple answer: God has so far decreed otherwise. Since many of those who insist on putting the question are indeed believers, some fervently so, we can only conclude that they consider this case beyond God; that it is too important to be left to God; that Megrahi's continued survival should be no business of God's. Beyond God – who knows? Beyond reason – certainly. In the Lockerbie case, rationality was abandoned long ago. (...)
[T]he essence of the case adjudicated by Mr MacAskill – the nub of it – has never been pointed out, except once in this magazine. It is extremely strange that it has been so overlooked. No doubt many with an interest in the case, in the media and elsewhere, regard it as an inconvenience. Perhaps for the Scottish government to acknowledge it would be too embarrassing since it reflects so badly on an important aspect of social policy. But, given the continuing obsession with Megrahi's health, its complete absence from the discussion still feels odd.
Here it is, then.
The question facing Mr MacAskill was not whether there was a reasonable expectation that Megrahi would be dead within a few months but whether there was a reasonable expectation that Megrahi would be dead within a few months if he remained in prison. When, many months ago, I first stated this as my reading of the situation, no one challenged it. Indeed there was an informal acknowledgement from quite a high source that this was indeed the question facing the justice secretary.
This issue was never raised again. So far as I know, it has never been used as part of a wider justification of Mr MacAskill's action. Yet is it not quite important? Anyone familiar with the inside of a Scottish prison will know how important. The typical Scottish prison (I have not visited Greenock, but I know Barlinnie and Saughton) is a disgusting institution harmful to the health and well-being of inmates. It is well-documented that Megrahi himself, as well as being physically sick, was mentally in a very poor state.
His chances of survival beyond three months in such an environment were not considered high. Indeed the idea of anyone with terminal cancer languishing in such a place is repellent. But it is reasonable to assume that once released, and returned home to his family and familiar surroundings, his life expectancy would improve to some extent. Anyone who denies the possibility of such an improvement must know very little of the workings of the human psyche; or is simply being disingenuous.
I don't expect any of this will moderate the political and media frenzy which is about to overwhelm us. I feel sorry for Kenny MacAskill, a decent man who did the decent thing, and has been paying a heavy price ever since. His decision was a humane one. It remains the correct one.
Friday would be a good day to be out of the country. The first anniversary of the release from Greenock prison of the man commonly described as the Lockerbie bomber will provoke an extreme reaction from the popular press and from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. The attack dogs are in place. They will soon be given the nod to do their rabid worst.
The most depressing aspect of the Lockerbie affair, as we approach this latest milestone, is the refusal of those opposed to Megrahi's liberation to contemplate the likelihood that a colossal miscarriage of justice took place. The flaky foundations of the prosecution case, the lack of credibility of the chief prosecution witness, the suggestion – never denied – that he was in the pay of the CIA, the judgement of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that there were compelling grounds for a second appeal, the existence of important new evidence which has never been divulged – all these matters have been squarely presented by those closest to the case, including one of the victims, the heroic Jim Swire.
But it has made very little if any difference. When Friday dawns, Megrahi will still be 'the bomber' rather than 'the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing' and there will be a shrill renewal of a deeply unpleasant question: why is this man not dead?
For believers in God, there ought to be a simple answer: God has so far decreed otherwise. Since many of those who insist on putting the question are indeed believers, some fervently so, we can only conclude that they consider this case beyond God; that it is too important to be left to God; that Megrahi's continued survival should be no business of God's. Beyond God – who knows? Beyond reason – certainly. In the Lockerbie case, rationality was abandoned long ago. (...)
[T]he essence of the case adjudicated by Mr MacAskill – the nub of it – has never been pointed out, except once in this magazine. It is extremely strange that it has been so overlooked. No doubt many with an interest in the case, in the media and elsewhere, regard it as an inconvenience. Perhaps for the Scottish government to acknowledge it would be too embarrassing since it reflects so badly on an important aspect of social policy. But, given the continuing obsession with Megrahi's health, its complete absence from the discussion still feels odd.
Here it is, then.
The question facing Mr MacAskill was not whether there was a reasonable expectation that Megrahi would be dead within a few months but whether there was a reasonable expectation that Megrahi would be dead within a few months if he remained in prison. When, many months ago, I first stated this as my reading of the situation, no one challenged it. Indeed there was an informal acknowledgement from quite a high source that this was indeed the question facing the justice secretary.
This issue was never raised again. So far as I know, it has never been used as part of a wider justification of Mr MacAskill's action. Yet is it not quite important? Anyone familiar with the inside of a Scottish prison will know how important. The typical Scottish prison (I have not visited Greenock, but I know Barlinnie and Saughton) is a disgusting institution harmful to the health and well-being of inmates. It is well-documented that Megrahi himself, as well as being physically sick, was mentally in a very poor state.
His chances of survival beyond three months in such an environment were not considered high. Indeed the idea of anyone with terminal cancer languishing in such a place is repellent. But it is reasonable to assume that once released, and returned home to his family and familiar surroundings, his life expectancy would improve to some extent. Anyone who denies the possibility of such an improvement must know very little of the workings of the human psyche; or is simply being disingenuous.
I don't expect any of this will moderate the political and media frenzy which is about to overwhelm us. I feel sorry for Kenny MacAskill, a decent man who did the decent thing, and has been paying a heavy price ever since. His decision was a humane one. It remains the correct one.
Legal action possible following “biased” STV Lockerbie bombing film
[This is the heading over a press release just issued by the SNP's Christine Grahame MSP. It reads as follows:]
STV may face legal action following the screening of a controversial documentary covering the Lockerbie bombing after the film was described as deeply misleading by an MSP. Christine Grahame has written to STV’s Chief Executive Rob Woodward pointing out that unfounded allegations repeated in the film had previously resulted in legal action from Air Malta. In 1993 the airline won a significant out of court settlement against Granada TV who also claimed the bag containing the bomb had been transported, unaccompanied, on one of their flights. Ms Grahame said:
“I was extremely disappointed when I saw the STV documentary and the one-sided and biased manner in which they recounted the events surrounding the atrocity.
“There remains very serious doubts over the safety of the conviction, but the STV film apparently chose to focus on the controversial and highly disputed claims of the senior investigators.
“There were a number if misleading statements made in the film, but I think the most worrying from STV's perspective will be the unfounded allegation that the case alleged to have carried the bomb, was transported, unaccompanied, on an Air Malta flight.
“When Air Malta sued Granada TV for making the same unfounded allegation the airline was able to prove that all 55 bags that were loaded onto the flight to Frankfurt were ascribed to passengers. Granada TV were forced to settle out of court and pay costs to Air Malta and to this day not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced showing the bomb was on the Air Malta flight.
“I now understand that Air Malta are considering whether to take similar legal action against STV for repeating this unfounded allegation.
“Once again the gaping holes in the case raise serious questions over the safety of the conviction and have exposed the superficiality of the recent STV film.
“In October at a fringe meeting at the SNP Conference in Perth I am planning to hold a screening of another documentary covering the case which raises serious questions over how the police and FBI investigation was handled. The film ... has already won international awards and reveals some shocking new details which cast further doubt over the safety of Mr Megrahi’s conviction. So far no British broadcaster, including STV, has been brave enough to show it.”
STV may face legal action following the screening of a controversial documentary covering the Lockerbie bombing after the film was described as deeply misleading by an MSP. Christine Grahame has written to STV’s Chief Executive Rob Woodward pointing out that unfounded allegations repeated in the film had previously resulted in legal action from Air Malta. In 1993 the airline won a significant out of court settlement against Granada TV who also claimed the bag containing the bomb had been transported, unaccompanied, on one of their flights. Ms Grahame said:
“I was extremely disappointed when I saw the STV documentary and the one-sided and biased manner in which they recounted the events surrounding the atrocity.
“There remains very serious doubts over the safety of the conviction, but the STV film apparently chose to focus on the controversial and highly disputed claims of the senior investigators.
“There were a number if misleading statements made in the film, but I think the most worrying from STV's perspective will be the unfounded allegation that the case alleged to have carried the bomb, was transported, unaccompanied, on an Air Malta flight.
“When Air Malta sued Granada TV for making the same unfounded allegation the airline was able to prove that all 55 bags that were loaded onto the flight to Frankfurt were ascribed to passengers. Granada TV were forced to settle out of court and pay costs to Air Malta and to this day not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced showing the bomb was on the Air Malta flight.
“I now understand that Air Malta are considering whether to take similar legal action against STV for repeating this unfounded allegation.
“Once again the gaping holes in the case raise serious questions over the safety of the conviction and have exposed the superficiality of the recent STV film.
“In October at a fringe meeting at the SNP Conference in Perth I am planning to hold a screening of another documentary covering the case which raises serious questions over how the police and FBI investigation was handled. The film ... has already won international awards and reveals some shocking new details which cast further doubt over the safety of Mr Megrahi’s conviction. So far no British broadcaster, including STV, has been brave enough to show it.”
Is it possible that something good could yet come from evil of Lockerbie atrocity?
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
It has always been my hope that something good could be made to come out of the carnage and destruction of the Lockerbie horror – something to hearten rather than depress all of us.
Many voices, particularly in the US, have been raised to deplore the fact Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has not died, as statistically he should have done within about three months of his compassionate release; such sentiments are not good.
Libya has a primary healthcare system not unlike our NHS. The secondary care is very different. Libya is too small (its population being around five million) to support world-leading complex secondary care, and the research teams that go with it, so that where complex secondary care is needed, in selected cases the patient may be flown to a centre of excellence, often in Europe or even occasionally America. In some cases, foreign experts are called in to advise or treat in Libya.
A year ago Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s Justice Secretary, received advice from Scottish Prison Service doctors and other international cancer experts that Megrahi had a roughly 50/50 chance of living three months. Over the past year, the Libyan regime has become increasingly reticent in talking about Megrahi, so even those of us with special interests in his health are ignorant of what treatment he may have received. It is evident his survival is very important to the Libyan regime; therefore, we can assume the best medical expertise in the world has been called to his bedside. It is for Megrahi to have privacy over his treatment and condition for now.
Mother nature has provided that roughly half the population of Scotland and Libya are men, and thus susceptible to cancer of the prostate gland. Prostate cancer in some form would be commonly found if men of Megrahi’s age were examined in detail. Of these, most will have inactive cancers. Megrahi’s cancer was an aggressive form and had spread to his bones before he left Scotland, where conventional treatment had been offered, had failed and hence his lifespan then was reasonably estimated to be about three months.
He has now had time to benefit from the best cutting-edge research and treatment available in the world, most probably from America, possibly stem cell.
Let us invite the Libyan regime to let the world know (when the time is right) what treatment this remarkable survivor received, so that not only the 2.5 million men in Libya, and the same in Scotland, but the three billion men worldwide can know there is new hope against this cancer.
Because the Libyan oilfields are being revitalised by modern technology, with Lockerbie sanctions long lifted, their national income is rising steeply. Libya might be prepared to fund a new world-class research agency for cancer treatment to attract the best physicians in the world. Perhaps the US senators, alleged to be seeking information about Megrahi’s treatment, could also put their weight behind such a project. Bids might start at around $2m – the amount allegedly used to bribe Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who identified Megrahi in the first place.
Such a centre could lessen the load of loss for Lockerbie relatives, something benign to remember along with the horror. Maybe the Libyan regime would consider underwriting such a world-class centre, perhaps through the United Nations’ World Health Organisation, and maybe with a title to remind us that sometimes, just sometimes, good can come even out of such evil.
I know our Flora would have approved of such a project.
[The other readers' letters published under the same heading are also worth reading.]
It has always been my hope that something good could be made to come out of the carnage and destruction of the Lockerbie horror – something to hearten rather than depress all of us.
Many voices, particularly in the US, have been raised to deplore the fact Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has not died, as statistically he should have done within about three months of his compassionate release; such sentiments are not good.
Libya has a primary healthcare system not unlike our NHS. The secondary care is very different. Libya is too small (its population being around five million) to support world-leading complex secondary care, and the research teams that go with it, so that where complex secondary care is needed, in selected cases the patient may be flown to a centre of excellence, often in Europe or even occasionally America. In some cases, foreign experts are called in to advise or treat in Libya.
A year ago Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s Justice Secretary, received advice from Scottish Prison Service doctors and other international cancer experts that Megrahi had a roughly 50/50 chance of living three months. Over the past year, the Libyan regime has become increasingly reticent in talking about Megrahi, so even those of us with special interests in his health are ignorant of what treatment he may have received. It is evident his survival is very important to the Libyan regime; therefore, we can assume the best medical expertise in the world has been called to his bedside. It is for Megrahi to have privacy over his treatment and condition for now.
Mother nature has provided that roughly half the population of Scotland and Libya are men, and thus susceptible to cancer of the prostate gland. Prostate cancer in some form would be commonly found if men of Megrahi’s age were examined in detail. Of these, most will have inactive cancers. Megrahi’s cancer was an aggressive form and had spread to his bones before he left Scotland, where conventional treatment had been offered, had failed and hence his lifespan then was reasonably estimated to be about three months.
He has now had time to benefit from the best cutting-edge research and treatment available in the world, most probably from America, possibly stem cell.
Let us invite the Libyan regime to let the world know (when the time is right) what treatment this remarkable survivor received, so that not only the 2.5 million men in Libya, and the same in Scotland, but the three billion men worldwide can know there is new hope against this cancer.
Because the Libyan oilfields are being revitalised by modern technology, with Lockerbie sanctions long lifted, their national income is rising steeply. Libya might be prepared to fund a new world-class research agency for cancer treatment to attract the best physicians in the world. Perhaps the US senators, alleged to be seeking information about Megrahi’s treatment, could also put their weight behind such a project. Bids might start at around $2m – the amount allegedly used to bribe Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who identified Megrahi in the first place.
Such a centre could lessen the load of loss for Lockerbie relatives, something benign to remember along with the horror. Maybe the Libyan regime would consider underwriting such a world-class centre, perhaps through the United Nations’ World Health Organisation, and maybe with a title to remind us that sometimes, just sometimes, good can come even out of such evil.
I know our Flora would have approved of such a project.
[The other readers' letters published under the same heading are also worth reading.]
Mr al Megrahi is alive and there is nobody to blame
[This is the headline over an article by Libyan political analyst Mustafa Fetouri published today on the website of The National, a newspaper based in Abu Dhabi. It reads in part:]
It has been nearly a year since the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, declared his decision to release Abdelbaset al Megrahi, the only person convicted for the downing of Pan-Am flight 103 in 1988. He was released on compassionate grounds, as Mr al Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
August 20 also happened to be the day of the Libyan Youth Festival, an annual occasion celebrated by large crowds of young people in the capital Tripoli, where Mr al Megrahi’s plane landed. The crowds received news of his landing and they rushed to the airport to greet the man most of them believed to be innocent.
The tarmac was already filled with his extended family and members of his tribe, some of whom had been waiting since dawn to see their beloved son and to once again prove to themselves that he was innocent. The United States was angry at the “huge” welcome Mr al Megrahi received.
Flashback to 2007, the height of the effort to normalise relations between Libya and the UK: Tony Blair, the UK’s former prime minister, and Muammar Qaddafi oversaw a deal between British Petroleum and Libya’s NOC worth $US900 million. The deal effectively conceded oil exploration rights to BP just off the Gulf of Sirte, Mr Qaddafi’s hometown.
Now flash forward to May 2010: the Obama administration is shaken to the bone by the oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico. It finds itself in the very difficult position of having to balance the needs of consumers who want cheap oil at the pump with the potential environmental risks that come with drilling. US senators, worried about being re-elected, ride the wave of public anger and try to discredit BP.
In doing so, they concoct a bizarre conspiracy theory, linking the dead fish in the Gulf of Mexico to Mr al Megrahi’s release, to the Scottish justice system, to the doctors who diagnosed the cancer patient, and all the way back to 2007’s BP Libya deal. They bundle the whole thing together and throw it at Mr Obama, as well as the British prime minister David Cameron on his way to Washington.
Now, Mr al Megrahi is still alive one year after he was released from prison as a terminally ill patient with three months to live. He might not be in good shape, but he is still alive (or, at least, the Libyans have been good about keeping his health under wraps, since few have managed to see him since January).
Mr al Megrahi still insists on his innocence. If only anyone would listen – not only to him, but to an increasingly growing public opinion that includes the head of the family association for Lockerbie families, Dr Jim Swire (whose daughter was also on the flight). A number of lawyers and legal experts are also not quite convinced that Mr al Megrahi blew up Pan Am flight 103 en route from Heathrow to New York 22 years ago.
I would not be surprised if Mr al Megrahi appears in public on the first anniversary of his release; the stage is ready to receive him. The same crowds of young Libyans are celebrating this year as well on the very same date he was released a year ago. If this happens, I would guess that agitated US politicians would probably call on the United Nations to intervene and stop those mad Libyans and punish Mr MacAskill.
Mr al Megrahi is still alive: who can they blame?
It’s amazing how the conspiracy theorists managed to connect all the dots and devise a perfect theory that revolves around the quest for oil rather than the quest for human dignity and respect. (...)
Why is it so important to prove that BP may have lobbied the British government to pressure Scotland for Mr al Megrahi’s release? Mr MacAskill acted on the order of compassion, after all, fulfilling an ailing man’s last wish to die next to his ageing mother.
It has been nearly a year since the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, declared his decision to release Abdelbaset al Megrahi, the only person convicted for the downing of Pan-Am flight 103 in 1988. He was released on compassionate grounds, as Mr al Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
August 20 also happened to be the day of the Libyan Youth Festival, an annual occasion celebrated by large crowds of young people in the capital Tripoli, where Mr al Megrahi’s plane landed. The crowds received news of his landing and they rushed to the airport to greet the man most of them believed to be innocent.
The tarmac was already filled with his extended family and members of his tribe, some of whom had been waiting since dawn to see their beloved son and to once again prove to themselves that he was innocent. The United States was angry at the “huge” welcome Mr al Megrahi received.
Flashback to 2007, the height of the effort to normalise relations between Libya and the UK: Tony Blair, the UK’s former prime minister, and Muammar Qaddafi oversaw a deal between British Petroleum and Libya’s NOC worth $US900 million. The deal effectively conceded oil exploration rights to BP just off the Gulf of Sirte, Mr Qaddafi’s hometown.
Now flash forward to May 2010: the Obama administration is shaken to the bone by the oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico. It finds itself in the very difficult position of having to balance the needs of consumers who want cheap oil at the pump with the potential environmental risks that come with drilling. US senators, worried about being re-elected, ride the wave of public anger and try to discredit BP.
In doing so, they concoct a bizarre conspiracy theory, linking the dead fish in the Gulf of Mexico to Mr al Megrahi’s release, to the Scottish justice system, to the doctors who diagnosed the cancer patient, and all the way back to 2007’s BP Libya deal. They bundle the whole thing together and throw it at Mr Obama, as well as the British prime minister David Cameron on his way to Washington.
Now, Mr al Megrahi is still alive one year after he was released from prison as a terminally ill patient with three months to live. He might not be in good shape, but he is still alive (or, at least, the Libyans have been good about keeping his health under wraps, since few have managed to see him since January).
Mr al Megrahi still insists on his innocence. If only anyone would listen – not only to him, but to an increasingly growing public opinion that includes the head of the family association for Lockerbie families, Dr Jim Swire (whose daughter was also on the flight). A number of lawyers and legal experts are also not quite convinced that Mr al Megrahi blew up Pan Am flight 103 en route from Heathrow to New York 22 years ago.
I would not be surprised if Mr al Megrahi appears in public on the first anniversary of his release; the stage is ready to receive him. The same crowds of young Libyans are celebrating this year as well on the very same date he was released a year ago. If this happens, I would guess that agitated US politicians would probably call on the United Nations to intervene and stop those mad Libyans and punish Mr MacAskill.
Mr al Megrahi is still alive: who can they blame?
It’s amazing how the conspiracy theorists managed to connect all the dots and devise a perfect theory that revolves around the quest for oil rather than the quest for human dignity and respect. (...)
Why is it so important to prove that BP may have lobbied the British government to pressure Scotland for Mr al Megrahi’s release? Mr MacAskill acted on the order of compassion, after all, fulfilling an ailing man’s last wish to die next to his ageing mother.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing
A year ago when the Lockerbie bomber was given three months to live, the media weren't exactly inundated by oncologists and other cancer experts publicly challenging the prognosis.
Yet 12 months later we have numerous "cancer experts" saying "I told you so" or "I was always unwilling to give a three month prognosis". Truly, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
So how accurate have these "experts" been up till now? Since 1993 24 prisoners in Scotland have been granted compassionate release on the basis that they only had three months to live. However, not a single one has died on the day when the three-month deadline was reached.
Seven prisoners (27 per cent) survived for more than three months. Seven died within days of release and one died in custody. If the three months were meant to be spent preparing for death, these latter prisoners were woefully short-changed by the experts who gave them a terminal prognosis. It also suggests that estimating time of death is at best a guess.
This reality is recognised within the US judicial system. There Megrahi would have been held in a federal penitentiary. Under the federal compassionate release scheme he would be entitled to release if he had a year left to live. However, the federal system also allows for release for terminal illnesses that do not "lend themselves to a precise prediction of life expectancy".
Strangely, this detail seems to have escaped the attention of those US senators who believe a prisoner failing to die as predicted represents a failure of the Scottish medical establishment.
Robert Menzies
[The above is the text of a letter in today's edition of The Scotsman. A letter from Labour MSP George Foulkes explaining how he has repeatedly called on Kenny MacAskill to break the law by publishing Megrahi's medical records can also be read there.]
Yet 12 months later we have numerous "cancer experts" saying "I told you so" or "I was always unwilling to give a three month prognosis". Truly, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
So how accurate have these "experts" been up till now? Since 1993 24 prisoners in Scotland have been granted compassionate release on the basis that they only had three months to live. However, not a single one has died on the day when the three-month deadline was reached.
Seven prisoners (27 per cent) survived for more than three months. Seven died within days of release and one died in custody. If the three months were meant to be spent preparing for death, these latter prisoners were woefully short-changed by the experts who gave them a terminal prognosis. It also suggests that estimating time of death is at best a guess.
This reality is recognised within the US judicial system. There Megrahi would have been held in a federal penitentiary. Under the federal compassionate release scheme he would be entitled to release if he had a year left to live. However, the federal system also allows for release for terminal illnesses that do not "lend themselves to a precise prediction of life expectancy".
Strangely, this detail seems to have escaped the attention of those US senators who believe a prisoner failing to die as predicted represents a failure of the Scottish medical establishment.
Robert Menzies
[The above is the text of a letter in today's edition of The Scotsman. A letter from Labour MSP George Foulkes explaining how he has repeatedly called on Kenny MacAskill to break the law by publishing Megrahi's medical records can also be read there.]
Call to quiz US firms over Libya
[This is the headline over a report on the Big On Glasgow website. It reads as follows:]
The US senator locked in a row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber has been told to question American firms’ involvement in lobbying with Libya.
Senator Robert Menendez previously tried to link BP with the Scottish Government’s decision to release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
The oil giant is a member of the Libyan British Business Council (LBBC). The accusation that it affected the release has already prompted an angry rebuttal from First Minister Alex Salmond.
SNP backbencher Christine Grahame has now written to the senator attempting to turn the tables by pointing out that the US firm Exxon Mobil is also a member.
She said: “If Senator Menendez and his colleagues are so concerned that business interests may have lobbied the UK Government they should start by asking their own American businesses.
“Exxon Mobil is the largest oil company in the LBBC and is on its governing council.
“If Senator Menendez wants to find out what the LBBC wanted and if they lobbied the UK Government, the senator should start by questioning Exxon Mobil.”
Last week Senator Menendez issued a plea for “whistleblowers” to come forward as part of his own attempts to investigate the circumstances surrounding Megrahi’s release.
In a television appearance, he cited a letter from Conservative peer Lord Trefgarne, chairman of the LBBC, to Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.
But a reply from Mr MacAskill stated that political considerations would play no part in considering Megrahi’s release.
[A similar report appears in today's edition of The Scotsman. It can be read here.]
The US senator locked in a row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber has been told to question American firms’ involvement in lobbying with Libya.
Senator Robert Menendez previously tried to link BP with the Scottish Government’s decision to release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
The oil giant is a member of the Libyan British Business Council (LBBC). The accusation that it affected the release has already prompted an angry rebuttal from First Minister Alex Salmond.
SNP backbencher Christine Grahame has now written to the senator attempting to turn the tables by pointing out that the US firm Exxon Mobil is also a member.
She said: “If Senator Menendez and his colleagues are so concerned that business interests may have lobbied the UK Government they should start by asking their own American businesses.
“Exxon Mobil is the largest oil company in the LBBC and is on its governing council.
“If Senator Menendez wants to find out what the LBBC wanted and if they lobbied the UK Government, the senator should start by questioning Exxon Mobil.”
Last week Senator Menendez issued a plea for “whistleblowers” to come forward as part of his own attempts to investigate the circumstances surrounding Megrahi’s release.
In a television appearance, he cited a letter from Conservative peer Lord Trefgarne, chairman of the LBBC, to Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.
But a reply from Mr MacAskill stated that political considerations would play no part in considering Megrahi’s release.
[A similar report appears in today's edition of The Scotsman. It can be read here.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)