[This is the headline over a report just published on the Telegraph website. It reads in part:]
Alex Salmond has cut off communications with US senators investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber after denouncing them for twisting the evidence he has submitted.
In an angry letter to the Senate’s foreign relations committee, which is conducting the inquiry, the First Minister said their behaviour “calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation.”
Mr Salmond accused the senators of selectively quoting from Scottish Executive documents to create the “contrived” illusion the release was influenced by British commercial interests.
He also said they were “unable or unwilling to understand” that the terminally-ill bomber was freed on compassionate grounds, and not under a controversial prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) between Libya and Britain.
The First Minister concluded by saying he was “drawing a line” under his correspondence with them and would not attend a meeting with the senators’ representative, who is due to arrive in Scotland this week.
But Richard Baker, Scottish Labour justice spokesman, said he would use his talks with the official to call for the publication of the bomber’s medical reports. (...)
In a letter sent to Mr Salmond last month, on the first anniversary of the release, Senator Robert Menendez, the committee’s chair, cited five occasions on which commercial pressures were put on Mr MacAskill.
But in his reply, the First Minister branded the committee’s evidence “circumstantial”, adding: “This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong”.
He said senators had selectively quoted from evidence provided by his administration, without making clear the decision was made on judicial grounds alone.
“To then accuse the Scottish government of selectively publishing correspondence … significantly undermines your credibility,” he added.
Mr Salmond said there is evidence BP’s interests influenced the PTA, but he had opposed the British Government signing the deal in 2007. In contrast, he told the senators: “You were silent”.
He argued his administration’s opposition to the PTA, and Mr MacAskill’s rejection of Libya’s application for Megrahi to be released under the agreement, “fatally undermines your line of argument”.
To get around this, the First Minister suggested the senators have “conflated” the bomber’s failed PTA application and the successful bid for him to be released on compassionate grounds.
Despite his attempts to make clear the distinction, Mr Salmond wrote: “You seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.”
He said this failure to “accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts … calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.”
Mr Salmond said “appropriate officials” would be made available to the committee’s representative but ministers will not attend.
[The treatment of this story in The Herald of Monday 13 September can be seen here; and The Scotsman's here.]
Sunday, 12 September 2010
A view from Malta
[What follows is an excerpt from Howard Hodgson's column The world around us in today's edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.]
Not content with attempting to make a villain of BP over the Gulf oil spill in a vain attempt to deflect attention away from his own disastrous presidential performance, as I reported in June, Barak Obama has now attempted another spin trick worthy of even the ghastly Tony Blair and his hypocritical and morally bankrupt lieutenant Alistair Campbell.
America’s first mixed race President, when his politically motivated attacks on ‘British’ Petroleum failed to turn the tide of public disapproval of him, decided, instead of listening to the reasons for the disquiet, to launch another smokescreen by questioning whether perhaps BP had influenced the British and Scottish governments into releasing the convicted Lockerbie Bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
You will recall that on 21 December 1988, Pan Am 103 exploded in mid air over Lockerbie in Scotland killing some 270 people in total, a high percentage of which were US citizens.
Eventually, al-Megrahi was convicted of this atrocity, despite protesting his innocence and with many feeling that the conviction was unsafe due to the amount of conflicting and dubious evidence. He was sentenced to serve life in a Scottish jail.
Then in 2009, he was released on humanitarian grounds due to the fact that Scottish doctors said that he had only a matter of weeks to live given the terminal nature of the cancer he was suffering from.
Many Americans, not least relatives of those slaughtered, were appalled – a feeling that became more intense when al-Megrahi was still alive a year later. This was not always an emotion shared by relatives of the British victims, some of whom seemed to have studied the case more closely and were far less convinced of his guilt.
Nevertheless, as al-Megrahi was convicted in a proper court of law, one can perhaps sympathise with those who thought that he should die in prison given the nature of his crime.
Now enter stage left America’s inept President Obama, who suggests that BP had enlisted Gordon Brown’s corrupt British government to offer the release of al-Megrahi as a sweetener to Colonel Gaddafi in order to land a 900-million-dollar deal with Libya.
Therefore, a wicked British government had colluded with a wicked ‘British’ company (38 per cent US owned against 39 per cent UK owned and boasting more US employees than British by the way) to help a wicked murderer be re-united with his wicked boss Colonel Gaddafi. What a very convenient distraction despite the denials of BP and the British, Scottish and Libyan governments. But who knows the truth? Certainly not me.
Not content with attempting to make a villain of BP over the Gulf oil spill in a vain attempt to deflect attention away from his own disastrous presidential performance, as I reported in June, Barak Obama has now attempted another spin trick worthy of even the ghastly Tony Blair and his hypocritical and morally bankrupt lieutenant Alistair Campbell.
America’s first mixed race President, when his politically motivated attacks on ‘British’ Petroleum failed to turn the tide of public disapproval of him, decided, instead of listening to the reasons for the disquiet, to launch another smokescreen by questioning whether perhaps BP had influenced the British and Scottish governments into releasing the convicted Lockerbie Bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
You will recall that on 21 December 1988, Pan Am 103 exploded in mid air over Lockerbie in Scotland killing some 270 people in total, a high percentage of which were US citizens.
Eventually, al-Megrahi was convicted of this atrocity, despite protesting his innocence and with many feeling that the conviction was unsafe due to the amount of conflicting and dubious evidence. He was sentenced to serve life in a Scottish jail.
Then in 2009, he was released on humanitarian grounds due to the fact that Scottish doctors said that he had only a matter of weeks to live given the terminal nature of the cancer he was suffering from.
Many Americans, not least relatives of those slaughtered, were appalled – a feeling that became more intense when al-Megrahi was still alive a year later. This was not always an emotion shared by relatives of the British victims, some of whom seemed to have studied the case more closely and were far less convinced of his guilt.
Nevertheless, as al-Megrahi was convicted in a proper court of law, one can perhaps sympathise with those who thought that he should die in prison given the nature of his crime.
Now enter stage left America’s inept President Obama, who suggests that BP had enlisted Gordon Brown’s corrupt British government to offer the release of al-Megrahi as a sweetener to Colonel Gaddafi in order to land a 900-million-dollar deal with Libya.
Therefore, a wicked British government had colluded with a wicked ‘British’ company (38 per cent US owned against 39 per cent UK owned and boasting more US employees than British by the way) to help a wicked murderer be re-united with his wicked boss Colonel Gaddafi. What a very convenient distraction despite the denials of BP and the British, Scottish and Libyan governments. But who knows the truth? Certainly not me.
Hague snubs US inquiry into Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Sunday Times. It can be accessed online only by subscribers to the newspaper's website. The article reads in part:]
The foreign secretary, William Hague, has banned government officials from co-operating with a US Senate team investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
He has told them not to liaise with the Americans despite a request from the US government for a meeting with investigators when they arrive in Britain this week.
The Foreign Office said the request had been rejected because of concerns about “extraterritoriality” — the convention that members of one government are not accountable to another — and also because the civil service code bars officials from discussing the policies of a previous administration.
While visiting Washington in July, David Cameron joined President Barack Obama in condemning the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi a year ago. He asked Sir Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary, to examine whether classified papers on the events leading up to it could be released. (...)
The investigating team of senators’ staff members had hoped that key figures with knowledge of the events leading up to Megrahi’s release would agree to meet them informally to discuss the case.
Alex Salmond, the Scottish first minister, has turned down their requests to meet his ministers while they are in Britain but has offered to make justice department officials available to discuss the case.
Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, and Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary responsible for Megrahi’s release, said they were not answerable to America for their decisions.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: “We have had to decline this request given concerns over extraterritoriality and also on the basis of the civil service code. Officials are accountable through ministers to the British parliament.
“However, we are committed to being constructive. The foreign secretary has written in detail to the Senate committee, setting out the British government’s position, and will write again once the cabinet secretary’s review has concluded.”
[It appears that Richard Baker MSP, Labour Party Justice spokesman in the Scottish Parliament, is going to meet the US Senate staffer. A report from The Press Association news agency contains the following:]
Labour justice spokesman Richard Baker has revealed that he is to meet an official connected to the US Senate inquiry into the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Mr Baker said he will call for publication of the bomber's medical reports when he meets the representative of US Senator Robert Menendez in Edinburgh on Thursday.
The MSP said: "Kenny MacAskill and other SNP ministers took the decision to release (Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al) Megrahi and the medical evidence that they relied upon has not been published.
"I will make it clear that to get to the truth of the matter the Senators should focus their attentions on that advice."
The foreign secretary, William Hague, has banned government officials from co-operating with a US Senate team investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
He has told them not to liaise with the Americans despite a request from the US government for a meeting with investigators when they arrive in Britain this week.
The Foreign Office said the request had been rejected because of concerns about “extraterritoriality” — the convention that members of one government are not accountable to another — and also because the civil service code bars officials from discussing the policies of a previous administration.
While visiting Washington in July, David Cameron joined President Barack Obama in condemning the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi a year ago. He asked Sir Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary, to examine whether classified papers on the events leading up to it could be released. (...)
The investigating team of senators’ staff members had hoped that key figures with knowledge of the events leading up to Megrahi’s release would agree to meet them informally to discuss the case.
Alex Salmond, the Scottish first minister, has turned down their requests to meet his ministers while they are in Britain but has offered to make justice department officials available to discuss the case.
Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, and Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary responsible for Megrahi’s release, said they were not answerable to America for their decisions.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: “We have had to decline this request given concerns over extraterritoriality and also on the basis of the civil service code. Officials are accountable through ministers to the British parliament.
“However, we are committed to being constructive. The foreign secretary has written in detail to the Senate committee, setting out the British government’s position, and will write again once the cabinet secretary’s review has concluded.”
[It appears that Richard Baker MSP, Labour Party Justice spokesman in the Scottish Parliament, is going to meet the US Senate staffer. A report from The Press Association news agency contains the following:]
Labour justice spokesman Richard Baker has revealed that he is to meet an official connected to the US Senate inquiry into the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Mr Baker said he will call for publication of the bomber's medical reports when he meets the representative of US Senator Robert Menendez in Edinburgh on Thursday.
The MSP said: "Kenny MacAskill and other SNP ministers took the decision to release (Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al) Megrahi and the medical evidence that they relied upon has not been published.
"I will make it clear that to get to the truth of the matter the Senators should focus their attentions on that advice."
Saturday, 11 September 2010
Radio Four Megrahi programme
The topic for the edition of BBC Radio Four's The Report to be broadcast on Thursday, 16 September at 8pm is "the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi". I agreed to be interviewed for this programme on condition that it concerned itself not merely with the circumstances of his release but also with the circumstances of his conviction. This condition was accepted and I estimate that 95 per cent of the interview of more than one hour that I gave related to the investigation, trial and conviction, rather than the release. But it's all in the editing, of course.
Friday, 10 September 2010
US ambassador hits back at cardinal over Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
One of America's most senior diplomats last night issued hard-hitting criticisms of the Scottish Government and a senior Catholic cardinal when he spoke in Glasgow last night.
Louis Susman, US ambassador to the UK, strongly condemned justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, and made the pointed remark that America was "not a vengeful nation" in reference to recent comments made by Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics.
Speaking at a CBI dinner in Glasgow, Mr Susman said: "We have said repeatedly we respect the right of the Scottish Government to make the decision, but we felt that the heinous nature of the crime did not justify the release under any circumstances.
"We agree with Prime Minister Cameron who said that Megrahi should not have been shown compassion when he did not show any himself.
"The fact that Megrahi lives on as a free man, 13 months after his release, in Libya, in luxurious surroundings, only reinforces our conviction that he should have served his sentence in Scotland. America is not a vengeful nation as some have said."
His last remark was seen as a pointed response to statements from Cardinal O'Brien. Last month the cardinal criticised America's "culture of vengeance" and told US Senators they had no right to question the standards of Scotland's justice system over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. (...)
In his remarks, Cardinal O'Brien condemned the American justice system and spoke of a "conveyor belt of killing" in its use of the death penalty. (...)
He said the US senators seeking to question Scottish and British government ministers should instead "direct their gaze inwards".
The Cardinal also backed Mr Salmond's decision 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 described the decision as "thoughtful and considered". (...)
MacAskill rejected Megrahi's application to be released under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiated by the UK government and Libya.
It emerged subsequently that the Libyans had delayed signing an oil deal with BP in order to pressure Megrahi to be included in the agreement, which the then UK justice secretary Jack Straw subsequently agreed to.
The revelations prompted the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee to launch a hearing into the release.
Both MacAskill and Straw were asked to attend, but both declined on the grounds they did not answer to a foreign legislature. The senators have now declared they may visit Scotland later this year to speak to MacAskill and Straw here.
[The Herald's report of the ambassador's speech can be read here.
A letter from Ruth Marr in The Herald of Saturday, 11 September contains the following:]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi must feel that he is encircled by vultures. The latest to complain that he has not met his three-month deadline is the American ambassador to Britain, Louis Susman., speaking at the CBI Scotland’s annual dinner.
One of America's most senior diplomats last night issued hard-hitting criticisms of the Scottish Government and a senior Catholic cardinal when he spoke in Glasgow last night.
Louis Susman, US ambassador to the UK, strongly condemned justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, and made the pointed remark that America was "not a vengeful nation" in reference to recent comments made by Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics.
Speaking at a CBI dinner in Glasgow, Mr Susman said: "We have said repeatedly we respect the right of the Scottish Government to make the decision, but we felt that the heinous nature of the crime did not justify the release under any circumstances.
"We agree with Prime Minister Cameron who said that Megrahi should not have been shown compassion when he did not show any himself.
"The fact that Megrahi lives on as a free man, 13 months after his release, in Libya, in luxurious surroundings, only reinforces our conviction that he should have served his sentence in Scotland. America is not a vengeful nation as some have said."
His last remark was seen as a pointed response to statements from Cardinal O'Brien. Last month the cardinal criticised America's "culture of vengeance" and told US Senators they had no right to question the standards of Scotland's justice system over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. (...)
In his remarks, Cardinal O'Brien condemned the American justice system and spoke of a "conveyor belt of killing" in its use of the death penalty. (...)
He said the US senators seeking to question Scottish and British government ministers should instead "direct their gaze inwards".
The Cardinal also backed Mr Salmond's decision 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 described the decision as "thoughtful and considered". (...)
MacAskill rejected Megrahi's application to be released under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiated by the UK government and Libya.
It emerged subsequently that the Libyans had delayed signing an oil deal with BP in order to pressure Megrahi to be included in the agreement, which the then UK justice secretary Jack Straw subsequently agreed to.
The revelations prompted the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee to launch a hearing into the release.
Both MacAskill and Straw were asked to attend, but both declined on the grounds they did not answer to a foreign legislature. The senators have now declared they may visit Scotland later this year to speak to MacAskill and Straw here.
[The Herald's report of the ambassador's speech can be read here.
A letter from Ruth Marr in The Herald of Saturday, 11 September contains the following:]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi must feel that he is encircled by vultures. The latest to complain that he has not met his three-month deadline is the American ambassador to Britain, Louis Susman., speaking at the CBI Scotland’s annual dinner.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Help wanted for The Lockerbie Divide blog
[Caustic Logic's most recent post on his excellent blog The Lockerbie Divide reads in part:]
[I]t's been almost single-handedly that, over the last eight months, I've made this a valuable destination for those wanting to learn more about the case against Megrahi and Libya. Using tags (the cloud of different sized names and phrases on the right-hand sidebar) and the "search this blog" window, quite a bit of the relevant info, some unavailable anywhere else, can be located all at one site.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of information I haven't addressed, fully or at all. At one point I was creating blank posts to fill in later, but I wasn't getting back to them and stopped. And as things stand, I'll be having considerably less time to work on the site or do much other discussion in the next several months at least. (...)
However, I have noticed many new commentators appearing at The Lockerbie Case and elsewhere, in addition to the numerous informed commentators on both/all sides of the issue. I'd therefore like to repeat an earlier faint request for contributions and help. Are there any specific aspects or points of view that you're excited about or have done some research on? Encyclopedic collections of facts, opinions, theories, all are welcome for submission (especially the first). Ideally, I'm thinking of semi-scholarly, sourced essays, and I probably won't post anything that's patently absurd or useless in my estimate. ANY opposing viewpoint supporting Megrahi's guilt (within social norms, etc) that is submitted will be hosted for argument's sake, but I will own the comments. So keep it sharp, if possible.
If you see an existing post that you can add something to, fill in the gaps often labeled "forthcoming," drop me a line via a comment there or by e-mail. (...) Anyone interested in doing original research for a detailed post can ask me about sharing links and source material they may not have, and for tips on where to look for info.
[I]t's been almost single-handedly that, over the last eight months, I've made this a valuable destination for those wanting to learn more about the case against Megrahi and Libya. Using tags (the cloud of different sized names and phrases on the right-hand sidebar) and the "search this blog" window, quite a bit of the relevant info, some unavailable anywhere else, can be located all at one site.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of information I haven't addressed, fully or at all. At one point I was creating blank posts to fill in later, but I wasn't getting back to them and stopped. And as things stand, I'll be having considerably less time to work on the site or do much other discussion in the next several months at least. (...)
However, I have noticed many new commentators appearing at The Lockerbie Case and elsewhere, in addition to the numerous informed commentators on both/all sides of the issue. I'd therefore like to repeat an earlier faint request for contributions and help. Are there any specific aspects or points of view that you're excited about or have done some research on? Encyclopedic collections of facts, opinions, theories, all are welcome for submission (especially the first). Ideally, I'm thinking of semi-scholarly, sourced essays, and I probably won't post anything that's patently absurd or useless in my estimate. ANY opposing viewpoint supporting Megrahi's guilt (within social norms, etc) that is submitted will be hosted for argument's sake, but I will own the comments. So keep it sharp, if possible.
If you see an existing post that you can add something to, fill in the gaps often labeled "forthcoming," drop me a line via a comment there or by e-mail. (...) Anyone interested in doing original research for a detailed post can ask me about sharing links and source material they may not have, and for tips on where to look for info.
Monday, 6 September 2010
A Scottish Sunday afternoon
"I am a documentary film maker wrapping production on a feature length film of the Lockerbie disaster, which I have been shooting for the past three years. The focus of the film is the humanistic effects that have taken place since the bombing, with three families in the United States being the primary subjects. I have trailed them through the various anniversaries of the bombing, their children's birthdays, and was with them last year on this date when Megrahi was released, an event which was particularly devastating to them as most of the Americans believe he was guilty of the crime.
"As the people I've interviewed for this film have been primarily American, aside from a handful of people from Lockerbie itself, the interviews I have shot so far are leaning heavily towards the side that Megrahi is guilty. As an objective journalist and filmmaker, I feel I must include the voice of the opposition to counterbalance the views that have divided the people of the UK vs US. (...)
"I am writing to formally ask for an interview with you for this film. With your expertise and your prominence with regards to the case/trial I feel you are an invaluable voice in this story. Please consider this opportunity, and feel free to ask me any questions about me and my film. (...)
"You can rest assured the film itself will be held to the highest journalistic standards."
This is what the documentary maker wrote. The resulting filmed interview took place yesterday.
For more than an hour, all was unexceptional, the questioning covering my upbringing in Lockerbie, my recollections of the event itself, how I became involved in attempting to bring about a trial and my views about the trial itself and the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. I covered at some length my concerns about the flimsiness of the evidence against him, concerns in many instances shared by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in its 2007 report on Megrahi's conviction.
But then the entire tone of the proceedings changed. How could I hold myself out in the media as an expert when I had advised the Libyan government in relation to the Lockerbie case? The fact that I had never hidden this and it was in the public domain from the time that I first went public (in late 1997) with my January-1994 scheme for a non-jury trial in the Netherlands cut no ice with the interviewer. And if not all media outlets gave prominence to my contacts with the Libyan government, this was my fault rather than that of the journalists and media editorial staff concerned. How could I justify seeking to undermine the verdict of the Zeist court? The detailed account that I had given, and now attempted to give again, of the crucial instances in which the judges' conclusions were simply contrary to the evidence were swept aside, as were the concerns expressed by the SCCRC. After about half an hour of this, I brought the interview to an end and left the hotel room in which it had been held. This was precisely what the interviewer had been seeking to achieve. With hand-held camera running, I was followed through the hotel corridors with the interviewer ranting, amongst other things, "Do you sleep at night?"
I wonder what will happen to the first hour's recorded material? It contains lots of interesting stuff. But I doubt if it will ever see the light of day. The documentary maker had decided that what his film needed was a villain, and I was cast in the role. It will no doubt go down well in the United States and in certain Crown Office and police circles. It may also, for a time, serve to deflect attention from the terrible miscarriage of justice suffered by Abdelbaset Megrahi. But the truth will ultimately prevail.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit.
"As the people I've interviewed for this film have been primarily American, aside from a handful of people from Lockerbie itself, the interviews I have shot so far are leaning heavily towards the side that Megrahi is guilty. As an objective journalist and filmmaker, I feel I must include the voice of the opposition to counterbalance the views that have divided the people of the UK vs US. (...)
"I am writing to formally ask for an interview with you for this film. With your expertise and your prominence with regards to the case/trial I feel you are an invaluable voice in this story. Please consider this opportunity, and feel free to ask me any questions about me and my film. (...)
"You can rest assured the film itself will be held to the highest journalistic standards."
This is what the documentary maker wrote. The resulting filmed interview took place yesterday.
For more than an hour, all was unexceptional, the questioning covering my upbringing in Lockerbie, my recollections of the event itself, how I became involved in attempting to bring about a trial and my views about the trial itself and the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. I covered at some length my concerns about the flimsiness of the evidence against him, concerns in many instances shared by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in its 2007 report on Megrahi's conviction.
But then the entire tone of the proceedings changed. How could I hold myself out in the media as an expert when I had advised the Libyan government in relation to the Lockerbie case? The fact that I had never hidden this and it was in the public domain from the time that I first went public (in late 1997) with my January-1994 scheme for a non-jury trial in the Netherlands cut no ice with the interviewer. And if not all media outlets gave prominence to my contacts with the Libyan government, this was my fault rather than that of the journalists and media editorial staff concerned. How could I justify seeking to undermine the verdict of the Zeist court? The detailed account that I had given, and now attempted to give again, of the crucial instances in which the judges' conclusions were simply contrary to the evidence were swept aside, as were the concerns expressed by the SCCRC. After about half an hour of this, I brought the interview to an end and left the hotel room in which it had been held. This was precisely what the interviewer had been seeking to achieve. With hand-held camera running, I was followed through the hotel corridors with the interviewer ranting, amongst other things, "Do you sleep at night?"
I wonder what will happen to the first hour's recorded material? It contains lots of interesting stuff. But I doubt if it will ever see the light of day. The documentary maker had decided that what his film needed was a villain, and I was cast in the role. It will no doubt go down well in the United States and in certain Crown Office and police circles. It may also, for a time, serve to deflect attention from the terrible miscarriage of justice suffered by Abdelbaset Megrahi. But the truth will ultimately prevail.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit.
Sunday, 5 September 2010
Megrahi's new book to reveal vital evidence he says will clear his name
[This is the headline over a report by Marcello Mega on page 44 of today's Scottish edition of The Mail on Sunday. The story does not (as yet) appear on the newspaper's website. The following excerpts have accordingly been typed out by me.]
The Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is to publish a book containing sensational new evidence he claims will clear his name.
When ... Megrahi was found guilty of planting the bomb aboard Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people, the most crucial evidence involved a tiny piece of electronic circuit board.
Prosecutors said it had been found 35 miles from the crash site and was part of a timing device used to detonate explosives hidden in a tape recorder in luggage on the plane.
Megrahi's book will make public the results of comprehensive tests carried out by an internationally acclaimed explosives expert which cast doubt on his conviction.
The experiments -- by Dr John Wyatt, the UN's European consultant on explosives -- suggest that the 4mm square fragment of circuit board could not possibly have survived the explosion. In conditions designed to replicate the 1988 bomb as closely as possible, Dr Wyatt carried out 20 controlled explosions.
Radio-cassette recorders containing Semtex and timing devices of the type that led to Megrahi's conviction were placed within hard-shell Samsonite suitcases and surrounded by clothing matching the contents of the case that concealed the actual bomb.
The amount of Semtex used was 400g -- the amount estimated to have brought down Pan Am Flight 103.
When the Semtex in the experiments was detonated, all the circuit boards in the timing devices and the surrounding tape recorders were completely destroyed.
Last night, Dr Wyatt said his experiments proved beyond a doubt that the fragment of circuit board used to convict Megrahi could not have been part of a timing device. He claimed his research was absolutely conclusive: it simply could not have survived such close proximity to such a powerful explosion.
Dr Wyatt said: "Before carrying out the tests, I found it quite extraordinary that a 4mm fragment had survived an explosion caused by 400mg of Semtex, had been found among long grass and foliage many miles from Lockerbie and had been identifiable. Now, I find it completely unbelievable.
"The tests we carried out showed a consistency that leaves no room for doubt. So where did the fragment come from?" (...)
In Dr Wyatt's tests, circuit boards were completely vaporised in all the explosions using 400g of Semtex. Circuit boards were also vaporised in tests using considerably less explosive.
Only when the amount of Semtex was reduced to 150g -- 37.5 per cent of the quantity used -- did any trace of the circuit board survive. Even then, the remains were so small they could only be viewed and identified with a microscope.
Megrahi's conviction rested on two things: the discredited testimony of a Maltese shopkeeper paid $2 million for his inconclusive identification evidence; and the discovery of the fragment. (...)
The book will also cover forensic tests carried out on the fragment in 2008. Those tests showed no trace of explosive residue.
The two strands of evidence relating to the fragment are especially powerful as they were not considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which even without that material judged the conviction unsafe.
It referred the case back to the Court of Appeal, saying no reasonable tribunal could have found Megrahi guilty on the evidence.
Last night, Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at Edinburgh University ... said: "I have decided to stop commenting on new evidence because, interesting as it may be, it takes the eye off what really matters, namely, that he should never have been convicted in the first place on the flimsy evidence before the court."
[I am grateful to Marcello Mega for sending me the full, unedited, text of his article in The Mail on Sunday. It reads as follows:]
Dramatic revelations to be made in a book co-authored by the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will send shockwaves through the Scottish justice system.
The book will outline in detail explosives tests carried out by an independent expert proving that a 4mm sq fragment of circuit board that was at the very heart of the Libyan’s conviction could not have survived the Lockerbie bomb, made up of about 400g of semtex.
Dr John Wyatt, the United Nations’ European consultant on explosives, carried out a series of 20 controlled explosions within brick and corrugated iron constructions in a secluded part of the Kent countryside.
Dr Wyatt revealed last night that the experiment was designed to replicate as closely as possible the conditions of the Lockerbie bomb.
Radio-cassette recorders, containing semtex and timing devices of the type that led to Megrahi’s conviction, were placed within hard-shell Samsonite suitcases and surrounded by clothing matching the contents of the case that concealed the bomb.
The circuit board was completely vaporised in all tests until the amount of semtex was reduced considerably. Only when the scientists went as low as 150g, 37.5% of the quantity that downed Pan Am 103 on 21 December 1988, did any trace of the circuit board survive, and it could only be viewed and identified through a microscope.
Dr Wyatt said: “We carried out the tests indoors specifically to make it easier to gather up all the residue of the explosions. Until we got down to 150g of semtex, nothing was left but dust.
“At 150g, we found one tiny fragment that had been part of the circuit board, and it had to be checked and identified through a microscope. Even at 150g, the device, the circuit board and the radio-cassette recorder had literally disintegrated, a far cry from the evidence presented at the trial.
“Before carrying out the tests, I found it quite extraordinary that a 4mm sq fragment had survived an explosion caused by 400g of semtex, had been found among long grass and foliage many miles from Lockerbie and had been identifiable. Now, I find it completely unbelievable.
“The tests we carried out showed a consistency that leaves no room for doubt. I don’t think it could have happened. So where did the fragment come from?”
That uncomfortable question would have been at the heart of the second appeal against conviction by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, but he abandoned that appeal a year ago to speed up the process of his compassionate release as he battled prostate cancer.
Now, the detail of the tests, and the questions it raises, will be the corner-stone of his book, co-authored by the investigative journalist John Ashton, who latterly worked as an investigator on the defence team preparing Megrahi’s appeal.
The book, which may be published before the end of this year, will also outline in detail forensic tests carried out on the fragment in 2008. Those tests showed no trace of explosives residue, meaning that it had never been near the seat of an explosion.
The two strands of evidence relating to the fragment are especially powerful as they were not considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which even without that additional and crucial material judged that the conviction was unsafe.
It referred the case back to the Court of Appeal on six grounds, the most damning of which -- especially given that three judges sat without a jury -- was that no reasonable tribunal could have found Megrahi guilty on the evidence heard.
Megrahi was convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity in Europe because of two things: the discredited testimony of a Maltese shopkeeper paid $2m for his inconclusive identification evidence; and the remarkable discovery of the fragment, the only piece of forensic evidence that pointed to Libyan involvement.
Dr Wyatt’s tests, and the publicity they will receive through publication of Megrahi’s book, will reinforce suspicions long held that the fragment was planted to implicate Libya.
Dr Wyatt’s qualifications and integrity are beyond question, unlike the former head of the FBI lab Thomas Thurman, who identified the fragment. Thurman did not even have a science degree and has been barred from giving evidence in murder trials after his testimony in a huge case proved unreliable and was heavily biased to favour the Crown.
It was widely believed that Megrahi’s second appeal would expose deep flaws in the Scottish justice system and prove embarrassing for the Crown Office and for senior Scottish and US investigators.
At least one former police officer has made sworn statements to the defence implicating former colleagues on both sides of the Atlantic who he says were involved in planting and manipulating evidence to fit Libya and Megrahi.
The weakest elements of the case have been exposed repeatedly over the past nine years, including the credibility of the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci.
Gauci was recorded admitting he was to be paid for his testimony, had been coached by Scottish detectives before giving evidence and had been given free holidays in Scotland arranged by his police handlers.
There has also been growing unease over the integrity of the fragment.
In a case with thousands of productions, it had already been remarked upon at Megrahi’s trial that the only production with a label that had been altered was the evidence bag containing the fragment.
In their written judgment, the three Scottish judges who sat without a jury said that the attempts of the police officer responsible to explain his actions were “at worst evasive and at best confusing”.
However, they concluded that there was no sinister reason either for the re-labelling or for the poor quality of the officer’s evidence, while offering little explanation of how they reached that conclusion.
In referring the case back in 2007, the SCCRC -- made up of lawyers and ex-police officers -- took pains to stress that although it believed the conviction might be unsafe, it had not concluded that evidence had been planted or manipulated.
But it has now emerged that although they were sent reports on Dr Wyatt’s tests, commissioners working on the case refused to consider them.
Legal experts believed a second appeal would certainly have seen Megrahi’s conviction quashed, but expected that it would be done on a technicality to avoid scrutiny of the controversial evidence, and especially how the fragment entered the chain of evidence.
Robert Black, retired professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University and the architect of the trial in a neutral country before a panel of judges, has grown weary of the media focus on Megrahi’s controversial release just over a year ago.
Originally from Lockerbie, Prof Black, one of Scotland’s most eminent QCs, has even tired of hearing about the fresh revelations in the case.
He said last night: “I have decided to stop commenting on new evidence because interesting as it may be, it takes the eye off what really matters, that Megrahi should never have been convicted in the first place on the flimsy evidence before the court.”
[The Scottish edition of the Sun for Monday, 6 September contains a brief report about the Wyatt findings. It can be read here.]
The Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is to publish a book containing sensational new evidence he claims will clear his name.
When ... Megrahi was found guilty of planting the bomb aboard Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people, the most crucial evidence involved a tiny piece of electronic circuit board.
Prosecutors said it had been found 35 miles from the crash site and was part of a timing device used to detonate explosives hidden in a tape recorder in luggage on the plane.
Megrahi's book will make public the results of comprehensive tests carried out by an internationally acclaimed explosives expert which cast doubt on his conviction.
The experiments -- by Dr John Wyatt, the UN's European consultant on explosives -- suggest that the 4mm square fragment of circuit board could not possibly have survived the explosion. In conditions designed to replicate the 1988 bomb as closely as possible, Dr Wyatt carried out 20 controlled explosions.
Radio-cassette recorders containing Semtex and timing devices of the type that led to Megrahi's conviction were placed within hard-shell Samsonite suitcases and surrounded by clothing matching the contents of the case that concealed the actual bomb.
The amount of Semtex used was 400g -- the amount estimated to have brought down Pan Am Flight 103.
When the Semtex in the experiments was detonated, all the circuit boards in the timing devices and the surrounding tape recorders were completely destroyed.
Last night, Dr Wyatt said his experiments proved beyond a doubt that the fragment of circuit board used to convict Megrahi could not have been part of a timing device. He claimed his research was absolutely conclusive: it simply could not have survived such close proximity to such a powerful explosion.
Dr Wyatt said: "Before carrying out the tests, I found it quite extraordinary that a 4mm fragment had survived an explosion caused by 400mg of Semtex, had been found among long grass and foliage many miles from Lockerbie and had been identifiable. Now, I find it completely unbelievable.
"The tests we carried out showed a consistency that leaves no room for doubt. So where did the fragment come from?" (...)
In Dr Wyatt's tests, circuit boards were completely vaporised in all the explosions using 400g of Semtex. Circuit boards were also vaporised in tests using considerably less explosive.
Only when the amount of Semtex was reduced to 150g -- 37.5 per cent of the quantity used -- did any trace of the circuit board survive. Even then, the remains were so small they could only be viewed and identified with a microscope.
Megrahi's conviction rested on two things: the discredited testimony of a Maltese shopkeeper paid $2 million for his inconclusive identification evidence; and the discovery of the fragment. (...)
The book will also cover forensic tests carried out on the fragment in 2008. Those tests showed no trace of explosive residue.
The two strands of evidence relating to the fragment are especially powerful as they were not considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which even without that material judged the conviction unsafe.
It referred the case back to the Court of Appeal, saying no reasonable tribunal could have found Megrahi guilty on the evidence.
Last night, Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at Edinburgh University ... said: "I have decided to stop commenting on new evidence because, interesting as it may be, it takes the eye off what really matters, namely, that he should never have been convicted in the first place on the flimsy evidence before the court."
[I am grateful to Marcello Mega for sending me the full, unedited, text of his article in The Mail on Sunday. It reads as follows:]
Dramatic revelations to be made in a book co-authored by the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will send shockwaves through the Scottish justice system.
The book will outline in detail explosives tests carried out by an independent expert proving that a 4mm sq fragment of circuit board that was at the very heart of the Libyan’s conviction could not have survived the Lockerbie bomb, made up of about 400g of semtex.
Dr John Wyatt, the United Nations’ European consultant on explosives, carried out a series of 20 controlled explosions within brick and corrugated iron constructions in a secluded part of the Kent countryside.
Dr Wyatt revealed last night that the experiment was designed to replicate as closely as possible the conditions of the Lockerbie bomb.
Radio-cassette recorders, containing semtex and timing devices of the type that led to Megrahi’s conviction, were placed within hard-shell Samsonite suitcases and surrounded by clothing matching the contents of the case that concealed the bomb.
The circuit board was completely vaporised in all tests until the amount of semtex was reduced considerably. Only when the scientists went as low as 150g, 37.5% of the quantity that downed Pan Am 103 on 21 December 1988, did any trace of the circuit board survive, and it could only be viewed and identified through a microscope.
Dr Wyatt said: “We carried out the tests indoors specifically to make it easier to gather up all the residue of the explosions. Until we got down to 150g of semtex, nothing was left but dust.
“At 150g, we found one tiny fragment that had been part of the circuit board, and it had to be checked and identified through a microscope. Even at 150g, the device, the circuit board and the radio-cassette recorder had literally disintegrated, a far cry from the evidence presented at the trial.
“Before carrying out the tests, I found it quite extraordinary that a 4mm sq fragment had survived an explosion caused by 400g of semtex, had been found among long grass and foliage many miles from Lockerbie and had been identifiable. Now, I find it completely unbelievable.
“The tests we carried out showed a consistency that leaves no room for doubt. I don’t think it could have happened. So where did the fragment come from?”
That uncomfortable question would have been at the heart of the second appeal against conviction by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, but he abandoned that appeal a year ago to speed up the process of his compassionate release as he battled prostate cancer.
Now, the detail of the tests, and the questions it raises, will be the corner-stone of his book, co-authored by the investigative journalist John Ashton, who latterly worked as an investigator on the defence team preparing Megrahi’s appeal.
The book, which may be published before the end of this year, will also outline in detail forensic tests carried out on the fragment in 2008. Those tests showed no trace of explosives residue, meaning that it had never been near the seat of an explosion.
The two strands of evidence relating to the fragment are especially powerful as they were not considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which even without that additional and crucial material judged that the conviction was unsafe.
It referred the case back to the Court of Appeal on six grounds, the most damning of which -- especially given that three judges sat without a jury -- was that no reasonable tribunal could have found Megrahi guilty on the evidence heard.
Megrahi was convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity in Europe because of two things: the discredited testimony of a Maltese shopkeeper paid $2m for his inconclusive identification evidence; and the remarkable discovery of the fragment, the only piece of forensic evidence that pointed to Libyan involvement.
Dr Wyatt’s tests, and the publicity they will receive through publication of Megrahi’s book, will reinforce suspicions long held that the fragment was planted to implicate Libya.
Dr Wyatt’s qualifications and integrity are beyond question, unlike the former head of the FBI lab Thomas Thurman, who identified the fragment. Thurman did not even have a science degree and has been barred from giving evidence in murder trials after his testimony in a huge case proved unreliable and was heavily biased to favour the Crown.
It was widely believed that Megrahi’s second appeal would expose deep flaws in the Scottish justice system and prove embarrassing for the Crown Office and for senior Scottish and US investigators.
At least one former police officer has made sworn statements to the defence implicating former colleagues on both sides of the Atlantic who he says were involved in planting and manipulating evidence to fit Libya and Megrahi.
The weakest elements of the case have been exposed repeatedly over the past nine years, including the credibility of the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci.
Gauci was recorded admitting he was to be paid for his testimony, had been coached by Scottish detectives before giving evidence and had been given free holidays in Scotland arranged by his police handlers.
There has also been growing unease over the integrity of the fragment.
In a case with thousands of productions, it had already been remarked upon at Megrahi’s trial that the only production with a label that had been altered was the evidence bag containing the fragment.
In their written judgment, the three Scottish judges who sat without a jury said that the attempts of the police officer responsible to explain his actions were “at worst evasive and at best confusing”.
However, they concluded that there was no sinister reason either for the re-labelling or for the poor quality of the officer’s evidence, while offering little explanation of how they reached that conclusion.
In referring the case back in 2007, the SCCRC -- made up of lawyers and ex-police officers -- took pains to stress that although it believed the conviction might be unsafe, it had not concluded that evidence had been planted or manipulated.
But it has now emerged that although they were sent reports on Dr Wyatt’s tests, commissioners working on the case refused to consider them.
Legal experts believed a second appeal would certainly have seen Megrahi’s conviction quashed, but expected that it would be done on a technicality to avoid scrutiny of the controversial evidence, and especially how the fragment entered the chain of evidence.
Robert Black, retired professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University and the architect of the trial in a neutral country before a panel of judges, has grown weary of the media focus on Megrahi’s controversial release just over a year ago.
Originally from Lockerbie, Prof Black, one of Scotland’s most eminent QCs, has even tired of hearing about the fresh revelations in the case.
He said last night: “I have decided to stop commenting on new evidence because interesting as it may be, it takes the eye off what really matters, that Megrahi should never have been convicted in the first place on the flimsy evidence before the court.”
[The Scottish edition of the Sun for Monday, 6 September contains a brief report about the Wyatt findings. It can be read here.]
“How Do I Plead? You Tell Me…”
This is the heading over a recent post on the Back Towards The Locus blog by bensix, an occasional commentator on my own blog. It is an entertaining dissection of some of the recent shoddy journalism on the Megrahi case. It can be read here.
Friday, 3 September 2010
Real Crime: Yvonne Fletcher
There was something defiantly old-school about Real Crime: Yvonne Fletcher (ITV1): the unnecessary reconstruction featuring an Yvonne Fletcher lookalike who didn't look anything like Yvonne Fletcher; the newsreel footage of the British ambassador's wife singing the national anthem at Tripoli airport; Leon Brittan looking and sounding every bit as smarmy now as he did when he was home secretary in 1984.
As a recreation of a time when Libya was considered a major threat, Real Crime worked well. But it wasn't a period pastiche; it was a documentary about the shooting of Fletcher outside the Libyan embassy while policing an anti-Gaddafi demonstration. And here it rather came apart, not so much in the retelling of the events leading up to her death and its aftermath, as in presenter Mark Austin's insistence that it was telling us something new.
According to Austin, the existence of a secret document that says two Libyan embassy workers, Muhammad Matuq and Abdulgader Baghdadi, could be prosecuted for conspiracy to murder is a major new development. Not to the rest of us, it isn't. Within days of the subsequent embassy siege ending with all Libyan personnel being granted safe passage back to Tripoli, it was an open secret that Matuq and Baghdadi were the most likely suspects. (...)
I can understand the frustration of Fletcher's family and friends, given that her alleged killers now have top jobs in the Libyan government; but including personal pieces to camera from former colleagues ("She has been denied justice") and an SAS man ("We should have gone in there and killed the lot of them") is neither enlightening nor helpful. If the programme really wanted to explain the reasons for the absence of a trial, it could have gone a great deal deeper into the complex diplomatic and trade links between Libya and the UK; and to mention the Lockerbie bombing without adding that there are strong doubts about Libya and Megrahi's involvement was a serious miss. Still, I guess that doesn't count as Real Crime.
[The above are excerpts from a TV review by John Crace on The Guardian website.
A related article by Ian Black, the paper's Middle East editor, can be read here.]
As a recreation of a time when Libya was considered a major threat, Real Crime worked well. But it wasn't a period pastiche; it was a documentary about the shooting of Fletcher outside the Libyan embassy while policing an anti-Gaddafi demonstration. And here it rather came apart, not so much in the retelling of the events leading up to her death and its aftermath, as in presenter Mark Austin's insistence that it was telling us something new.
According to Austin, the existence of a secret document that says two Libyan embassy workers, Muhammad Matuq and Abdulgader Baghdadi, could be prosecuted for conspiracy to murder is a major new development. Not to the rest of us, it isn't. Within days of the subsequent embassy siege ending with all Libyan personnel being granted safe passage back to Tripoli, it was an open secret that Matuq and Baghdadi were the most likely suspects. (...)
I can understand the frustration of Fletcher's family and friends, given that her alleged killers now have top jobs in the Libyan government; but including personal pieces to camera from former colleagues ("She has been denied justice") and an SAS man ("We should have gone in there and killed the lot of them") is neither enlightening nor helpful. If the programme really wanted to explain the reasons for the absence of a trial, it could have gone a great deal deeper into the complex diplomatic and trade links between Libya and the UK; and to mention the Lockerbie bombing without adding that there are strong doubts about Libya and Megrahi's involvement was a serious miss. Still, I guess that doesn't count as Real Crime.
[The above are excerpts from a TV review by John Crace on The Guardian website.
A related article by Ian Black, the paper's Middle East editor, can be read here.]
US anger over Lockerbie bomber 'destabilising' IRA compensation efforts
[This is the headline over a report just published on the Telegraph website. It reads in part:]
US politicians have been accused of destabilising attempts to persuade Libya to pay compensation to the victims of the IRA by stirring up the row over the release over the Lockerbie bomber.
The bitter transatlantic dispute over responsibility for the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is said to have set back delicate talks on a multi-billion pound settlement. (...)
A coalition of survivors of IRA bombs and families of those killed is pressing for compensation from Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, which supplied Semtex explosives during the Troubles.
Their legal team is also attempting to persuade the oil-rich country to make a major investment in Northern Ireland in reparation for the damage. (...)
(...) in a statement following a meeting with the Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt, the group acknowledged that recent events had had a “destabilising effect” on progress.
One Whitehall source added: “It is hard to have discussions with someone about moving forward in a positive relationship through respecting their position when there are other issues coming in, other countries becoming involved as well.”
The Coalition has given its backing to the group's aims amid calls for it to become a key plank of British foreign policy. (...)
Mr Burt said: “The Government continues to support the campaign’s goals.
"Acknowledging and addressing the suffering of victims is an essential part of Libya’s full re-engagement with the world.
"Libya’s relations with the international community have been fundamentally transformed in recent years and we have a common interest in moving forward.
"The campaign offers an opportunity to deal with the difficult legacy of the past in the right way.”
US politicians have been accused of destabilising attempts to persuade Libya to pay compensation to the victims of the IRA by stirring up the row over the release over the Lockerbie bomber.
The bitter transatlantic dispute over responsibility for the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is said to have set back delicate talks on a multi-billion pound settlement. (...)
A coalition of survivors of IRA bombs and families of those killed is pressing for compensation from Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, which supplied Semtex explosives during the Troubles.
Their legal team is also attempting to persuade the oil-rich country to make a major investment in Northern Ireland in reparation for the damage. (...)
(...) in a statement following a meeting with the Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt, the group acknowledged that recent events had had a “destabilising effect” on progress.
One Whitehall source added: “It is hard to have discussions with someone about moving forward in a positive relationship through respecting their position when there are other issues coming in, other countries becoming involved as well.”
The Coalition has given its backing to the group's aims amid calls for it to become a key plank of British foreign policy. (...)
Mr Burt said: “The Government continues to support the campaign’s goals.
"Acknowledging and addressing the suffering of victims is an essential part of Libya’s full re-engagement with the world.
"Libya’s relations with the international community have been fundamentally transformed in recent years and we have a common interest in moving forward.
"The campaign offers an opportunity to deal with the difficult legacy of the past in the right way.”
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Things which don't go away
[This is the heading over an article by William Blum on the Global Research website. The section on Pan Am 103 reads as follows:]
The British government recently warned Libya against celebrating the one-year anniversary of Scotland's release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Libyan who's the only person ever convicted of the 1988 blowing up of PanAm flight 103 over Scotland, which took the lives of 270 largely Americans and British. Britain's Foreign Office has declared: "On this anniversary we understand the continuing anguish that al-Megrahi's release has caused his victims both in the UK and the US. He was convicted for the worst act of terrorism in British history. Any celebration of al-Megrahi's release would be tasteless, offensive and deeply insensitive to the victims' families."
John Brennan, President Obama's counter-terrorism adviser, stated that the United States has "expressed our strong conviction" to Scottish officials that Megrahi should not remain free. Brennan criticized what he termed the "unfortunate and inappropriate and wrong decision" to allow Megrahi's return to Libya on compassionate grounds on Aug 20, 2009 because he had cancer and was not expected to live more than about three months. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement saying that the United States "continues to categorically disagree" with Scotland's decision to release Megrahi a year ago. "As we have expressed repeatedly to Scottish authorities, we maintain that Megrahi should serve out the entirety of his sentence in prison in Scotland." The US Senate has called for an investigation and family members of the crash victims have demanded that Megrahi's medical records be released. The Libyan's failure to die as promised has upset many people.
But how many of our wonderful leaders are upset that Abdel Baset al-Megrahi spent eight years in prison despite the fact that there was, and is, no evidence that he had anything to do with the bombing of flight 103? The Scottish court that convicted him knew he was innocent. To understand that just read their 2001 "Opinion of the Court", or read my analysis of it at killinghope.org/bblum6/panam.htm.
As to the British government being so upset about Libya celebrating Megrahi's release — keeping in mind that it strongly appears that UK oil deals with Libya played more of a role in his release than his medical condition did — we should remember that in July 1988 an American Navy ship in the Persian Gulf, the Vincennes, shot down an Iranian passenger plane, taking the lives of 290 people; i.e., more than died from flight 103. And while the Iranian people mourned their lost loved ones, the United States celebrated by handing out medals and ribbons to the captain and crew of the Vincennes. The shootdown had another consequence: It inspired Iran to take revenge, which it did in December of that year, financing the operation to blow up PanAm 103 (carried out by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine--General Command).
[A similar piece also appears on the Consortium News website.]
The British government recently warned Libya against celebrating the one-year anniversary of Scotland's release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Libyan who's the only person ever convicted of the 1988 blowing up of PanAm flight 103 over Scotland, which took the lives of 270 largely Americans and British. Britain's Foreign Office has declared: "On this anniversary we understand the continuing anguish that al-Megrahi's release has caused his victims both in the UK and the US. He was convicted for the worst act of terrorism in British history. Any celebration of al-Megrahi's release would be tasteless, offensive and deeply insensitive to the victims' families."
John Brennan, President Obama's counter-terrorism adviser, stated that the United States has "expressed our strong conviction" to Scottish officials that Megrahi should not remain free. Brennan criticized what he termed the "unfortunate and inappropriate and wrong decision" to allow Megrahi's return to Libya on compassionate grounds on Aug 20, 2009 because he had cancer and was not expected to live more than about three months. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement saying that the United States "continues to categorically disagree" with Scotland's decision to release Megrahi a year ago. "As we have expressed repeatedly to Scottish authorities, we maintain that Megrahi should serve out the entirety of his sentence in prison in Scotland." The US Senate has called for an investigation and family members of the crash victims have demanded that Megrahi's medical records be released. The Libyan's failure to die as promised has upset many people.
But how many of our wonderful leaders are upset that Abdel Baset al-Megrahi spent eight years in prison despite the fact that there was, and is, no evidence that he had anything to do with the bombing of flight 103? The Scottish court that convicted him knew he was innocent. To understand that just read their 2001 "Opinion of the Court", or read my analysis of it at killinghope.org/bblum6/panam.htm.
As to the British government being so upset about Libya celebrating Megrahi's release — keeping in mind that it strongly appears that UK oil deals with Libya played more of a role in his release than his medical condition did — we should remember that in July 1988 an American Navy ship in the Persian Gulf, the Vincennes, shot down an Iranian passenger plane, taking the lives of 290 people; i.e., more than died from flight 103. And while the Iranian people mourned their lost loved ones, the United States celebrated by handing out medals and ribbons to the captain and crew of the Vincennes. The shootdown had another consequence: It inspired Iran to take revenge, which it did in December of that year, financing the operation to blow up PanAm 103 (carried out by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine--General Command).
[A similar piece also appears on the Consortium News website.]
David Benson's play: a world-wide event
Showcased in previews in London, Oxford and Bristol and with cautious reviews, few could have guessed that on the cosmopolitan stage of the 2010 Edinburgh Fringe the play would prove a world-wide event. Within days of its first Edinburgh showing word spread that here was something very special, and David Benson found himself performing to sellout audiences.
[The above is the first paragraph of a page on the Lockerbie Truth website devoted to reaction to David Benson's play Lockerbie: Unfinished Business.]
[The above is the first paragraph of a page on the Lockerbie Truth website devoted to reaction to David Benson's play Lockerbie: Unfinished Business.]
A' cur na mearachd ceart
This is the headline over a long article on the Lockerbie case by Seonaidh Caimbeul in the Gaelic pages of The Scotsman on Saturday, 28 August. In it I am quoted as comparing the miscarriage of justice involved in Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction to that involved in the conviction of Oscar Slater in 1909 for the murder of Marion Gilchrist. The latter took eighteen years to be rectified. Perhaps the injustice inflicted upon Megrahi can be remedied in a shorter time for the benefit of his family, even if the man himself is not alive to see it.
Tuesday, 31 August 2010
BP boss again rejects US Senate request to appear at Lockerbie hearing
[This is the headline over a report on the website of The Tripoli Post, Libya's English language daily newspaper. It reads in part:]
The outgoing chief executive of BP has refused US officials' requests to appear at a hearing next month over the release of the Libyan man convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.
Tony Hayward told Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat, in a letter that he is focusing on ensuring a smooth transition of leadership at the company and will be unable to testify.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is looking into whether the British-based oil company had sought Abdelbaset Al Megrahi's release to help get a $900 million exploration agreement with Libya off the ground.
In the letter, obtained by The Associated Press, Mr Hayward noted that UK and Scottish officials said they found no evidence that BP played a role in Al Megrahi's release.
He said BP has nothing to add to those statements. (...)
Al-Megrahi, a Libyan citizen, unfairly served twelve year of a life sentence as a result of miscarriage of justice when a Scottish make-shift court unjustly accused him of involvement in the Dec 21, 1988, bombing, which killed all 259 people on board, most of them Americans, and 11 people on the ground.
In August of last year, Scotland's government released the cancer-stricken man on compassionate grounds and he returned to Libya.
For reasons unclear yet the US Senate is putting much pressure on Britain and Scotland, and with no respect to this state's sovereignty, as to persecute [sic] their former and current officials who may have any relation with the release of the Libyan man from prison.
The outgoing chief executive of BP has refused US officials' requests to appear at a hearing next month over the release of the Libyan man convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.
Tony Hayward told Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat, in a letter that he is focusing on ensuring a smooth transition of leadership at the company and will be unable to testify.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is looking into whether the British-based oil company had sought Abdelbaset Al Megrahi's release to help get a $900 million exploration agreement with Libya off the ground.
In the letter, obtained by The Associated Press, Mr Hayward noted that UK and Scottish officials said they found no evidence that BP played a role in Al Megrahi's release.
He said BP has nothing to add to those statements. (...)
Al-Megrahi, a Libyan citizen, unfairly served twelve year of a life sentence as a result of miscarriage of justice when a Scottish make-shift court unjustly accused him of involvement in the Dec 21, 1988, bombing, which killed all 259 people on board, most of them Americans, and 11 people on the ground.
In August of last year, Scotland's government released the cancer-stricken man on compassionate grounds and he returned to Libya.
For reasons unclear yet the US Senate is putting much pressure on Britain and Scotland, and with no respect to this state's sovereignty, as to persecute [sic] their former and current officials who may have any relation with the release of the Libyan man from prison.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)