[This is the headline over a report just published on The Telegraph website. It reads in part:]
The publication of an official, 800-page dossier detailing the Lockerbie bomber's grounds for appealing his conviction has been blocked by authorities.
The decision to keep the report secret has fuelled claims by families of victims of the terrorist attack that the release of Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi was rushed through to prevent his appeal, which was due to be heard in public, going ahead.
The blocking of the report follows revelations last week contained in leaked US diplomatic cables that Britain believed lucrative oil and finance deals with Libya would be scrapped if Megrahi died in jail.
The Sunday Telegraph can also reveal that a call by [victims' relatives] for a public inquiry has been turned down by the [UK] Government.
In a letter, obtained by this paper, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, declared it would "not be in the public interest" to order such an inquiry.
Megrahi dramatically dropped his appeal last summer and was then told he would be released from prison on compassionate grounds. (...)
The report into his conviction conducted by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which looks into alleged miscarriages of justice, will remain locked away after Megrahi, the police, and other authorities could not agree on its publication.
All parties involved have to give 'unqualified consent' for it to be made public. It is not clear which parties – including the police, the Foreign Office and Megrahi himself – vetoed its publication.
The SCCRC investigation is the most comprehensive into the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed in mainland Britain in which 270 people were murdered when Pan Am flight 103 blew up over the town of Lockerbie in Scotland on Dec 21, 1988.
The main report runs to more than 800 pages with a further 13 volumes of appendices.
Victims' families believe Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds only once he agreed to drop his appeal.
Dr Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter Flora was killed, said: "It appears the way had been prepared to enable Megrahi's release to take place before his appeal could be heard in full.
"The appeal could have overturned the verdict which would have been very embarrassing for authorities.
"There is a great deal the SCCRC knows which is not now being made available."
The SCCRC recommended in June 2007 that Megrahi should be granted a second appeal hearing following a four-year investigation into the case against him.
It identified six grounds "where a miscarriage of justice may have occurred" and referred the case to the court of appeal in Scotland. It includes evidence not made available to Megrahi's defence and which is still to be made public.
In a press release headed The Scottish Criminal Cases review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order, the SCCRC announced last week that it had not been able to obtain the consent of all the parties involved, including Megrahi, the Foreign Office and the police, to allow it to publish its report.
Gerard Sinclair, the SCCRC's chief executive, said: "It has become obvious that there is no likelihood of obtaining the unqualified consent required ... and consequently the Board decided at its last meeting to discontinue the discussions at this time."
The Scottish Government said in a statement it would now look at altering legislation to try to "overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions".
But the crown office, the Scottish equivalent of the crown prosecution Service, said the SCCRC had spurned an invitation to help to obtain the necessary consent to enable the report to be published – a claim that has baffled the SCCRC but will further fuel speculation of a cover-up.
The intense frustration felt by victims over the dropping of the appeal is exacerbated by the Coalition's decision not to hold an independent inquiry. Families had repeatedly requested an inquiry during the Labour governments of the past 13 years but had hoped a change of Government might have also prompted a change of heart.
But in a letter to families, Mr Hague, said: "We have looked carefully into this issue, bearing in mind the sensitivity of the case. However, having reviewed this in detail the Government believes a public inquiry would not be in the public interest."
Saturday, 11 December 2010
It is imperative for the survivors of Lockerbie that we continue to search for the truth
[This is the heading over a letter from Ruth Marr in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Professor James Mitchell is correct to praise the Scottish Government for refusing to be bullied and by taking the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds, but he is perhaps understandably pessimistic regarding getting answers to the questions which, almost 22 years later, continue to haunt the Lockerbie tragedy (“WikiLeaks proves Scotland was right on Megrahi release”, The Herald, December 10).
However, it is absolutely imperative for the sake of the families of the victims, for the town of Lockerbie, for all who care about the Scottish justice system and, indeed, for Megrahi, that we probe to get the relevant answers, because until we do, all those whose lives were changed for ever by that horrific crime cannot hope to try to move on.
Father Pat Keegans, who narrowly escaped death at Lockerbie, has concisely and poignantly summed up the situation when he said: “We need truth and we need justice to be at peace. Otherwise we are back in December 1988 in the darkness.” It is for those reasons that a full, independent public inquiry must be held to determine all the facts, and answer the many troubling questions surrounding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, and the conviction of Megrahi for the crime.
All those lost at Lockerbie, and those they left behind, deserve nothing less than truth and justice, and we must not fail them now.
[A further letter in the same newspaper from John Scott Roy reads as follows:]
What a refreshing article by Professor James Mitchell in which he summarises many of the reasons for people to distrust politicians as a group. Their cynical behaviour is well exposed by the examples he provides.
The SNP Government is praised, to some extent. It has not been in power long enough for the infection to have taken full root.
Professor James Mitchell is correct to praise the Scottish Government for refusing to be bullied and by taking the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds, but he is perhaps understandably pessimistic regarding getting answers to the questions which, almost 22 years later, continue to haunt the Lockerbie tragedy (“WikiLeaks proves Scotland was right on Megrahi release”, The Herald, December 10).
However, it is absolutely imperative for the sake of the families of the victims, for the town of Lockerbie, for all who care about the Scottish justice system and, indeed, for Megrahi, that we probe to get the relevant answers, because until we do, all those whose lives were changed for ever by that horrific crime cannot hope to try to move on.
Father Pat Keegans, who narrowly escaped death at Lockerbie, has concisely and poignantly summed up the situation when he said: “We need truth and we need justice to be at peace. Otherwise we are back in December 1988 in the darkness.” It is for those reasons that a full, independent public inquiry must be held to determine all the facts, and answer the many troubling questions surrounding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, and the conviction of Megrahi for the crime.
All those lost at Lockerbie, and those they left behind, deserve nothing less than truth and justice, and we must not fail them now.
[A further letter in the same newspaper from John Scott Roy reads as follows:]
What a refreshing article by Professor James Mitchell in which he summarises many of the reasons for people to distrust politicians as a group. Their cynical behaviour is well exposed by the examples he provides.
The SNP Government is praised, to some extent. It has not been in power long enough for the infection to have taken full root.
Lockerbie: The scandal of the decade?
[This is the headline over an article by former G W Bush speechwriter David Frum in The Week magazine. It reads in part:]
The WikiLeaks cables offer more evidence the British government was complicit in the release of the Pan Am bomber
The defeated British Labour government has now been thoroughly caught in its lies about the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the terrorist convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988. (...)
The official story was that the decision to release al-Megrahi in August 2009 was made in Scotland and had nothing to do with London. Indeed, the story went, the Labour government in Westminster could not possibly have been more distressed by the release, after just eight years in prison, of a convicted mass murder.
Turns out, of course, that's not the real story. (...)
The al-Megrahi story could be the scandal of the decade. Of the 259 people murdered over Lockerbie, 190 were American citizens. It took a decade of hard diplomatic work to bring the man directly responsible for those deaths to justice. If the cables are correct, the Al-Megrahi release was not some aberration of the local Scottish government, with which London had nothing to do. Instead, our British ally was subjected to intense commercial pressure to release Al-Megrahi, apparently acquiesced, and then stone-facedly denied itsr own role. Nothing to do with them, utterly beyond their control, terribly sorry old boy.
Here's how the UK government characterized the release at the time, again as reported by The Guardian. "Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said reports that the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was released over an oil deal are "wholly untrue." He denied a "back door deal" was done to transfer Megrahi because of UK trade talks with the Libyan government." Even at the time, that story looked dodgy. Here's the next sentence from the same news account: "Letters leaked to a newspaper show Mr. Straw agreed not to exclude [Megrahi] from a prisoner transfer deal in 2007 because of 'overwhelming national interests'." By the way, six weeks after Straw changed his mind about the handling of Megrahi's case in 2007, BP gained a huge oil deal in Libya.
WikiLeaks does not add any new proof to the case that the British ministers misled the world about the Megrahi release. What the leaks do show is that neither the US government nor the British government itself ever believed the misrepresentations. So that's some comfort: a mass murderer may have gone free, but at least nobody in authority duped themselves over what had happened. Just the voters. Actually on second thought, the voters were not duped either. We all knew, and now the truth of what leaders knew has been exposed for all to see.
[Apart from the typical US purblindness with respect to the shakiness of Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction, this is a pretty accurate encapsulation of the UK government's attitude and role in relation to his repatriation.]
The WikiLeaks cables offer more evidence the British government was complicit in the release of the Pan Am bomber
The defeated British Labour government has now been thoroughly caught in its lies about the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the terrorist convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988. (...)
The official story was that the decision to release al-Megrahi in August 2009 was made in Scotland and had nothing to do with London. Indeed, the story went, the Labour government in Westminster could not possibly have been more distressed by the release, after just eight years in prison, of a convicted mass murder.
Turns out, of course, that's not the real story. (...)
The al-Megrahi story could be the scandal of the decade. Of the 259 people murdered over Lockerbie, 190 were American citizens. It took a decade of hard diplomatic work to bring the man directly responsible for those deaths to justice. If the cables are correct, the Al-Megrahi release was not some aberration of the local Scottish government, with which London had nothing to do. Instead, our British ally was subjected to intense commercial pressure to release Al-Megrahi, apparently acquiesced, and then stone-facedly denied itsr own role. Nothing to do with them, utterly beyond their control, terribly sorry old boy.
Here's how the UK government characterized the release at the time, again as reported by The Guardian. "Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said reports that the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was released over an oil deal are "wholly untrue." He denied a "back door deal" was done to transfer Megrahi because of UK trade talks with the Libyan government." Even at the time, that story looked dodgy. Here's the next sentence from the same news account: "Letters leaked to a newspaper show Mr. Straw agreed not to exclude [Megrahi] from a prisoner transfer deal in 2007 because of 'overwhelming national interests'." By the way, six weeks after Straw changed his mind about the handling of Megrahi's case in 2007, BP gained a huge oil deal in Libya.
WikiLeaks does not add any new proof to the case that the British ministers misled the world about the Megrahi release. What the leaks do show is that neither the US government nor the British government itself ever believed the misrepresentations. So that's some comfort: a mass murderer may have gone free, but at least nobody in authority duped themselves over what had happened. Just the voters. Actually on second thought, the voters were not duped either. We all knew, and now the truth of what leaders knew has been exposed for all to see.
[Apart from the typical US purblindness with respect to the shakiness of Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction, this is a pretty accurate encapsulation of the UK government's attitude and role in relation to his repatriation.]
Friday, 10 December 2010
WikiLeaks proves Scotland was right on Megrahi release
[This is the headline over an opinion piece in today's edition of The Herald by Professor James Mitchell, head of the School of Government and Public Policy, Strathclyde University. It reads in part:]
We may never get to the root of the appalling events almost 22 years ago when 270 innocent people died as PanAm flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie.
But the WikiLeaks papers tell us much about the way in which public authorities across a number of countries behaved in the lead up to and aftermath of the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the only man convicted of the bombing. In the fullness of time, we can expect to see more such papers. It may take years, even decades before other papers are released but we can assume, on the basis of past experience, that we will get a fuller picture of the manner in which this awful event was handled by public authorities.
The picture that emerges from WikiLeaks may encourage a cynical view of government actions. We can, though, take some comfort from the documentary evidence that the devolved Government behaved impeccably. The leaks provide evidence that the Scottish Government did, indeed, make its decision on compassionate grounds and refused to be bullied into releasing Megrahi by the UK Government. The evidence of extraordinary cynicism on the part of the UK Government and its supporters is shocking. This is best summed up in a communication from US officials in the London embassy who informed Washington that “the UK Government has gotten everything – a chance to stick it to Salmond’s Scottish National Party (SNP) and good relations with Libya” while Scotland got “nothing”.
It is clear from the documents that expectations of Megrahi’s approaching death prior to his release were shared by more than the Scottish Government. Preparations were in hand for the likely consequences of the Libyan prisoner’s death in Scottish custody involving an “immutable timeline”, as American officials wrote seven months before his release. UK officials had prepared for the prospect of Megrahi’s death in custody and were “focused on transfer under PTA [prisoner transfer agreement]”, believing time was short. The Libyan reaction to the arrest of one of Gaddafi’s son’s in Switzerland had been a sobering experience. Against this backdrop, Libya’s intention to cease “all UK commercial activity in Libya” immediately, reduce political ties and encourage demonstrations against “UK facilities”, as well as implicit threats to UK citizens in Libya, could not be taken lightly. It is impossible to know how long Megrahi would have lived had he not been released but the indications are that UK and US officials were preparing for an imminent and serious backlash.
While US Government spokesmen have portrayed the Lockerbie bombing as an essentially American event, US officials took a very different view prior to the release of Megrahi. They feared that US interests would be attacked in the event of the Libyan prisoner’s death if the Libyan Government “views the Pan Am 103 case as a joint US-UK issue”. American officials wrote of repercussions “even if we remain neutral”, a discussion of neutrality that sits uncomfortably with the subsequent US official position.
Public US opposition to the release occurred when it suited US officials. The US Government played a two-level game: maintaining a low profile in opposing Megrahi’s release for fear of provoking a Libyan reaction while strongly condemning the release to appease understandably distraught relatives and playing to a domestic agenda. (...)
UK officials in Libya were under no illusion as to their role from the start. They sought to facilitate the return of Megrahi to Libya. America suspected Tony Blair was behind the deal. Earlier this year, a UK official expressed concern that Libya would use Megrahi’s funeral and discussed using “all possible levers” to discourage this. He noted that Mr Blair was one who had a “personal relationship” with Gaddafi.
Opposition parties at Holyrood attempted to milk the issue. The liberalism of the Scottish Liberal Democrats was quickly thrown aside in pursuit of a headline. The Tories managed to tie themselves in knots with what was at least an effort to cut out a distinct position supporting Megrahi’s release but keeping him in Scotland. Scottish Labour’s uber-cynicism was led by Richard Baker. Mr Baker may initially have been unaware that his own party in government in London had been leading efforts to return Megrahi to Libya, though this had been obvious for at least two years. He became the chief figure in the “stick it to Salmond’s SNP” agenda.
He was effective, in that most limited way that now comes to be expected of politicians, playing what the late Bernard Crick referred to as “student politics” – but failing miserably in the politics of aspiring to govern. In his memoirs, Mr Blair reflected on how New Labour had behaved in opposition, acknowledging that “some of the tactics were too opportunistic and too facile”. These tactics “sowed seeds that sprouted in ways we did not foresee and with consequences that imperilled us”. These words ought to be imprinted on the foreheads of all who play cynical games in opposition.
We may never get to the root of the appalling events almost 22 years ago when 270 innocent people died as PanAm flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie.
But the WikiLeaks papers tell us much about the way in which public authorities across a number of countries behaved in the lead up to and aftermath of the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the only man convicted of the bombing. In the fullness of time, we can expect to see more such papers. It may take years, even decades before other papers are released but we can assume, on the basis of past experience, that we will get a fuller picture of the manner in which this awful event was handled by public authorities.
The picture that emerges from WikiLeaks may encourage a cynical view of government actions. We can, though, take some comfort from the documentary evidence that the devolved Government behaved impeccably. The leaks provide evidence that the Scottish Government did, indeed, make its decision on compassionate grounds and refused to be bullied into releasing Megrahi by the UK Government. The evidence of extraordinary cynicism on the part of the UK Government and its supporters is shocking. This is best summed up in a communication from US officials in the London embassy who informed Washington that “the UK Government has gotten everything – a chance to stick it to Salmond’s Scottish National Party (SNP) and good relations with Libya” while Scotland got “nothing”.
It is clear from the documents that expectations of Megrahi’s approaching death prior to his release were shared by more than the Scottish Government. Preparations were in hand for the likely consequences of the Libyan prisoner’s death in Scottish custody involving an “immutable timeline”, as American officials wrote seven months before his release. UK officials had prepared for the prospect of Megrahi’s death in custody and were “focused on transfer under PTA [prisoner transfer agreement]”, believing time was short. The Libyan reaction to the arrest of one of Gaddafi’s son’s in Switzerland had been a sobering experience. Against this backdrop, Libya’s intention to cease “all UK commercial activity in Libya” immediately, reduce political ties and encourage demonstrations against “UK facilities”, as well as implicit threats to UK citizens in Libya, could not be taken lightly. It is impossible to know how long Megrahi would have lived had he not been released but the indications are that UK and US officials were preparing for an imminent and serious backlash.
While US Government spokesmen have portrayed the Lockerbie bombing as an essentially American event, US officials took a very different view prior to the release of Megrahi. They feared that US interests would be attacked in the event of the Libyan prisoner’s death if the Libyan Government “views the Pan Am 103 case as a joint US-UK issue”. American officials wrote of repercussions “even if we remain neutral”, a discussion of neutrality that sits uncomfortably with the subsequent US official position.
Public US opposition to the release occurred when it suited US officials. The US Government played a two-level game: maintaining a low profile in opposing Megrahi’s release for fear of provoking a Libyan reaction while strongly condemning the release to appease understandably distraught relatives and playing to a domestic agenda. (...)
UK officials in Libya were under no illusion as to their role from the start. They sought to facilitate the return of Megrahi to Libya. America suspected Tony Blair was behind the deal. Earlier this year, a UK official expressed concern that Libya would use Megrahi’s funeral and discussed using “all possible levers” to discourage this. He noted that Mr Blair was one who had a “personal relationship” with Gaddafi.
Opposition parties at Holyrood attempted to milk the issue. The liberalism of the Scottish Liberal Democrats was quickly thrown aside in pursuit of a headline. The Tories managed to tie themselves in knots with what was at least an effort to cut out a distinct position supporting Megrahi’s release but keeping him in Scotland. Scottish Labour’s uber-cynicism was led by Richard Baker. Mr Baker may initially have been unaware that his own party in government in London had been leading efforts to return Megrahi to Libya, though this had been obvious for at least two years. He became the chief figure in the “stick it to Salmond’s SNP” agenda.
He was effective, in that most limited way that now comes to be expected of politicians, playing what the late Bernard Crick referred to as “student politics” – but failing miserably in the politics of aspiring to govern. In his memoirs, Mr Blair reflected on how New Labour had behaved in opposition, acknowledging that “some of the tactics were too opportunistic and too facile”. These tactics “sowed seeds that sprouted in ways we did not foresee and with consequences that imperilled us”. These words ought to be imprinted on the foreheads of all who play cynical games in opposition.
Thursday, 9 December 2010
SCCRC fails to get consents necessary for disclosure
[What follows is the text of a press release issued today by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.]
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009.
The Commission announced today that it had been unsuccessful in its attempts to reach agreement with the relevant parties to obtain their consent to the publication of the Statement of Reasons relating to the referral of the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in June 2007.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009, which came into force on 1 February 2010, only permits the Commission to disclose such information with the consent of those who have, either directly or indirectly, provided the information.
The Commission had agreed, in principle, that it would be prepared to consider the release and publication of the Statement of Reasons which were provided to the Appeal Court in Mr Megrahi`s case provided it could obtain the consent of the relevant parties.
Gerard Sinclair, the Commission’s Chief Executive, said:
“As I indicated at the time the above Order came into force, in order to release our Statement of Reasons the Commission would require the consent of those who had, either directly or indirectly, provided the information.
"Over the last nine months I have been in ongoing correspondence and, in some instances, discussion with a number of the main parties who were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for providing information to the Commission. I asked them if they were prepared to provide their consent, in writing, to the disclosure of the information contained within our Statement of Reasons. This included Crown Office, the Foreign Office, the relevant police authorities, as well as Mr Al Megrahi and his legal representatives.
"It has become obvious that there is no likelihood of obtaining the unqualified consent required in terms of the 2009 Order, and consequently the Board decided at its last meeting to discontinue the discussions at this time.
"The Commission will be happy to revisit this matter if the 2009 Order is varied and the requirement to obtain the consent of parties is removed.”
[As Mr Sinclair correctly indicates in the last sentence of his statement, the condition in the 2009 Order that the consent of suppliers of information had to be obtained is one which the Scottish Government in making the Order was under no legal obligation to impose. It CHOSE to do so -- one wonders why. Pressure should now be applied on the Scottish Government to vary the Order by removing this superfluous requirement.
The relevant portions of the primary legislation [Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as amended] under which the 2009 Order was made read as follows:]
194K Exceptions from obligation of non-disclosure
(1) The disclosure of information ... is excepted from section 194J [Offence of disclosure] of this Act by this section if the information is disclosed ... --
(f) in any circumstances in which the disclosure of information is permitted by an order made by the Scottish Ministers.
(4) Where the disclosure of information is excepted from section 194J of this Act by subsection (1) ... above, the disclosure of the information is not prevented by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by, under or by virtue of any enactment) arising otherwise than under that section.
[The Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has just posted a report on this matter on its website.
The Scottish Government has issued the following statement:]
The Scottish Government welcomes the efforts made by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case and has accepted that release has not been possible within the constraints of the current legislation. The Scottish Government has always wanted to be as open and transparent as possible, and so is now considering primary legislation to overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions while retaining the necessary protection for any third parties potentially affected by the statement of reasons.
[As I have stated above, primary legislation is not necessary. All that is required is a further Statutory Instrument amending the 2009 Order. Is the Scottish Government resorting to delaying tactics in proposing primary legislation? Perish the thought!]
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009.
The Commission announced today that it had been unsuccessful in its attempts to reach agreement with the relevant parties to obtain their consent to the publication of the Statement of Reasons relating to the referral of the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in June 2007.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009, which came into force on 1 February 2010, only permits the Commission to disclose such information with the consent of those who have, either directly or indirectly, provided the information.
The Commission had agreed, in principle, that it would be prepared to consider the release and publication of the Statement of Reasons which were provided to the Appeal Court in Mr Megrahi`s case provided it could obtain the consent of the relevant parties.
Gerard Sinclair, the Commission’s Chief Executive, said:
“As I indicated at the time the above Order came into force, in order to release our Statement of Reasons the Commission would require the consent of those who had, either directly or indirectly, provided the information.
"Over the last nine months I have been in ongoing correspondence and, in some instances, discussion with a number of the main parties who were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for providing information to the Commission. I asked them if they were prepared to provide their consent, in writing, to the disclosure of the information contained within our Statement of Reasons. This included Crown Office, the Foreign Office, the relevant police authorities, as well as Mr Al Megrahi and his legal representatives.
"It has become obvious that there is no likelihood of obtaining the unqualified consent required in terms of the 2009 Order, and consequently the Board decided at its last meeting to discontinue the discussions at this time.
"The Commission will be happy to revisit this matter if the 2009 Order is varied and the requirement to obtain the consent of parties is removed.”
[As Mr Sinclair correctly indicates in the last sentence of his statement, the condition in the 2009 Order that the consent of suppliers of information had to be obtained is one which the Scottish Government in making the Order was under no legal obligation to impose. It CHOSE to do so -- one wonders why. Pressure should now be applied on the Scottish Government to vary the Order by removing this superfluous requirement.
The relevant portions of the primary legislation [Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as amended] under which the 2009 Order was made read as follows:]
194K Exceptions from obligation of non-disclosure
(1) The disclosure of information ... is excepted from section 194J [Offence of disclosure] of this Act by this section if the information is disclosed ... --
(f) in any circumstances in which the disclosure of information is permitted by an order made by the Scottish Ministers.
(4) Where the disclosure of information is excepted from section 194J of this Act by subsection (1) ... above, the disclosure of the information is not prevented by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by, under or by virtue of any enactment) arising otherwise than under that section.
[The Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has just posted a report on this matter on its website.
The Scottish Government has issued the following statement:]
The Scottish Government welcomes the efforts made by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case and has accepted that release has not been possible within the constraints of the current legislation. The Scottish Government has always wanted to be as open and transparent as possible, and so is now considering primary legislation to overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions while retaining the necessary protection for any third parties potentially affected by the statement of reasons.
[As I have stated above, primary legislation is not necessary. All that is required is a further Statutory Instrument amending the 2009 Order. Is the Scottish Government resorting to delaying tactics in proposing primary legislation? Perish the thought!]
Families: Megrahi's release a business deal
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
The families of US Lockerbie victims say revelations on whistleblowing website WikiLeaks about Libyan inducements to secure Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release show it was a "business deal". (...)
Cables from US diplomatic staff contain claims that Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, made explicit and "thuggish" threats to halt trade deals with Britain if Megrahi died in jail - and that senior diplomats feared reprisals on British citizens.
Bob Monetti, whose son Rick died in the bombing, said: "It's exactly what we said all along. The UK and Scots totally caved in because they need Libyan oil.
"It has nothing to do with justice, it has nothing to do with anything else except business - and business trumps."
Of the Scottish ministers, he added: "For whatever reason, whether they were pressured by Gaddafi or by the Brits, they clearly violated their own law by letting someone go on compassionate (grounds] who had at least two years to live, when compassionate release is three months left."
Susan Cohen, whose 20-year-old daughter was also among the victims, said: "It's obvious what it was and there's no great surprises here.
"All it does is give us more proof, and we've already had a lot, that that's what it was - a business deal.
"You should be ashamed in Scotland because nothing else mattered, nothing about your legal system."
But ministers insist the decision was based purely on the Scots justice system.
Mr Salmond said the cables "vindicated" their position and everything they had said publicly and privately at the time.
"We weren't interested in threats, we weren't interested in blandishments, we were only interested in applying Scots justice and that's what we did," he said. (...)
But Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the tragedy, said the leaks indicate that Mr Salmond was behind the decision.
"It looks as though the Scottish Government was at least thought by the US ambassador in London to be considering compassionate release at an early stage," he said.
Dr Swire, who visited Megrahi around this time and believes he is innocent, said he was not ill enough at this stage for compassionate release to be a possibility. I think its very interesting that a letter from that date should be suggesting compassionate release that early."
WikiLeaks have also "firmed up" suspicions that the ultimate decision to release Megrahi was not taken by justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, according to Dr Swire.
He said: "It's pretty clear that he was operating under the advice of Salmond." (...) [RB: The cable in which the US ambassador says (on the basis of what he was told by a FCO civil servant reporting what Jack Straw said he was told by Alex Salmond -- hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay) is dated 24 October 2008, just shortly after Megrahi's diagnosis and more than six months before any application was made for prisoner transfer and eight months before an application was made for compassionate release. The cable provides no evidence at all that when eventually decisions had to be made more than six months later, and after Scottish Government lawyers had had a chance to give advice on law and procedure, anyone other than the Cabinet Secretary for Justice took those decisions.]
According to the leaked diplomatic documents, Mr Salmond told the US consul in Edinburgh on 21 August this year that "he and his government had played straight with both the US and the UK government, but implied the UK had not . . . He said the Libyan government had offered the Scottish Government a parade of treats, 'all of which were turned down'."
The leaks claim to show the UK Government feared harsh action by Libya against British interests if Megrahi died in prison.
Former UK justice secretary Jack Straw also said the revelations had no connection to the final decision.
"Both Alex Salmond and the British government have said until they're blue in the face what is true - that this was a decision which was made by the Scottish Government, and by nobody else, " Mr Straw said.
[A somewhat similar article appears in today's edition of the Daily Mail. The Times concentrates on the supposed involvement of Alex Salmond in the decision. The Daily Telegraph runs an odd story about a proposed Swiss deal to have Megrahi transferred from Greenock Prison to a prison in Switzerland.
The Sun has a report to the effect that Megrahi is on life support, is unable to communicate and is near death. The BBC Scotland Good Morning Scotland programme reported today that a family member had confirmed this to their correspondent in Tripoli.]
The families of US Lockerbie victims say revelations on whistleblowing website WikiLeaks about Libyan inducements to secure Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release show it was a "business deal". (...)
Cables from US diplomatic staff contain claims that Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, made explicit and "thuggish" threats to halt trade deals with Britain if Megrahi died in jail - and that senior diplomats feared reprisals on British citizens.
Bob Monetti, whose son Rick died in the bombing, said: "It's exactly what we said all along. The UK and Scots totally caved in because they need Libyan oil.
"It has nothing to do with justice, it has nothing to do with anything else except business - and business trumps."
Of the Scottish ministers, he added: "For whatever reason, whether they were pressured by Gaddafi or by the Brits, they clearly violated their own law by letting someone go on compassionate (grounds] who had at least two years to live, when compassionate release is three months left."
Susan Cohen, whose 20-year-old daughter was also among the victims, said: "It's obvious what it was and there's no great surprises here.
"All it does is give us more proof, and we've already had a lot, that that's what it was - a business deal.
"You should be ashamed in Scotland because nothing else mattered, nothing about your legal system."
But ministers insist the decision was based purely on the Scots justice system.
Mr Salmond said the cables "vindicated" their position and everything they had said publicly and privately at the time.
"We weren't interested in threats, we weren't interested in blandishments, we were only interested in applying Scots justice and that's what we did," he said. (...)
But Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the tragedy, said the leaks indicate that Mr Salmond was behind the decision.
"It looks as though the Scottish Government was at least thought by the US ambassador in London to be considering compassionate release at an early stage," he said.
Dr Swire, who visited Megrahi around this time and believes he is innocent, said he was not ill enough at this stage for compassionate release to be a possibility. I think its very interesting that a letter from that date should be suggesting compassionate release that early."
WikiLeaks have also "firmed up" suspicions that the ultimate decision to release Megrahi was not taken by justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, according to Dr Swire.
He said: "It's pretty clear that he was operating under the advice of Salmond." (...) [RB: The cable in which the US ambassador says (on the basis of what he was told by a FCO civil servant reporting what Jack Straw said he was told by Alex Salmond -- hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay) is dated 24 October 2008, just shortly after Megrahi's diagnosis and more than six months before any application was made for prisoner transfer and eight months before an application was made for compassionate release. The cable provides no evidence at all that when eventually decisions had to be made more than six months later, and after Scottish Government lawyers had had a chance to give advice on law and procedure, anyone other than the Cabinet Secretary for Justice took those decisions.]
According to the leaked diplomatic documents, Mr Salmond told the US consul in Edinburgh on 21 August this year that "he and his government had played straight with both the US and the UK government, but implied the UK had not . . . He said the Libyan government had offered the Scottish Government a parade of treats, 'all of which were turned down'."
The leaks claim to show the UK Government feared harsh action by Libya against British interests if Megrahi died in prison.
Former UK justice secretary Jack Straw also said the revelations had no connection to the final decision.
"Both Alex Salmond and the British government have said until they're blue in the face what is true - that this was a decision which was made by the Scottish Government, and by nobody else, " Mr Straw said.
[A somewhat similar article appears in today's edition of the Daily Mail. The Times concentrates on the supposed involvement of Alex Salmond in the decision. The Daily Telegraph runs an odd story about a proposed Swiss deal to have Megrahi transferred from Greenock Prison to a prison in Switzerland.
The Sun has a report to the effect that Megrahi is on life support, is unable to communicate and is near death. The BBC Scotland Good Morning Scotland programme reported today that a family member had confirmed this to their correspondent in Tripoli.]
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
The First Minister on the Megrahi cables
[The following are excerpts from a report recently published on The Guardian website. Although Alex Salmond's remarks were made on a BBC radio programme, this account is fuller than what appears on the BBC News website.]
The allegations were dismissed by the Scottish government as "diplomatic tittle tattle". Salmond said: "We weren't interested in threats, we weren't interested in blandishments, we were only interested in applying Scots justice and that's what we did." (...)
The cables, released by WikiLeaks, also report Salmond telling the US consul to Edinburgh that the Libyans had offered him "a parade of treats" if Megrahi was released early, "all of which were turned down". It was denied today that such offers were made.
Salmond told the BBC: "Frankly I don't believe anybody seriously believes that the Scottish government acted in anything other than the precepts of Scots justice. And incidentally this information – as opposed to what it suggests perhaps about other people – vindicates and bears out that position."
Asked whether it now seemed right to have released Megrahi – who was said to have only three months to live but is still alive 16 months later – Salmond said: "I'm sorry, that's not the law. The law of Scotland is that a reasonable estimate is provided by senior medical officers and then acted upon by ministers, under the advice of the parole board, the prison service and a range of other interests. That's what was done."
Of the Guardian's revelations, Salmond said: "At the time you'll remember the UK government gave the impression that they either had no opinion on the release of Mr Megrahi or had no other factors concerned. I would have thought that the most interesting thing about this information is it shows that the UK government at the time – that's the then Labour government – were extremely keen to have Mr Megrahi released. Now, I've said this all along."
He went on: "We were clearly the only ones playing with a straight bat and interested in applying the precepts of Scottish justice, which we continue to do and continue to uphold.
"The cables confirm what we always said – that our only interest was taking a justice decision based on Scots law without fear or favour, which was exactly what was done, and that our public position was identical to our private one.
"They also show that the former UK government were playing false on the issue, with a different public position from their private one – which must be deeply embarrassing for the Labour party in Scotland – and that the US government was fully aware of the pressure being applied to the UK government."
The allegations were dismissed by the Scottish government as "diplomatic tittle tattle". Salmond said: "We weren't interested in threats, we weren't interested in blandishments, we were only interested in applying Scots justice and that's what we did." (...)
The cables, released by WikiLeaks, also report Salmond telling the US consul to Edinburgh that the Libyans had offered him "a parade of treats" if Megrahi was released early, "all of which were turned down". It was denied today that such offers were made.
Salmond told the BBC: "Frankly I don't believe anybody seriously believes that the Scottish government acted in anything other than the precepts of Scots justice. And incidentally this information – as opposed to what it suggests perhaps about other people – vindicates and bears out that position."
Asked whether it now seemed right to have released Megrahi – who was said to have only three months to live but is still alive 16 months later – Salmond said: "I'm sorry, that's not the law. The law of Scotland is that a reasonable estimate is provided by senior medical officers and then acted upon by ministers, under the advice of the parole board, the prison service and a range of other interests. That's what was done."
Of the Guardian's revelations, Salmond said: "At the time you'll remember the UK government gave the impression that they either had no opinion on the release of Mr Megrahi or had no other factors concerned. I would have thought that the most interesting thing about this information is it shows that the UK government at the time – that's the then Labour government – were extremely keen to have Mr Megrahi released. Now, I've said this all along."
He went on: "We were clearly the only ones playing with a straight bat and interested in applying the precepts of Scottish justice, which we continue to do and continue to uphold.
"The cables confirm what we always said – that our only interest was taking a justice decision based on Scots law without fear or favour, which was exactly what was done, and that our public position was identical to our private one.
"They also show that the former UK government were playing false on the issue, with a different public position from their private one – which must be deeply embarrassing for the Labour party in Scotland – and that the US government was fully aware of the pressure being applied to the UK government."
Media reaction to WikiLeaks Megrahi cables
There are no surprises in the coverage by the UK and Scottish media of the US diplomatic cables. The vast bulk of the media loathe and detest the Scottish National Party and all its works and so are keen to focus on criticism by US diplomats (and, through them, by UK diplomats and politicians) of the SNP Scottish Government. The opportunities for this are, however, somewhat limited since the cables make it clear that the UK Government (as this blog has maintained) was determined that, by hook or by crook, Megrahi should be repatriated, while the Scottish Government resisted both behind-the-scenes pressure and blandishments and approached the issue on the basis of the relevant legal provisions (though, no doubt, political considerations entered in to the surprising decision to link the two quite separate issues that were before the Justice Secretary -- the Libyan Government's application for prisoner transfer and Abdelbaset Megrahi's request for compassionate release; it was this quite unnecessary linkage that compelled Megrahi to abandon his appeal if he wished BOTH of them to remain live options).
In the mainstream media, useful reports can be found on the BBC News website; in The Independent; in The Times -- for those who have subscribed; and in The Scotsman. The Newsnet Scotland website has a good analysis by Alex Porter and a further report headed Labour agreed to help US lobby Scottish Government over Megrahi; and James Kelly's SCOT goes POP blog has an interesting commentary, as does Alex Massie's blog on The Spectator website.
The reaction of the First Minister Alex Salmond to the media brouhaha over the cables is to be found on the BBC News website.
In the mainstream media, useful reports can be found on the BBC News website; in The Independent; in The Times -- for those who have subscribed; and in The Scotsman. The Newsnet Scotland website has a good analysis by Alex Porter and a further report headed Labour agreed to help US lobby Scottish Government over Megrahi; and James Kelly's SCOT goes POP blog has an interesting commentary, as does Alex Massie's blog on The Spectator website.
The reaction of the First Minister Alex Salmond to the media brouhaha over the cables is to be found on the BBC News website.
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
WikiLeaks cables: Lockerbie bomber freed after Gaddafi's 'thuggish' threats
[This is the headline over a report just published on the website of The Guardian. It reads in part:]
Megrahi case led to threats against UK's Libyan interests, while Scots who released him had turned down 'a parade of treats'
The British government's deep fears that Libya would take "harsh and immediate" action against UK interests if the convicted Lockerbie bomber died in a Scottish prison are revealed in secret US embassy cables which show London's full support for the early release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, made explicit and "thuggish" threats to halt all trade deals with Britain and harass embassy staff if Megrahi remained in jail, the cables show. At the same time "a parade of treats" was offered by Libya to the Scottish devolved administration if it agreed to let him go, though the cable says they were turned down.
Britain at the time was "in an awkward position" and "between a rock and a hard place". The London charge d'affaires, Richard LeBaron, wrote in a cable to Washington in October 2008. "The Libyans have told HMG [Her Majesty's Government] flat out that there will be 'enormous repercussions' for the UK-Libya bilateral relationship if Megrahi's early release is not handled properly."
This intelligence, the cable said, was confided to the US embassy by two British officials: Ben Lyons, in charge of north Africa for Downing Street, and Rob Dixon, his counterpart at the Foreign Office. (...)
The Megrahi cables may do much to explain why he was released in August 2009, supposedly because he was on the brink of death from prostate cancer. The decision incurred American wrath. More than a year on Megrahi is still alive, having been feted when he was escorted back to Tripoli by Gaddafi's son.
Public congressional hearings in September were told by a US prostate specialist that the official reason for the compassionate release – that Megrahi was within three months of death – was "ridiculous".
Anger with the British persists in some American circles, and UK ministers, Labour and Tory, have attempted to distance London from the release insisting it was purely a Scottish decision.
In January 2009, six months before Megrahi's release, the US ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, confirmed that "dire" reprisals had been threatened against the UK, and the British were braced to take "dramatic" steps for self-protection.
The Libyans "convinced UK embassy officers that the consequences if Megrahi were to die in prison … would be harsh, immediate and not easily remedied … specific threats have included the immediate cessation of all UK commercial activity in Libya, a diminishment or severing of political ties, and demonstrations against official UK facilities.
"[Libyan] officials also implied, but did not directly state, that the welfare of UK diplomats and citizens in Libya would be at risk."
The British ambassador in Tripoli, Vincent Fean, "expressed relief" when Megrahi was released, the US reported.
"He noted that a refusal of Megrahi's request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. 'They could have cut us off at the knees,' Fean bluntly said."
Cretz cabled that "the regime remains essentially thuggish in its approach". He warned the US itself should keep quiet: "If the [US government] publicly opposes al-Megrahi's release or is perceived to be complicit in a decision to keep al-Megrahi in prison, [America's Libyan diplomatic] post judges that US interests could face similar consequences."
In the light of the repeated, politically unacceptable demands for Megrahi's release from Gaddafi, the illness at first seemed providential for Britain.
The cables reveal how the Scottish Nationalist first minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, was edged into taking the political heat for releasing Megrahi, who had been diagnosed with cancer in September 2008. The message US diplomats received from Jack Straw, then justice minister, was that although Megrahi might survive up to five years, Labour's rivals in Scotland – Salmond and his SNP – were nonetheless inclined to release him.
A cable said: "Megrahi could have as long as five years to live but the average life expectancy of someone of his age with his condition is 18 months to two years. Doctors are not sure where he is on the time scale."The Libyans have not yet made a formal application for compassionate release … but HMG believes that the Scottish may be inclined to grant the request, when it comes, based on conversations between … Alex Salmond and UK justice secretary Jack Straw. Although the general practice is to grant compassionate release within three months of end of life, this is not codified in the law, so the release, if granted, could occur sooner."
The American diplomats were worried "Salmond and the SNP will look for opportunities to exploit the Megrahi case for their own advantage". But when the Scottish justice minister finally announced a "compassionate release" to a storm of protest the following August, the US ambassador said the Scots had got out of their depth.
"The Scottish government severely underestimated both US government and UK public reaction to its decision … Alex Salmond has privately indicated that he was 'shocked'."
Salmond had told the US consul in Edinburgh on 21 August that "he and his government had played straight with both the US and the UK government, but implied the UK had not … he said the Libyan government had offered the Scottish government a parade of treats, 'all of which were turned down'."
Three days later Robin Naysmith, who served as the SNP's representative in Washington, said Salmond was shocked by the US outcry. "Naysmith underscored that Scotland received 'nothing' for releasing Megrahi, while the UK government has gotten everything – a chance to stick it to Salmond's SNP and good relations with Libya."
SNP "comments were designed to blame the UK government for putting the Scots in a position to have to make a decision", according to civil servant Rob Dixon, talking to the Americans.
Washington's ambassador to London, Louis Susman, observed unsympathetically: "It is clear that the Scottish government underestimated the blowback it would receive in response to Megrahi's release and is now trying to paint itself as the victim." (...)
The other object of US suspicion was Tony Blair's 2007 visit to Libya as British prime minister. The trip was linked to oil and gas. The US embassy in Tripoli noted on 23 August 2009: "Rumours that Blair made linkages between Megrahi's release and trade deals have been longstanding among embassy contacts … the UK ambassador in Tripoli categorically denied the claims."In February this year UK diplomats told the US they were fretting about the prospect of an eventual hero's funeral for Megrahi. The new Foreign Office north Africa director, Philippa Saunders, "explained that fear over how Tripoli will handle Megrahi's eventual funeral remains a major concern".
She added: "The UK embassy is currently engaged in an effort to identify all possible UK 'levers of influence' with Tripoli. Unfortunately 'there aren't too many', although she mentioned Tony Blair and a private doctor who had a personal relationship with the Gaddafi family.
"There will be maybe a 48-hour window if we're lucky between Megrahi's eventual death and a funeral."
[The following are the relevant cables:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/175039?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/189254?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/221905?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/220992
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/231792?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/222002?intcmp=239]
Megrahi case led to threats against UK's Libyan interests, while Scots who released him had turned down 'a parade of treats'
The British government's deep fears that Libya would take "harsh and immediate" action against UK interests if the convicted Lockerbie bomber died in a Scottish prison are revealed in secret US embassy cables which show London's full support for the early release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, made explicit and "thuggish" threats to halt all trade deals with Britain and harass embassy staff if Megrahi remained in jail, the cables show. At the same time "a parade of treats" was offered by Libya to the Scottish devolved administration if it agreed to let him go, though the cable says they were turned down.
Britain at the time was "in an awkward position" and "between a rock and a hard place". The London charge d'affaires, Richard LeBaron, wrote in a cable to Washington in October 2008. "The Libyans have told HMG [Her Majesty's Government] flat out that there will be 'enormous repercussions' for the UK-Libya bilateral relationship if Megrahi's early release is not handled properly."
This intelligence, the cable said, was confided to the US embassy by two British officials: Ben Lyons, in charge of north Africa for Downing Street, and Rob Dixon, his counterpart at the Foreign Office. (...)
The Megrahi cables may do much to explain why he was released in August 2009, supposedly because he was on the brink of death from prostate cancer. The decision incurred American wrath. More than a year on Megrahi is still alive, having been feted when he was escorted back to Tripoli by Gaddafi's son.
Public congressional hearings in September were told by a US prostate specialist that the official reason for the compassionate release – that Megrahi was within three months of death – was "ridiculous".
Anger with the British persists in some American circles, and UK ministers, Labour and Tory, have attempted to distance London from the release insisting it was purely a Scottish decision.
In January 2009, six months before Megrahi's release, the US ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, confirmed that "dire" reprisals had been threatened against the UK, and the British were braced to take "dramatic" steps for self-protection.
The Libyans "convinced UK embassy officers that the consequences if Megrahi were to die in prison … would be harsh, immediate and not easily remedied … specific threats have included the immediate cessation of all UK commercial activity in Libya, a diminishment or severing of political ties, and demonstrations against official UK facilities.
"[Libyan] officials also implied, but did not directly state, that the welfare of UK diplomats and citizens in Libya would be at risk."
The British ambassador in Tripoli, Vincent Fean, "expressed relief" when Megrahi was released, the US reported.
"He noted that a refusal of Megrahi's request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. 'They could have cut us off at the knees,' Fean bluntly said."
Cretz cabled that "the regime remains essentially thuggish in its approach". He warned the US itself should keep quiet: "If the [US government] publicly opposes al-Megrahi's release or is perceived to be complicit in a decision to keep al-Megrahi in prison, [America's Libyan diplomatic] post judges that US interests could face similar consequences."
In the light of the repeated, politically unacceptable demands for Megrahi's release from Gaddafi, the illness at first seemed providential for Britain.
The cables reveal how the Scottish Nationalist first minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, was edged into taking the political heat for releasing Megrahi, who had been diagnosed with cancer in September 2008. The message US diplomats received from Jack Straw, then justice minister, was that although Megrahi might survive up to five years, Labour's rivals in Scotland – Salmond and his SNP – were nonetheless inclined to release him.
A cable said: "Megrahi could have as long as five years to live but the average life expectancy of someone of his age with his condition is 18 months to two years. Doctors are not sure where he is on the time scale."The Libyans have not yet made a formal application for compassionate release … but HMG believes that the Scottish may be inclined to grant the request, when it comes, based on conversations between … Alex Salmond and UK justice secretary Jack Straw. Although the general practice is to grant compassionate release within three months of end of life, this is not codified in the law, so the release, if granted, could occur sooner."
The American diplomats were worried "Salmond and the SNP will look for opportunities to exploit the Megrahi case for their own advantage". But when the Scottish justice minister finally announced a "compassionate release" to a storm of protest the following August, the US ambassador said the Scots had got out of their depth.
"The Scottish government severely underestimated both US government and UK public reaction to its decision … Alex Salmond has privately indicated that he was 'shocked'."
Salmond had told the US consul in Edinburgh on 21 August that "he and his government had played straight with both the US and the UK government, but implied the UK had not … he said the Libyan government had offered the Scottish government a parade of treats, 'all of which were turned down'."
Three days later Robin Naysmith, who served as the SNP's representative in Washington, said Salmond was shocked by the US outcry. "Naysmith underscored that Scotland received 'nothing' for releasing Megrahi, while the UK government has gotten everything – a chance to stick it to Salmond's SNP and good relations with Libya."
SNP "comments were designed to blame the UK government for putting the Scots in a position to have to make a decision", according to civil servant Rob Dixon, talking to the Americans.
Washington's ambassador to London, Louis Susman, observed unsympathetically: "It is clear that the Scottish government underestimated the blowback it would receive in response to Megrahi's release and is now trying to paint itself as the victim." (...)
The other object of US suspicion was Tony Blair's 2007 visit to Libya as British prime minister. The trip was linked to oil and gas. The US embassy in Tripoli noted on 23 August 2009: "Rumours that Blair made linkages between Megrahi's release and trade deals have been longstanding among embassy contacts … the UK ambassador in Tripoli categorically denied the claims."In February this year UK diplomats told the US they were fretting about the prospect of an eventual hero's funeral for Megrahi. The new Foreign Office north Africa director, Philippa Saunders, "explained that fear over how Tripoli will handle Megrahi's eventual funeral remains a major concern".
She added: "The UK embassy is currently engaged in an effort to identify all possible UK 'levers of influence' with Tripoli. Unfortunately 'there aren't too many', although she mentioned Tony Blair and a private doctor who had a personal relationship with the Gaddafi family.
"There will be maybe a 48-hour window if we're lucky between Megrahi's eventual death and a funeral."
[The following are the relevant cables:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/175039?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/189254?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/221905?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/220992
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/231792?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/222002?intcmp=239]
Trade interests ‘played part’ in Lockerbie release
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Times, coming one day after the report in The Scotsman and three days after the story appeared on this blog. The Times's report can be accessed -- but only by subscribers -- here. It reads in part:]
A senior British diplomat said that Britain’s business interests in Libya played a vital role in the release of the Lockerbie bomber, the latest WikiLeaks files reveal.
Sir Vincent Fean, the British Ambassador to Libya at the time, is quoted in diplomatic cables expressing his relief at the decision by Scottish ministers to free Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi two years ago on compassionate grounds. (...)
The latest cable released on Wiki-Leaks says: “The British ambassador expressed relief that Megrahi likely would be returned to Libya under the compassionate release programme. He noted that a refusal of Megrahi’s request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya.” (...)
At the time, ministers, including the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, refused to comment on the decision and insisted that the UK Government had played “no role” in the release.
The dispatch was sent from the US Embassy in Tripoli before the release of al-Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, in August 2009.
[The headline over The Times's story, and the first sentence quoted above, are disgracefully inaccurate. The British ambassador's reported comment does not, on any interpretation, state or imply that business interests played a part in Abdelbaset Megrahi's compassionate release. It states that, if he had not been released, this could have had disastrous implications for the UK's commercial relations with Libya -- which is a very different thing.]
A senior British diplomat said that Britain’s business interests in Libya played a vital role in the release of the Lockerbie bomber, the latest WikiLeaks files reveal.
Sir Vincent Fean, the British Ambassador to Libya at the time, is quoted in diplomatic cables expressing his relief at the decision by Scottish ministers to free Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi two years ago on compassionate grounds. (...)
The latest cable released on Wiki-Leaks says: “The British ambassador expressed relief that Megrahi likely would be returned to Libya under the compassionate release programme. He noted that a refusal of Megrahi’s request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya.” (...)
At the time, ministers, including the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, refused to comment on the decision and insisted that the UK Government had played “no role” in the release.
The dispatch was sent from the US Embassy in Tripoli before the release of al-Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, in August 2009.
[The headline over The Times's story, and the first sentence quoted above, are disgracefully inaccurate. The British ambassador's reported comment does not, on any interpretation, state or imply that business interests played a part in Abdelbaset Megrahi's compassionate release. It states that, if he had not been released, this could have had disastrous implications for the UK's commercial relations with Libya -- which is a very different thing.]
Monday, 6 December 2010
WikiLeaks: Al-Megrahi move 'saved UK trade from being cut off at the knees'
This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. (The story, of course, featured on this blog on Saturday morning.) The Scotsman's report reads in part:]
The British ambassador to Libya said the nation's business interests would have been "cut off at the knees" if the Lockerbie bomber was not released, according to a secret US cable published by Wikileaks.
The dispatch - sent from the US embassy in Tripoli before the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in August 2009 - reports the view expressed by the British ambassador at the time, Sir Vincent Fean. He is now the Consul-General in Jerusalem. According to German news magazine Der Spiegel ... Sir Vincent was said to be relieved at news the Scottish Government was intending to release Megrahi as he was suffering from terminal cancer and expected to live less than three months.
The cable said: "The British ambassador expressed relief that Megrahi likely would be returned to Libya under the compassionate release programme. He noted that a refusal of Megrahi's request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. 'They could have cut us off at the knees, just like the Swiss'."
The ambassador's comment on "the Swiss" is a reference to Libya's reaction after Swiss police arrested Colonel Gaddafi's son, Hannibal, and his wife, Aline Skaf, on charges of abusing servants in a luxury hotel. Although the couple were quickly bailed and the charges dropped, Libya responded by withdrawing billions of dollars from Swiss banks, cutting off oil supplies, denying visas and recalling diplomats.
If accurate, the cable is evidence that the British government was clearly supportive of the decision by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to release Megrahi, the only person convicted of the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 and the murder of 270 people. At the time, then prime minister Gordon Brown refused to comment on the decision and insisted the UK government had played "no role" in the release. (...)
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, said the cable was bound to "re-light the question of whether pressure was put on Scotland by the UK government to get advantages for British governments in Libya".
A Foreign Office spokesperson said: "We are not going to speculate on any specifics."
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "Megrahi is terminally ill with prostate cancer.
The Scottish Parliament justice committee examined all relevant aspects of this issue, and concluded that the decision was taken 'in good faith'."
The British ambassador to Libya said the nation's business interests would have been "cut off at the knees" if the Lockerbie bomber was not released, according to a secret US cable published by Wikileaks.
The dispatch - sent from the US embassy in Tripoli before the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in August 2009 - reports the view expressed by the British ambassador at the time, Sir Vincent Fean. He is now the Consul-General in Jerusalem. According to German news magazine Der Spiegel ... Sir Vincent was said to be relieved at news the Scottish Government was intending to release Megrahi as he was suffering from terminal cancer and expected to live less than three months.
The cable said: "The British ambassador expressed relief that Megrahi likely would be returned to Libya under the compassionate release programme. He noted that a refusal of Megrahi's request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. 'They could have cut us off at the knees, just like the Swiss'."
The ambassador's comment on "the Swiss" is a reference to Libya's reaction after Swiss police arrested Colonel Gaddafi's son, Hannibal, and his wife, Aline Skaf, on charges of abusing servants in a luxury hotel. Although the couple were quickly bailed and the charges dropped, Libya responded by withdrawing billions of dollars from Swiss banks, cutting off oil supplies, denying visas and recalling diplomats.
If accurate, the cable is evidence that the British government was clearly supportive of the decision by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to release Megrahi, the only person convicted of the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 and the murder of 270 people. At the time, then prime minister Gordon Brown refused to comment on the decision and insisted the UK government had played "no role" in the release. (...)
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, said the cable was bound to "re-light the question of whether pressure was put on Scotland by the UK government to get advantages for British governments in Libya".
A Foreign Office spokesperson said: "We are not going to speculate on any specifics."
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "Megrahi is terminally ill with prostate cancer.
The Scottish Parliament justice committee examined all relevant aspects of this issue, and concluded that the decision was taken 'in good faith'."
Sunday, 5 December 2010
This could be the SNP's legacy
[This is the heading over a recent post on the influential Subrosa blog. It reads in part:]
If the SNP wanted to win next year's election then there must be a proper inquiry into the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. Alex Salmond insists he supports the verdict. Why? A powerful committee in the Scottish Parliament has backed a Lockerbie inquiry. Dr Jim Swire has said that, "Without an inquiry the name of Scottish justice will lie in the gutter." Other very eminent Scottish legals have joined with the call for an inquiry.
This post is nothing to do with the release of Megrahi which I think was taken within the Scottish prisoner guidelines. Most of the UK know there is doubt about the conviction of Megrahi yet the First Minister continues to insist that there is none. The post is about an inquiry into Megrahi's conviction.
Obviously there is something behind the issue for Alex Salmond to continue to insist he believes the verdict and perhaps, for reasons only known to the political establishment, he's troubled it will be discovered during an inquiry, but it's time the SNP bit the bullet and made the decision for the world to know the facts. More and more evidence has appeared over the years yet ,when Megrahi dropped his appeal prior to his release, our political masters seemed to sigh with relief thinking the matter was concluded.
It's not finished by a long chalk if Alex Salmond has the courage to instigate an inquiry. Yes, maybe the SNP Scottish government has shown, like all governments, to have some faults, but the public would forgive them if the truth about the Lockerbie bombing was exposed.
Time to show some true Scottish backbone Alex and call for an inquiry. If nothing else it would ensure the SNP had a good chance to be re-elected in May next year. It could be the SNP's legacy.
If the SNP wanted to win next year's election then there must be a proper inquiry into the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. Alex Salmond insists he supports the verdict. Why? A powerful committee in the Scottish Parliament has backed a Lockerbie inquiry. Dr Jim Swire has said that, "Without an inquiry the name of Scottish justice will lie in the gutter." Other very eminent Scottish legals have joined with the call for an inquiry.
This post is nothing to do with the release of Megrahi which I think was taken within the Scottish prisoner guidelines. Most of the UK know there is doubt about the conviction of Megrahi yet the First Minister continues to insist that there is none. The post is about an inquiry into Megrahi's conviction.
Obviously there is something behind the issue for Alex Salmond to continue to insist he believes the verdict and perhaps, for reasons only known to the political establishment, he's troubled it will be discovered during an inquiry, but it's time the SNP bit the bullet and made the decision for the world to know the facts. More and more evidence has appeared over the years yet ,when Megrahi dropped his appeal prior to his release, our political masters seemed to sigh with relief thinking the matter was concluded.
It's not finished by a long chalk if Alex Salmond has the courage to instigate an inquiry. Yes, maybe the SNP Scottish government has shown, like all governments, to have some faults, but the public would forgive them if the truth about the Lockerbie bombing was exposed.
Time to show some true Scottish backbone Alex and call for an inquiry. If nothing else it would ensure the SNP had a good chance to be re-elected in May next year. It could be the SNP's legacy.
Saturday, 4 December 2010
WikiLeaks: US Libyan ambassador's meeting with Saif
[The following are excerpts from a cable sent by the US embassy in Tripoli on St Andrew's Day 2009, following a meeting between the US ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz and Saif al-Islam Gaddafi on 27 November:]
The ambassador noted that the relationship had seen several advancements and several serious setbacks since Saif's last visit to the United States, including the August 20 hero's welcome accorded to Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi by Saif himself. Megrahi's return had severely offended American sensitivities and renewed tensions that set the relationship back. Until that point, there had been significant progress (...)
Saif acknowledged that he was disconnected for a long time from the bilateral relationship and recognized that the hero's welcome for Megrahi had set engagement back. He reiterated that he was "back" on the scene and could serve as the "trouble-shooter" for any future problems. He urged the ambassador to contact his office directly in times of crisis. He also promised to resolve the visa issue, stating that he understood the importance of a transparent and reliable system of issuance. In their one-on-one discussion afterwards, the ambassador asked Saif to explain his actions when he accompanied Megrahi back to Tripoli. Saif said he knew what the reaction in the West would be, but that it did not constitute an "official" welcome. He had worked on the release for a long time, he was not a public official, and there were no international media like Al Jazeera present. In addition, Saif claimed that the Libyans would someday find a way to show that Megrahi was innocent. The ambassador reiterated the damage the welcome had done and said no amount of justification could undo that. Saif nodded his understanding.
The ambassador noted that the relationship had seen several advancements and several serious setbacks since Saif's last visit to the United States, including the August 20 hero's welcome accorded to Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi by Saif himself. Megrahi's return had severely offended American sensitivities and renewed tensions that set the relationship back. Until that point, there had been significant progress (...)
Saif acknowledged that he was disconnected for a long time from the bilateral relationship and recognized that the hero's welcome for Megrahi had set engagement back. He reiterated that he was "back" on the scene and could serve as the "trouble-shooter" for any future problems. He urged the ambassador to contact his office directly in times of crisis. He also promised to resolve the visa issue, stating that he understood the importance of a transparent and reliable system of issuance. In their one-on-one discussion afterwards, the ambassador asked Saif to explain his actions when he accompanied Megrahi back to Tripoli. Saif said he knew what the reaction in the West would be, but that it did not constitute an "official" welcome. He had worked on the release for a long time, he was not a public official, and there were no international media like Al Jazeera present. In addition, Saif claimed that the Libyans would someday find a way to show that Megrahi was innocent. The ambassador reiterated the damage the welcome had done and said no amount of justification could undo that. Saif nodded his understanding.
British ambassador's relief
[The German news magazine Der Spiegel reports as follows on a WikiLeaks cable relating to Megrahi's repatriation:]
Die US-Abgesandten protokollieren Gaddafis Absonderlichkeiten, die Allüren seiner Söhne und die Furcht seiner Berater vor Gaddafis Zorn. Sie verfolgten, wie er aus gekränktem Stolz zwei Schweizer als Geiseln nahm und ihre Regierung erniedrigte, wie er die Kanadier fast auf die Knie zwang, indem er die Verstaatlichung von PetroCanada androhte, und wie er den Briten die Auslieferung des Lockerbie-Bombers Abd al-Bassit al-Mikrahi abpresste. "Der britische Botschafter war erleichtert, dass Mikrahi wahrscheinlich im Rahmen einer humanitären Freilassung nach Libyen zurückkehren könnte. Er bemerkte, dass eine Verweigerung desaströse Folgen für britische Interessen in Libyen nach sich hätte ziehen können. 'Sie hätten uns fertiggemacht, genau wie die Schweizer.'"
[I have been unable to find the cable(s) in question, but here is a rough translation of the Der Spiegel paragraph:]
The US envoys log Gaddafi's peculiarities, the affectations of his sons and the fear of his advisers before Gaddafi's anger. They detailed how he took two Swiss hostages out of injured pride and humbled their government; how the Canadians were almost forced to their knees, when he threatened the nationalization of Petro Canada; and how he forced the British handover of the Lockerbie bomber, Abd al-Bassit al-Megrahi. "The British ambassador was relieved that Megrahi could probably return to Libya under a humanitarian release. He noted that a refusal would have entailed disastrous consequences for British interests in Libya. 'They would have closed us down, just like the Swiss.'"
[The above passage now appears on Der Spiegel's English language website. Their English version reads as follows:]
Americans dispatched to Libya report in great detail on Gadhafi's peculiarities, the airs and graces of his sons and the degree to which his advisers fear his wrath. For example, they closely monitored how wounded pride led him to take two Swiss citizens hostage and humiliate the Swiss government, how he almost forced Canada to its knees by threatening to nationalize the assets of PetroCanada and how he more or less compelled the British to extradite Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing 270 people, most of them Americans.
As one dispatch explained: "The British ambassador expressed relief that Megrahi likely would be returned to Libya under the compassionate release program. He noted that a refusal of Megrahi's request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. 'They could have cut us off at the knees, just like the Swiss.'"
Die US-Abgesandten protokollieren Gaddafis Absonderlichkeiten, die Allüren seiner Söhne und die Furcht seiner Berater vor Gaddafis Zorn. Sie verfolgten, wie er aus gekränktem Stolz zwei Schweizer als Geiseln nahm und ihre Regierung erniedrigte, wie er die Kanadier fast auf die Knie zwang, indem er die Verstaatlichung von PetroCanada androhte, und wie er den Briten die Auslieferung des Lockerbie-Bombers Abd al-Bassit al-Mikrahi abpresste. "Der britische Botschafter war erleichtert, dass Mikrahi wahrscheinlich im Rahmen einer humanitären Freilassung nach Libyen zurückkehren könnte. Er bemerkte, dass eine Verweigerung desaströse Folgen für britische Interessen in Libyen nach sich hätte ziehen können. 'Sie hätten uns fertiggemacht, genau wie die Schweizer.'"
[I have been unable to find the cable(s) in question, but here is a rough translation of the Der Spiegel paragraph:]
The US envoys log Gaddafi's peculiarities, the affectations of his sons and the fear of his advisers before Gaddafi's anger. They detailed how he took two Swiss hostages out of injured pride and humbled their government; how the Canadians were almost forced to their knees, when he threatened the nationalization of Petro Canada; and how he forced the British handover of the Lockerbie bomber, Abd al-Bassit al-Megrahi. "The British ambassador was relieved that Megrahi could probably return to Libya under a humanitarian release. He noted that a refusal would have entailed disastrous consequences for British interests in Libya. 'They would have closed us down, just like the Swiss.'"
[The above passage now appears on Der Spiegel's English language website. Their English version reads as follows:]
Americans dispatched to Libya report in great detail on Gadhafi's peculiarities, the airs and graces of his sons and the degree to which his advisers fear his wrath. For example, they closely monitored how wounded pride led him to take two Swiss citizens hostage and humiliate the Swiss government, how he almost forced Canada to its knees by threatening to nationalize the assets of PetroCanada and how he more or less compelled the British to extradite Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing 270 people, most of them Americans.
As one dispatch explained: "The British ambassador expressed relief that Megrahi likely would be returned to Libya under the compassionate release program. He noted that a refusal of Megrahi's request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. 'They could have cut us off at the knees, just like the Swiss.'"
Lockerbie truth might be revealed at last if Libya sues Britain for false imprisonment of Megrahi
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
The Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, has told students at the London School of Economics that, upon the death of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, his country will sue the British Government for falsely imprisoning him.
How strange that, if true, those who seek the truth over Lockerbie may find the colonel providing the pathway they need to have the legal case against Megrahi reviewed, following the withdrawal of Libya’s appeal.
This unfortunate man was convicted as having been an active member of the Libyan intelligence service. Many now believe the verdict was fatally flawed.
In view of continuing obstruction from those governments of those in the west who still seek the truth, what could be more appropriate than that the Libyan government should now pursue the issue?
How sad that success would only come after Megrahi’s death. But at least it would lift the weight from the shoulders of his wife, Aisha, and the family.
One cannot at present see how the difficulties can be overcome, and if pursued, the timescale may still be lengthy. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the Libyan state, which seemed to have resolved the post-Lockerbie situation to its satisfaction by gaining the return of its convicted citizen and the resurrection of its oil industry, should now be taking the lead in an action which would, at its centre, require the overturning of the verdict against Megrahi.
All one can add is that while the Colonel Gaddafi is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal, and has made it clear in early September this year that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming it had been reached under improper political pressure.
If such an action were to succeed, it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK Governments than all the WikiLeaks documents put together.
The world must hope that justice and truth, not violence and vengeance, win the day.
[The same newspaper has an article on the Gaddafi litigation suggestion. It reads in part:]
The family of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will lose any compensation claim for his alleged neglect in a Scottish jail, a leading expert said last night.
Professor Robert Black, who helped create the Scottish court in the Netherlands that convicted Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing, said a claim for neglect or false imprisonment would be a legal “non-starter”.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was yesterday reported to have said Megrahi’s family was set to sue over the terminally-ill former intelligence officer’s treatment in Greenock Prison.
The dictator, who is prone to controversial but cryptic comments, was said to have used a video link to tell students and staff at the London School of Economics Megrahi was “released because he was considered dead, and yet he is still alive”.
Colonel Gaddafi reportedly added: “His health was not looked after during his time in prison. He didn’t have any periodic examination. After he passes away his family will demand compensation because he was deliberately neglected in prison.”
Mr Black – who has backed calls for a public inquiry into the bombing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie in 1988 – last night said he could see no legal grounds for an action for damages.
The retired Edinburgh University law professor said: “While the conviction stands, any thought of a successful action for false imprisonment is really, really not a starter.
“The family theoretically could sue in the Scottish courts if the treatment or lack of treatment that he received while in Greenock exacerbated his condition. But that would be very, very difficult.
“They would have to prove that his condition is worse because ot the treatment or lack of treatment in Greenock. I honestly don’t think that would get anywhere.
“Megrahi has lasted a year longer than was anticipated so it would be difficult to prove the lack of treatment he received in Scotland reduced his lifespan.
“Indeed, being back in the bosom of his family may well have given him a boost.” (...)
The Scottish Government yesterday rejected any claim that the Libyan, who had his own “suite” in Greenock Prison, was neglected. A spokesman said: “He was given the same high standard of NHS care as any other prisoner.” The Scottish Prisons Service gave a similar response.
Campaigner Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed at Lockerbie, believes the Libyans’ main priority would be overturning Megrahi’s guilty verdict.
Megrahi himself withdrew his appeal against conviction – which was sparked by an investigation from the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission that found he may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
In a letter in today’s Herald, Dr Swire writes: “While the Colonel is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal, and he made it very clear in early September this year that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming that it had only been reached under improper political pressure.
“If such an action were to succeed it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK Governments than all the Wikileaks documents put together.”
A spokesman for the Prime Minister last night said any action by the Megrahi family would be a matter for the Scottish Government given that it decided to release the Libyan.
He said: “The Prime Minister’s personal views on Megrahi’s release are well known – he believed it was wrong. That has not changed. But the decision to release Megrahi was a matter for the Scottish Government, as would any legal case concerning his detention.”
[Dr Swire also has a letter published in today's edition of The Scotsman. An article in the same newspaper contains the following:]
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the tragedy, said Col Gadaffi's intervention was "remarkable" after the North African leader appeared "satisfied" following the release of Megrahi.
Mr Swire said that any move for compensation "would at its centre require the overturning of the verdict" against Mr Megrahi.
"While the Colonel is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal," Mr Swire added.
"He made it very clear in early September [when Dr Swire had a meeting with him] that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming that it had only been reached under improper political pressure.
"If such an action were to succeed it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK governments than all the Wikileaks documents put together."
The Rev John Mosey, the father of a victim of the bombing, said he could not imagine the Scottish authorities "being deliberately neglectful".
He added: "On a physical level it would seem he was very well catered for - possibly above the average."
The Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, has told students at the London School of Economics that, upon the death of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, his country will sue the British Government for falsely imprisoning him.
How strange that, if true, those who seek the truth over Lockerbie may find the colonel providing the pathway they need to have the legal case against Megrahi reviewed, following the withdrawal of Libya’s appeal.
This unfortunate man was convicted as having been an active member of the Libyan intelligence service. Many now believe the verdict was fatally flawed.
In view of continuing obstruction from those governments of those in the west who still seek the truth, what could be more appropriate than that the Libyan government should now pursue the issue?
How sad that success would only come after Megrahi’s death. But at least it would lift the weight from the shoulders of his wife, Aisha, and the family.
One cannot at present see how the difficulties can be overcome, and if pursued, the timescale may still be lengthy. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the Libyan state, which seemed to have resolved the post-Lockerbie situation to its satisfaction by gaining the return of its convicted citizen and the resurrection of its oil industry, should now be taking the lead in an action which would, at its centre, require the overturning of the verdict against Megrahi.
All one can add is that while the Colonel Gaddafi is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal, and has made it clear in early September this year that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming it had been reached under improper political pressure.
If such an action were to succeed, it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK Governments than all the WikiLeaks documents put together.
The world must hope that justice and truth, not violence and vengeance, win the day.
[The same newspaper has an article on the Gaddafi litigation suggestion. It reads in part:]
The family of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will lose any compensation claim for his alleged neglect in a Scottish jail, a leading expert said last night.
Professor Robert Black, who helped create the Scottish court in the Netherlands that convicted Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing, said a claim for neglect or false imprisonment would be a legal “non-starter”.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was yesterday reported to have said Megrahi’s family was set to sue over the terminally-ill former intelligence officer’s treatment in Greenock Prison.
The dictator, who is prone to controversial but cryptic comments, was said to have used a video link to tell students and staff at the London School of Economics Megrahi was “released because he was considered dead, and yet he is still alive”.
Colonel Gaddafi reportedly added: “His health was not looked after during his time in prison. He didn’t have any periodic examination. After he passes away his family will demand compensation because he was deliberately neglected in prison.”
Mr Black – who has backed calls for a public inquiry into the bombing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie in 1988 – last night said he could see no legal grounds for an action for damages.
The retired Edinburgh University law professor said: “While the conviction stands, any thought of a successful action for false imprisonment is really, really not a starter.
“The family theoretically could sue in the Scottish courts if the treatment or lack of treatment that he received while in Greenock exacerbated his condition. But that would be very, very difficult.
“They would have to prove that his condition is worse because ot the treatment or lack of treatment in Greenock. I honestly don’t think that would get anywhere.
“Megrahi has lasted a year longer than was anticipated so it would be difficult to prove the lack of treatment he received in Scotland reduced his lifespan.
“Indeed, being back in the bosom of his family may well have given him a boost.” (...)
The Scottish Government yesterday rejected any claim that the Libyan, who had his own “suite” in Greenock Prison, was neglected. A spokesman said: “He was given the same high standard of NHS care as any other prisoner.” The Scottish Prisons Service gave a similar response.
Campaigner Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed at Lockerbie, believes the Libyans’ main priority would be overturning Megrahi’s guilty verdict.
Megrahi himself withdrew his appeal against conviction – which was sparked by an investigation from the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission that found he may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
In a letter in today’s Herald, Dr Swire writes: “While the Colonel is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal, and he made it very clear in early September this year that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming that it had only been reached under improper political pressure.
“If such an action were to succeed it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK Governments than all the Wikileaks documents put together.”
A spokesman for the Prime Minister last night said any action by the Megrahi family would be a matter for the Scottish Government given that it decided to release the Libyan.
He said: “The Prime Minister’s personal views on Megrahi’s release are well known – he believed it was wrong. That has not changed. But the decision to release Megrahi was a matter for the Scottish Government, as would any legal case concerning his detention.”
[Dr Swire also has a letter published in today's edition of The Scotsman. An article in the same newspaper contains the following:]
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the tragedy, said Col Gadaffi's intervention was "remarkable" after the North African leader appeared "satisfied" following the release of Megrahi.
Mr Swire said that any move for compensation "would at its centre require the overturning of the verdict" against Mr Megrahi.
"While the Colonel is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal," Mr Swire added.
"He made it very clear in early September [when Dr Swire had a meeting with him] that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming that it had only been reached under improper political pressure.
"If such an action were to succeed it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK governments than all the Wikileaks documents put together."
The Rev John Mosey, the father of a victim of the bombing, said he could not imagine the Scottish authorities "being deliberately neglectful".
He added: "On a physical level it would seem he was very well catered for - possibly above the average."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)