[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads as follows:]
[T]here is a far more important issue than questions about the release of Megrahi, found guilty at Zeist of the Lockerbie bombing.
For so many who have heard and studied the evidence led against him, and the performance of his defence team in that court, the verdict looked untenable under any recognisable form of Scottish criminal law. It is hard to believe that a Scottish jury could ever have convicted him. Could 15 sufficiently naive Scots have been found? I doubt it.
"Reasonable doubt" was left unanswered at so many points, yet it is supposed to be necessary to exclude it entirely before a criminal guilty verdict is reached. He was not securely identified as the buyer of clothes in Malta, nor was there any proof that he breached security at Malta airport. It was only afterwards that we learned of the break-in at Heathrow, a far more likely route to the doomed plane's hold than Malta ever was. Only afterwards did we learn that the Scottish investigating police knew before the case came to court that the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci who "thought Megrahi looked like the clothes buyer" and, who was a key witness, knew that Megrahi's conviction would land him a prize of $2,000,000. Why did the police not tell the court that?
Let's review the verdict and see if it stands, rather than continue to rabbit on about his release which many, myself included, think was the right and responsible move for Kenny MacAskill to make.
If all the commentators on this ghastly case had been crammed into the court's public gallery, I think they would be raging for a review of the verdict, not endlessly discussing his release. If the verdict was unjust, as so many believe, what must the real culprits think of Scotland now? Some of us want to be sure about who killed all those people. It's Scotland's call.
Sunday, 26 December 2010
Saturday, 25 December 2010
The dangers of over-classification
[This is the heading over a post by Oliver Miles (former UK ambassador to Libya) on the London Review of Books blog. It reads in part:]
For the most part [in the WikiLeaks cables] we see able, professional diplomats doing their best to understand and report on the places where they’re stationed, as anyone familiar with the State Department would expect. Those I have looked at (mostly from or concerning the Middle East) are classified up to ‘secret’, which is supposed to mean the information in them would cause ‘grave damage’ to national security if made public. One lesson is that over-classification, which is a form of bad security, is even more prevalent in the State Department today than it was in the British diplomatic service when I served in it. The most recent cables are a few months old. Most of the information in them, though of interest to specialists, is not particularly new.
One report which does contain some new information was sent from the US embassy in Libya in December 2009, giving details of discussions with the Libyans about possible arms sales – though evidence that the US was considering such deals was already in the public domain, for example in the list of members on the website of the US-Libya Business Association. It’s amusing that these US-Libyan discussions took place at the same time as – and are much wider in scope than – British-Libyan discussions on the same subject, produced as evidence of a corrupt relationship in the recent report by four US senators on the Megrahi affair.
For the most part [in the WikiLeaks cables] we see able, professional diplomats doing their best to understand and report on the places where they’re stationed, as anyone familiar with the State Department would expect. Those I have looked at (mostly from or concerning the Middle East) are classified up to ‘secret’, which is supposed to mean the information in them would cause ‘grave damage’ to national security if made public. One lesson is that over-classification, which is a form of bad security, is even more prevalent in the State Department today than it was in the British diplomatic service when I served in it. The most recent cables are a few months old. Most of the information in them, though of interest to specialists, is not particularly new.
One report which does contain some new information was sent from the US embassy in Libya in December 2009, giving details of discussions with the Libyans about possible arms sales – though evidence that the US was considering such deals was already in the public domain, for example in the list of members on the website of the US-Libya Business Association. It’s amusing that these US-Libyan discussions took place at the same time as – and are much wider in scope than – British-Libyan discussions on the same subject, produced as evidence of a corrupt relationship in the recent report by four US senators on the Megrahi affair.
Friday, 24 December 2010
We must not be afraid to pursue the truth about the bombing of PanAm Flight 103
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
According to John Lamont, Scottish Conservative Justice spokesman: “The decision by the SNP to release the Lockerbie bomber was a bad decision, made badly. But, as a consequence he has spent the last 18 months with his family and friends in Libya. He has been allowed to live his final weeks and months with those he loves. That is something he denied his victims.” (“Fresh Megrahi fury on anniversary of Lockerbie disaster”, The Herald, December 22.)
I happen to rejoice that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has enjoyed some relief from the fate nature has brought upon him. How would it have enhanced the lives of anyone if he had had to languish in prison away from those he loves until he died?
The invitation from Mr Lamont is for all of us to decry the decision made by Kenny MacAskill in granting compassionate release, and for us to wallow in the unfairness that Megrahi should receive compassion and a death at home with his family, unlike those poor souls who died at Lockerbie. Sadly, his attitude mimics that of many in the United States and demeans his own country.
We should be proud that Scottish law allows the tempering of justice with mercy.
Mr Lamont should not feel secure in accepting that Megrahi really was guilty. This is unfinished business, and of greater significance than his release.
Our Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) was not sure about the verdict; it feared a miscarriage of justice, and therefore the second appeal was allowed. Holyrood, with but one or two noble exceptions, seems able to ignore the elephant which the SCCRC has introduced into our public arena: was Megrahi guilty or wasn’t he? But first we would need to know what gives Mr Lamont such assurance.
I cannot claim I can heroically forgive the murderers of my daughter and 269 others, because I don’t know who they were. But I am satisfied that Megrahi should never have been found guilty on the evidence led at Zeist.
The Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) into Lockerbie did tell us relatives that the disaster had been preventable and the aircraft had been under the Host State protection of the UK while it stood all that day on the Heathrow tarmac, while being loaded.
Yet the Prime Minister of the day, Lady Thatcher, refused even to meet us to discuss these findings, let alone launch an inquiry. All her successors in office since have also refused an inquiry.
Some relatives of the dead who have studied the Camp Zeist trial evidence carefully, have come to the firm conclusion that this man should never have been convicted on that evidence, a view strongly reinforced after the trial by further evidence and the comments of the SCCRC. A way must be found fully to review that verdict
Are we afraid of what the truth might be? Can we really now do no better in Scotland than squabble over the minutiae of the release of Megrahi? Do we not want to know why our SCCRC came to the conclusion that it did? Do we not have the mettle to ask ourselves whether we got it wrong at Zeist?
It only remains to thank Mr Lamont for this opportunity to draw attention once again to the doubts surrounding Megrahi’s guilt, and to the atrocious treatment handed out to those Lockerbie relatives who still only seek to know the truth.
After 22 years, it should be clear to all those at Holyrood and Westminster that these unresolved issues are not going to go away without resolution.
[A letter in the same newspaper from Nigel Dewar Gibb reads as follows:]
Senator Menendez and his colleagues have at last produced their report Justice Undone – The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber ... The report contains much questionable criticism and conjecture, adding nothing constructive to what was known before. Now, to strengthen the US case, the senators decide that Scotland has links with Qatar, leading to a takeover of the “Scottish” Sainsbury’s.
Simultaneously the Scottish Tory justice spokesman weighs in with his tuppence worth saying the decision to release Megrahi was “a bad decision, made badly”, which hardly helps the overall situation.
It is unclear how these worthy gentlemen can arrive at their positive conclusions so readily with their scant knowledge of the background or of the care and serious consideration given by Kenny MacAskill to the principles of Scots law and the medical prognosis.
What is more surprising and unfathomable is the fact that all these concerned individuals seem perfectly happy to accept seriously that Megrahi alone was responsible for the horror of the Lockerbie disaster. How they can accept that one, relatively minor individual, could possibly carry out this atrocity unaided and unsupported defies all logic. Even now no serious attempt is made by the US or the UK governments to investigate the true position, suggesting that they have something embarrassing to hide. Holyrood, meantime, is left on its own to abide by the original court’s findings without any power to set up a proper inquiry to expose the full truth.
[It is disappointing to find the Scottish Government's excuse being repeated here, to the effect that Holyrood does not have the power to set up a proper inquiry. This is nonsense. The Lockerbie investigation was led by a Scottish police force; the prosecution of Megrahi and Fhimah was undertaken by the Scottish Crown Office; Megrahi was convicted (and Fhimah acquitted) by a Scottish court; Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish jail; a Scottish public body, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, concluded that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice after an international investigation extending over more than three years; a Scottish Government minister refused a Libyan application for prisoner transfer; the same Scottish Government minister granted Megrahi's application for compassionate release. Each and every one of these matters is within Scottish jurisdiction and could be the subject of an independent inquiry set up by the Scottish Government under the Inquiries Act 2005. Such an inquiry has more extensive powers of compulsion of witnesses and evidence than does the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Yet even the SCCRC was able to conduct a meaningful inquiry into the Megrahi case.
It is disgraceful that the Scottish Government and its apologists should still be parroting the dishonest and discredited mantra that Holyrood does not have the requisite powers to establish a useful inquiry into the scandal of the Megrahi conviction.]
According to John Lamont, Scottish Conservative Justice spokesman: “The decision by the SNP to release the Lockerbie bomber was a bad decision, made badly. But, as a consequence he has spent the last 18 months with his family and friends in Libya. He has been allowed to live his final weeks and months with those he loves. That is something he denied his victims.” (“Fresh Megrahi fury on anniversary of Lockerbie disaster”, The Herald, December 22.)
I happen to rejoice that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has enjoyed some relief from the fate nature has brought upon him. How would it have enhanced the lives of anyone if he had had to languish in prison away from those he loves until he died?
The invitation from Mr Lamont is for all of us to decry the decision made by Kenny MacAskill in granting compassionate release, and for us to wallow in the unfairness that Megrahi should receive compassion and a death at home with his family, unlike those poor souls who died at Lockerbie. Sadly, his attitude mimics that of many in the United States and demeans his own country.
We should be proud that Scottish law allows the tempering of justice with mercy.
Mr Lamont should not feel secure in accepting that Megrahi really was guilty. This is unfinished business, and of greater significance than his release.
Our Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) was not sure about the verdict; it feared a miscarriage of justice, and therefore the second appeal was allowed. Holyrood, with but one or two noble exceptions, seems able to ignore the elephant which the SCCRC has introduced into our public arena: was Megrahi guilty or wasn’t he? But first we would need to know what gives Mr Lamont such assurance.
I cannot claim I can heroically forgive the murderers of my daughter and 269 others, because I don’t know who they were. But I am satisfied that Megrahi should never have been found guilty on the evidence led at Zeist.
The Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) into Lockerbie did tell us relatives that the disaster had been preventable and the aircraft had been under the Host State protection of the UK while it stood all that day on the Heathrow tarmac, while being loaded.
Yet the Prime Minister of the day, Lady Thatcher, refused even to meet us to discuss these findings, let alone launch an inquiry. All her successors in office since have also refused an inquiry.
Some relatives of the dead who have studied the Camp Zeist trial evidence carefully, have come to the firm conclusion that this man should never have been convicted on that evidence, a view strongly reinforced after the trial by further evidence and the comments of the SCCRC. A way must be found fully to review that verdict
Are we afraid of what the truth might be? Can we really now do no better in Scotland than squabble over the minutiae of the release of Megrahi? Do we not want to know why our SCCRC came to the conclusion that it did? Do we not have the mettle to ask ourselves whether we got it wrong at Zeist?
It only remains to thank Mr Lamont for this opportunity to draw attention once again to the doubts surrounding Megrahi’s guilt, and to the atrocious treatment handed out to those Lockerbie relatives who still only seek to know the truth.
After 22 years, it should be clear to all those at Holyrood and Westminster that these unresolved issues are not going to go away without resolution.
[A letter in the same newspaper from Nigel Dewar Gibb reads as follows:]
Senator Menendez and his colleagues have at last produced their report Justice Undone – The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber ... The report contains much questionable criticism and conjecture, adding nothing constructive to what was known before. Now, to strengthen the US case, the senators decide that Scotland has links with Qatar, leading to a takeover of the “Scottish” Sainsbury’s.
Simultaneously the Scottish Tory justice spokesman weighs in with his tuppence worth saying the decision to release Megrahi was “a bad decision, made badly”, which hardly helps the overall situation.
It is unclear how these worthy gentlemen can arrive at their positive conclusions so readily with their scant knowledge of the background or of the care and serious consideration given by Kenny MacAskill to the principles of Scots law and the medical prognosis.
What is more surprising and unfathomable is the fact that all these concerned individuals seem perfectly happy to accept seriously that Megrahi alone was responsible for the horror of the Lockerbie disaster. How they can accept that one, relatively minor individual, could possibly carry out this atrocity unaided and unsupported defies all logic. Even now no serious attempt is made by the US or the UK governments to investigate the true position, suggesting that they have something embarrassing to hide. Holyrood, meantime, is left on its own to abide by the original court’s findings without any power to set up a proper inquiry to expose the full truth.
[It is disappointing to find the Scottish Government's excuse being repeated here, to the effect that Holyrood does not have the power to set up a proper inquiry. This is nonsense. The Lockerbie investigation was led by a Scottish police force; the prosecution of Megrahi and Fhimah was undertaken by the Scottish Crown Office; Megrahi was convicted (and Fhimah acquitted) by a Scottish court; Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish jail; a Scottish public body, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, concluded that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice after an international investigation extending over more than three years; a Scottish Government minister refused a Libyan application for prisoner transfer; the same Scottish Government minister granted Megrahi's application for compassionate release. Each and every one of these matters is within Scottish jurisdiction and could be the subject of an independent inquiry set up by the Scottish Government under the Inquiries Act 2005. Such an inquiry has more extensive powers of compulsion of witnesses and evidence than does the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Yet even the SCCRC was able to conduct a meaningful inquiry into the Megrahi case.
It is disgraceful that the Scottish Government and its apologists should still be parroting the dishonest and discredited mantra that Holyrood does not have the requisite powers to establish a useful inquiry into the scandal of the Megrahi conviction.]
Thursday, 23 December 2010
Swissair 1970, Pan Am 1988?
On the website of the Swiss magazine Beobachter there is a long article drawing parallels between the destruction of a Swissair aircraft en route from Zürich to Tel Aviv in 1970 and the destruction of Pan Am 103 in 1988. Apparently the Lockerbie investigators were so struck by the similarities that they spent a considerable time conferring with the Swiss. However, as we know, the focus of the Lockerbie investigation eventually switched from Palestinian terrorist groups to Libya. The Beobachter article sets out why this might have been a mistake. The article, in German, can be read here.
Wikipedia's article on the crash of Swissair Flight 330 at Würenlingen can be read here.
Wikipedia's article on the crash of Swissair Flight 330 at Würenlingen can be read here.
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
This Lockerbie bomber nonsense shows US senators have lost the plot
The US Senate's conspiracy theory about Megrahi shows just how ignorant it is of British politics, writes Alan Cochrane.
It is always uncomfortable to be attacked by a supposed friend, all the more so when the onslaught is so unreasonable and wrong-headed. However, the main criticism that must be levelled against the report compiled by four US senators on the circumstances surrounding the release of the Lockerbie bomber is that it is naive – stunningly and embarrassingly so.
What appears to have happened is that Senators Robert Menéndez, Frank Lautenberg, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand decided from the "off" that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was freed as a result of base political, diplomatic, but above all commercial, motives.
They further believed that the UK Government had, for a combination of these disreputable reasons, lent on the devolved administration of Alex Salmond in Edinburgh to release the mass murderer.
The senators decided to produce a report to "prove" their theory and, lo and behold, that is precisely what it came up with.
Along with others who should know better, they refuse to believe that a separatist SNP administration in Edinburgh would never give in to pressure from the unionist UK government in London over a wholly devolved issue, such as the Scottish justice system.
As a result, the senators produced a very poor piece of work that demonstrates the incredible ignorance evinced by these four conspiracy-theorists about how politics and governance works in this country, a not at all unusual state of affairs for American politicians' knowledge about what they would call foreign parts.
Scotland's First Minister and Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, have said repeatedly that Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds because Mr MacAskill had been told by medical experts that he was suffering from terminal cancer and had only three months to live. For the record, I should repeat at this juncture that I supported that decision. That that prognosis was spectacularly wrong has, sadly, been proved by the passage of 16 months since his release.
It is not difficult to understand the anger and hurt of the relatives of those killed, many of whom are constituents of the senators.
However, the cause of the bereaved would have been served better had the senators steered clear of this elaborate conspiracy theory.
Time and time again, their 58-page report points the finger at the UK government.
For instance: "The UK government played a direct, critical role in al-Megrahi's release"; " … evidence suggests that UK officials pressured Scotland to facilitate al-Megrahi's release"; " … it would not be surprising that the Scottish government would be susceptible to pressure from the UK government."
Entitled "Justice Undone", the report charts what it sees as a series of suspicious meetings between British politicians – including Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – diplomats and businessmen, all hell-bent on securing a massive oil deal for BP, and Libyan officials. Not surprisingly, given his "non-person" status in the US over the Gulf oil spill, BP chairman Tony Hayward is given a walk-on part in all of this jiggery-pokery. The senators conclude that the UK Government knew that, in order to maintain commercial relations with Libya, "it had to give in to political demands".
"The threat of commercial warfare was a motivating factor", it adds.
The senators may be on firmer ground over their challenging of the medical evidence used as the basis for Megrahi's release. But even here they cannot resist sketching out an elaborate plot, involving Dr Andrew Fraser, the senior doctor at the Scottish Prison Service – accusing him of attending "political meetings" that "may have influenced his decision".
They also come up with a frankly spurious list of supposed powers that the UK Government could have used to stop Megrahi being freed and also claim that another reason for freeing the bomber was pressure from the Qataris who were poised to take over Sainsbury's, which the senators say is a "Scottish food producer". News to me!
Where the senators will find many supporters, however, is in their final conclusion – namely that the release was a straightforward bit of grandstanding: "The compassionate release option allowed First Minister Salmond to inject Scotland on the international stage."
The sad fact remains that this report is nothing more than supposition dressed up as fact, opinion masquerading as truth.
It has unleashed a great deal of Brit-bashing, too. That is unfortunate but is as nothing when compared to the grief of the bereaved families. Their cause has not been aided by this nonsense of a report.
Given that he is still alive more than a year later proves that the release of this mass murderer may well have been a mistake. But he was released on compassionate, not commercial, grounds.
[From an opinion piece on the website of the Conservative-supporting Daily Telegraph by the paper's Scottish Editor.]
It is always uncomfortable to be attacked by a supposed friend, all the more so when the onslaught is so unreasonable and wrong-headed. However, the main criticism that must be levelled against the report compiled by four US senators on the circumstances surrounding the release of the Lockerbie bomber is that it is naive – stunningly and embarrassingly so.
What appears to have happened is that Senators Robert Menéndez, Frank Lautenberg, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand decided from the "off" that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was freed as a result of base political, diplomatic, but above all commercial, motives.
They further believed that the UK Government had, for a combination of these disreputable reasons, lent on the devolved administration of Alex Salmond in Edinburgh to release the mass murderer.
The senators decided to produce a report to "prove" their theory and, lo and behold, that is precisely what it came up with.
Along with others who should know better, they refuse to believe that a separatist SNP administration in Edinburgh would never give in to pressure from the unionist UK government in London over a wholly devolved issue, such as the Scottish justice system.
As a result, the senators produced a very poor piece of work that demonstrates the incredible ignorance evinced by these four conspiracy-theorists about how politics and governance works in this country, a not at all unusual state of affairs for American politicians' knowledge about what they would call foreign parts.
Scotland's First Minister and Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, have said repeatedly that Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds because Mr MacAskill had been told by medical experts that he was suffering from terminal cancer and had only three months to live. For the record, I should repeat at this juncture that I supported that decision. That that prognosis was spectacularly wrong has, sadly, been proved by the passage of 16 months since his release.
It is not difficult to understand the anger and hurt of the relatives of those killed, many of whom are constituents of the senators.
However, the cause of the bereaved would have been served better had the senators steered clear of this elaborate conspiracy theory.
Time and time again, their 58-page report points the finger at the UK government.
For instance: "The UK government played a direct, critical role in al-Megrahi's release"; " … evidence suggests that UK officials pressured Scotland to facilitate al-Megrahi's release"; " … it would not be surprising that the Scottish government would be susceptible to pressure from the UK government."
Entitled "Justice Undone", the report charts what it sees as a series of suspicious meetings between British politicians – including Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – diplomats and businessmen, all hell-bent on securing a massive oil deal for BP, and Libyan officials. Not surprisingly, given his "non-person" status in the US over the Gulf oil spill, BP chairman Tony Hayward is given a walk-on part in all of this jiggery-pokery. The senators conclude that the UK Government knew that, in order to maintain commercial relations with Libya, "it had to give in to political demands".
"The threat of commercial warfare was a motivating factor", it adds.
The senators may be on firmer ground over their challenging of the medical evidence used as the basis for Megrahi's release. But even here they cannot resist sketching out an elaborate plot, involving Dr Andrew Fraser, the senior doctor at the Scottish Prison Service – accusing him of attending "political meetings" that "may have influenced his decision".
They also come up with a frankly spurious list of supposed powers that the UK Government could have used to stop Megrahi being freed and also claim that another reason for freeing the bomber was pressure from the Qataris who were poised to take over Sainsbury's, which the senators say is a "Scottish food producer". News to me!
Where the senators will find many supporters, however, is in their final conclusion – namely that the release was a straightforward bit of grandstanding: "The compassionate release option allowed First Minister Salmond to inject Scotland on the international stage."
The sad fact remains that this report is nothing more than supposition dressed up as fact, opinion masquerading as truth.
It has unleashed a great deal of Brit-bashing, too. That is unfortunate but is as nothing when compared to the grief of the bereaved families. Their cause has not been aided by this nonsense of a report.
Given that he is still alive more than a year later proves that the release of this mass murderer may well have been a mistake. But he was released on compassionate, not commercial, grounds.
[From an opinion piece on the website of the Conservative-supporting Daily Telegraph by the paper's Scottish Editor.]
'Bonkers' US claim on bomber
[This is the headline over the report in The Sun on the four US senators' report on the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. It reads in part:]
A report by US senators into the freeing of the Lockerbie bomber was branded "bonkers" last night - after it claimed he may have been released to clear the way for an Arab takeover of the Sainsbury's supermarket chain.
The four politicians claim Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, 58, was freed from prison in Scotland following a campaign of "commercial warfare" by Libya.
And they want Megrahi sent back to prison and a public apology from the British Government after branding his release "incredibly flawed".
But last night their report was branded "ridiculous and bizarre" by a member of the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee.
[SNP] MSP Stewart Maxwell said: "It is bonkers. It is an absolute work of ill-informed fiction.
"They started off making wild claims about BP lobbying for the release of Megrahi and end up making the most bizarre allegations about the Sainsbury's buyout.
"This report is a piece of politically motivated propaganda that lets down all those who worked long and hard to see justice done in the Lockerbie case." (...)
Their report accused the British and Scottish Governments of caving in to Libya's demands to protect multi-million pound oil deals and arms sales.
And it also alleges First Minister Alex Salmond agreed to the release after pressure from Qatar in order to smooth the way for the Sainsbury's takeover - incorrectly branding the chain a "Scottish food producer". The report, titled Justice Undone: The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber, claims: "The Qatar Investment Authority is attempting a complete takeover of the Scottish food producer Sainsbury's, worth £9.8billion. It shows that the Scottish Government had reasons to heed Qatar's calls for al-Megrahi's release." (...)
And it suggests the two Scottish doctors who ruled Megrahi had just months to live had been influence by Libyan medics.
But the report contains no new evidence to back up its claims.
A spokesman for the Foreign Office said last night: "Senator Menendez's report contains no evidence to demonstrate a link between the pursuit of Britain's legitimate commercial interests in Libya and the Scottish Executive's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds."
[The Scottish Government's official -- and scathing -- response to the senators' work of imaginative fiction can be read here.
Scottish media news reports on the topic can be found in The Herald, The Scotsman, The Press and Journal and The Courier.]
A report by US senators into the freeing of the Lockerbie bomber was branded "bonkers" last night - after it claimed he may have been released to clear the way for an Arab takeover of the Sainsbury's supermarket chain.
The four politicians claim Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, 58, was freed from prison in Scotland following a campaign of "commercial warfare" by Libya.
And they want Megrahi sent back to prison and a public apology from the British Government after branding his release "incredibly flawed".
But last night their report was branded "ridiculous and bizarre" by a member of the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee.
[SNP] MSP Stewart Maxwell said: "It is bonkers. It is an absolute work of ill-informed fiction.
"They started off making wild claims about BP lobbying for the release of Megrahi and end up making the most bizarre allegations about the Sainsbury's buyout.
"This report is a piece of politically motivated propaganda that lets down all those who worked long and hard to see justice done in the Lockerbie case." (...)
Their report accused the British and Scottish Governments of caving in to Libya's demands to protect multi-million pound oil deals and arms sales.
And it also alleges First Minister Alex Salmond agreed to the release after pressure from Qatar in order to smooth the way for the Sainsbury's takeover - incorrectly branding the chain a "Scottish food producer". The report, titled Justice Undone: The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber, claims: "The Qatar Investment Authority is attempting a complete takeover of the Scottish food producer Sainsbury's, worth £9.8billion. It shows that the Scottish Government had reasons to heed Qatar's calls for al-Megrahi's release." (...)
And it suggests the two Scottish doctors who ruled Megrahi had just months to live had been influence by Libyan medics.
But the report contains no new evidence to back up its claims.
A spokesman for the Foreign Office said last night: "Senator Menendez's report contains no evidence to demonstrate a link between the pursuit of Britain's legitimate commercial interests in Libya and the Scottish Executive's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds."
[The Scottish Government's official -- and scathing -- response to the senators' work of imaginative fiction can be read here.
Scottish media news reports on the topic can be found in The Herald, The Scotsman, The Press and Journal and The Courier.]
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Government urged to release secret files
[This is the headline over a report by Bob Smyth in this week's edition of The Sunday Post. It is not on the newspaper's website but has just been sent to me. It reads as follows:]
The Scottish Government is under pressure to change the law to allow the release of secret files on the Lockerbie case.
Campaigners desperately want to study an 800-page dossier on bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s abandoned appeal.
They say the Scottish Government could change the legislation to allow that — but they are stalling.
The row erupted after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission revealed earlier this month it had failed to get the green light to release details of its “statement of reasons” for referring Megrahi’s case back to court for the appeal. That’s because the law requires that all those involved agree to the release of the files.
The main parties include Megrahi, the Crown Office, the Foreign Office and police. It’s understood none have given the required unqualified consent.
The Scottish Government admits it’s disappointed the information couldn’t be made public and says it will now consider a law change to get round the need to get the go-ahead from all those involved.
But ministers say it would need the lengthy process of an Act of Parliament to do that.
Campaigners who doubt Megrahi’s guilt say this “primary legislation” is not necessary and the change could be done a lot quicker through a simple variation of the legal order that put the consent rule in place.
MSP Christine Grahame, who is battling for answers on Lockerbie, has tabled a motion in the Scottish Parliament. It says she is unsurprised consent wasn’t given and calls for the Scottish Government to repeal or amend the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order.
She has also lodged a question, asking ministers if they’ll delete the part of the order that says everyone’s consent is needed.
She said, “I don’t understand the suggestion that primary legislation is necessary. There would be no time to get it through the Parliament before next year’s elections.
“It could be done before then in the way I have suggested.”
She said the consent requirements amount to a “gagging order”.
“Given that the Crown Office, the police and the UK Government are involved, why would they possibly agree to a release of information that might show that Megrahi should never have been found guilty?
“They’ve just stonewalled the whole thing.”
Professor Robert Black, a legal expert who was the architect of the Lockerbie trial, agreed a change to the law could be done quicker.
He said, “It doesn’t have to be an Act of Parliament and go through all the committee procedure and other stages that entails.
“When the Scottish Government say they’re considering primary legislation, given that’s not necessary, we have to ask what they are playing at.
“The suspicion is they are simply adopting delaying tactics.”
A Scottish Government spokesman said, “Based on legal considerations about the most effective way of overcoming constraints of existing legislation, we are now considering primary legislation to address the issue of consent while retaining the necessary protection for any third parties potentially affected.”
The Scottish Government is under pressure to change the law to allow the release of secret files on the Lockerbie case.
Campaigners desperately want to study an 800-page dossier on bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s abandoned appeal.
They say the Scottish Government could change the legislation to allow that — but they are stalling.
The row erupted after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission revealed earlier this month it had failed to get the green light to release details of its “statement of reasons” for referring Megrahi’s case back to court for the appeal. That’s because the law requires that all those involved agree to the release of the files.
The main parties include Megrahi, the Crown Office, the Foreign Office and police. It’s understood none have given the required unqualified consent.
The Scottish Government admits it’s disappointed the information couldn’t be made public and says it will now consider a law change to get round the need to get the go-ahead from all those involved.
But ministers say it would need the lengthy process of an Act of Parliament to do that.
Campaigners who doubt Megrahi’s guilt say this “primary legislation” is not necessary and the change could be done a lot quicker through a simple variation of the legal order that put the consent rule in place.
MSP Christine Grahame, who is battling for answers on Lockerbie, has tabled a motion in the Scottish Parliament. It says she is unsurprised consent wasn’t given and calls for the Scottish Government to repeal or amend the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order.
She has also lodged a question, asking ministers if they’ll delete the part of the order that says everyone’s consent is needed.
She said, “I don’t understand the suggestion that primary legislation is necessary. There would be no time to get it through the Parliament before next year’s elections.
“It could be done before then in the way I have suggested.”
She said the consent requirements amount to a “gagging order”.
“Given that the Crown Office, the police and the UK Government are involved, why would they possibly agree to a release of information that might show that Megrahi should never have been found guilty?
“They’ve just stonewalled the whole thing.”
Professor Robert Black, a legal expert who was the architect of the Lockerbie trial, agreed a change to the law could be done quicker.
He said, “It doesn’t have to be an Act of Parliament and go through all the committee procedure and other stages that entails.
“When the Scottish Government say they’re considering primary legislation, given that’s not necessary, we have to ask what they are playing at.
“The suspicion is they are simply adopting delaying tactics.”
A Scottish Government spokesman said, “Based on legal considerations about the most effective way of overcoming constraints of existing legislation, we are now considering primary legislation to address the issue of consent while retaining the necessary protection for any third parties potentially affected.”
UK officials greased Lockerbie bomber's release, report finds
[This is the headline over an article just published on the msnbc.com website based on an advance copy of the report to be issued today by US Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Schumer and Gillibrand. It reads in part:]
Intense political pressures and "commercial warfare" waged by the regime of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi led to last year’s release of the "unrepentant terrorist" who blew up Pam Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, according to a new report prepared by four US senators.
The report is being released Tuesday, 22 years to the day after a terrorist bomb exploded aboard the Pan Am airliner, killing 270 people — including 189 Americans — in one of the deadliest acts of domestic terrorism prior to 9/11.
An advance copy of the report – titled Justice Undone: The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber — was provided to NBC News.
The report finds that senior officials under former British Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown quietly and repeatedly pressured Scottish authorities to release Abdel Baset Ali al-al-Megrahi, the former Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the bombing.
They did so in order to protect British business interests in Libya, including a $900 million BP oil deal that the Libyans had threatened to cut off, as well as a $165 million arms sale with a British defense firm that was signed the same month al-Megrahi was freed from prison, the report states.
“This was a case in which commercial and economic considerations trumped the message of our global fight against terrorism,” said Sen Bob Menendez, D-NJ, one of the four senators, who commissioned the report by a Senate investigator.
"God forbid there should be another terrorist attack. We have to make it impossible that anything like this injustice takes place again," he added.
The report also concludes that, in releasing Megrahi last year on the grounds that he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer and had only three months to live, Scottish authorities relied on a "false" and "flawed" medical prognosis that was possibly influenced by a doctor hired by the Libyan government. (Although there were recent reports that Megrahi was in a coma, that account has been disputed. As the Senate report notes, he remains alive, reportedly living in a luxury villa in Tripoli.)
The Senate report calls for a renewed investigation into Megrahi’s release by the State Department and a public apology by both the British and Scottish governments.
That request was rejected this week by both British and Scottish officials. "We totally reject their false interpretation," a Scottish government spokesperson said in an emailed response to NBC News. The decision to release Megrahi "was not based on political, economic or diplomatic considerations, but on the precepts of Scots law and nothing else."
[For those with a strong stomach, the full report by the four senators can be read here.
There is now a report on the Telegraph website which can be read here.]
Intense political pressures and "commercial warfare" waged by the regime of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi led to last year’s release of the "unrepentant terrorist" who blew up Pam Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, according to a new report prepared by four US senators.
The report is being released Tuesday, 22 years to the day after a terrorist bomb exploded aboard the Pan Am airliner, killing 270 people — including 189 Americans — in one of the deadliest acts of domestic terrorism prior to 9/11.
An advance copy of the report – titled Justice Undone: The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber — was provided to NBC News.
The report finds that senior officials under former British Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown quietly and repeatedly pressured Scottish authorities to release Abdel Baset Ali al-al-Megrahi, the former Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the bombing.
They did so in order to protect British business interests in Libya, including a $900 million BP oil deal that the Libyans had threatened to cut off, as well as a $165 million arms sale with a British defense firm that was signed the same month al-Megrahi was freed from prison, the report states.
“This was a case in which commercial and economic considerations trumped the message of our global fight against terrorism,” said Sen Bob Menendez, D-NJ, one of the four senators, who commissioned the report by a Senate investigator.
"God forbid there should be another terrorist attack. We have to make it impossible that anything like this injustice takes place again," he added.
The report also concludes that, in releasing Megrahi last year on the grounds that he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer and had only three months to live, Scottish authorities relied on a "false" and "flawed" medical prognosis that was possibly influenced by a doctor hired by the Libyan government. (Although there were recent reports that Megrahi was in a coma, that account has been disputed. As the Senate report notes, he remains alive, reportedly living in a luxury villa in Tripoli.)
The Senate report calls for a renewed investigation into Megrahi’s release by the State Department and a public apology by both the British and Scottish governments.
That request was rejected this week by both British and Scottish officials. "We totally reject their false interpretation," a Scottish government spokesperson said in an emailed response to NBC News. The decision to release Megrahi "was not based on political, economic or diplomatic considerations, but on the precepts of Scots law and nothing else."
[For those with a strong stomach, the full report by the four senators can be read here.
There is now a report on the Telegraph website which can be read here.]
More shameless politicking
Senator to unveil finding of Scotland's release of Pan Am bomber
Sen Robert Menendez will unveil Tuesday the results of his office's investigation into the release of convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdelbeset al-Megrahi.
The results are expected on the 22nd anniversary of the bombing, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988, killing 259 people on the plane and 11 on the ground.
Al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison last year on the grounds that he had cancer and was not likely to live more than three more months. But Menendez has asserted he is not terminally ill.
The lawmaker said he undertook the investigation after British and Scottish officials refused to testify at a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing he was scheduled to chair in July.
[The above is the opening section of a report just published on the CNN ebsite.]
Sen Robert Menendez will unveil Tuesday the results of his office's investigation into the release of convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdelbeset al-Megrahi.
The results are expected on the 22nd anniversary of the bombing, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988, killing 259 people on the plane and 11 on the ground.
Al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison last year on the grounds that he had cancer and was not likely to live more than three more months. But Menendez has asserted he is not terminally ill.
The lawmaker said he undertook the investigation after British and Scottish officials refused to testify at a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing he was scheduled to chair in July.
[The above is the opening section of a report just published on the CNN ebsite.]
Tory politicking on Lockerbie anniversary
[Today is the twenty-second anniversary of the Lockerbie disaster. A number of print and broadcast media run commemorative features and interviews with relatives of victims. Two examples can be found here and here.
But the Scottish Conservative Party has chosen today to launch a further attack on the compassionate release in August 2009 of Abdelbaset Megrahi. A report in today's edition of The Herald reads in part:]
The Conservatives have renewed their attack on the decision to release the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing on the 22nd anniversary of the atrocity. (...)
Conservative justice spokesman John Lamont said yesterday: “The decision by the SNP to release the Lockerbie bomber was a bad decision, made badly.
“But, as a consequence he has spent the last 18 months with his family and friends in Libya. He has been allowed to live his final weeks and months with those he loves.
“That is something he denied his victims.” (...)
A Scottish Government spokesman said last night: “Our thoughts and sympathies are with all those affected by the events of that terrible night, but most especially the families and relatives, wherever they are in the world.
“Scotland’s justice system has been dealing with the Lockerbie atrocity for 22 years and in every regard the due process of Scots law has been followed – in terms of the investigation, prosecution, imprisonment, rejection of the prisoner transfer application and granting of compassionate release.”
[The Tory Party in Scotland is moribund. In this year's UK general election it won one Scottish seat out of a total of fifty-nine. In the light of political crassness such as is displayed in the above statement, it is not difficult to see why.]
But the Scottish Conservative Party has chosen today to launch a further attack on the compassionate release in August 2009 of Abdelbaset Megrahi. A report in today's edition of The Herald reads in part:]
The Conservatives have renewed their attack on the decision to release the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing on the 22nd anniversary of the atrocity. (...)
Conservative justice spokesman John Lamont said yesterday: “The decision by the SNP to release the Lockerbie bomber was a bad decision, made badly.
“But, as a consequence he has spent the last 18 months with his family and friends in Libya. He has been allowed to live his final weeks and months with those he loves.
“That is something he denied his victims.” (...)
A Scottish Government spokesman said last night: “Our thoughts and sympathies are with all those affected by the events of that terrible night, but most especially the families and relatives, wherever they are in the world.
“Scotland’s justice system has been dealing with the Lockerbie atrocity for 22 years and in every regard the due process of Scots law has been followed – in terms of the investigation, prosecution, imprisonment, rejection of the prisoner transfer application and granting of compassionate release.”
[The Tory Party in Scotland is moribund. In this year's UK general election it won one Scottish seat out of a total of fifty-nine. In the light of political crassness such as is displayed in the above statement, it is not difficult to see why.]
Monday, 20 December 2010
Tell the truth over Lockerbie
[This is the headline over an article published today on the website of the Morning Star. It reads in part:]
A Scottish MSP accused the Foreign Office and other interested parties today of using legal blocks to hide evidence in a review of the conviction of the only man jailed for the Lockerbie bombing.
Christine Grahame of the Scottish National Party called for a change to legislation which has allowed the Foreign Office, Crown Office and other parties to "block" publication of a report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission into the 2001 conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. (...)
The SCCRC conducted a review of the conviction and found that a potential miscarriage of justice may have occurred. But the commission has been prevented from publishing its Statement of Reasons after the Foreign Office and Crown Office apparently refused permission.
Under the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009, interested third parties can refuse permission for disclosure of evidence they directly or indirectly provided to an investigation.
Ms Grahame told the Star that the law effectively acted as "a gagging order" and said that the Scottish government should amend it to allow publication of all the evidence in the case.
Ms Grahame has tabled a parliamentary motion arguing that, under the order: "Third parties such as the Crown Office and the Foreign Office and relevant police authorities have refused consent in writing to disclosure of information provided directly or indeed indirectly by them."
That meant, she said, that "parties with an interest in the conviction remain untested, and, as a consequence, that access to undisclosed information has been successfully blocked."
She urged the government to repeal or amend the order "in the interests of openness, accountability and justice."
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, told MSPs at Holyrood last month: "I now believe that Scottish justice's verdict on this man is not safe, it must be re-examined.
"And until it is, the name of Scottish justice will lie in the gutter."
A Scottish government spokesperson said: "The Scottish government has always wanted to be as open and transparent as possible on this issue.
"Based on legal considerations about the most effective way of overcoming constraints of existing legislation, we are now considering primary legislation to address the issue of consent while retaining the necessary protection for any third parties potentially affected."
The Foreign Office had not responded by time of press.
A Scottish MSP accused the Foreign Office and other interested parties today of using legal blocks to hide evidence in a review of the conviction of the only man jailed for the Lockerbie bombing.
Christine Grahame of the Scottish National Party called for a change to legislation which has allowed the Foreign Office, Crown Office and other parties to "block" publication of a report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission into the 2001 conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. (...)
The SCCRC conducted a review of the conviction and found that a potential miscarriage of justice may have occurred. But the commission has been prevented from publishing its Statement of Reasons after the Foreign Office and Crown Office apparently refused permission.
Under the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009, interested third parties can refuse permission for disclosure of evidence they directly or indirectly provided to an investigation.
Ms Grahame told the Star that the law effectively acted as "a gagging order" and said that the Scottish government should amend it to allow publication of all the evidence in the case.
Ms Grahame has tabled a parliamentary motion arguing that, under the order: "Third parties such as the Crown Office and the Foreign Office and relevant police authorities have refused consent in writing to disclosure of information provided directly or indeed indirectly by them."
That meant, she said, that "parties with an interest in the conviction remain untested, and, as a consequence, that access to undisclosed information has been successfully blocked."
She urged the government to repeal or amend the order "in the interests of openness, accountability and justice."
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, told MSPs at Holyrood last month: "I now believe that Scottish justice's verdict on this man is not safe, it must be re-examined.
"And until it is, the name of Scottish justice will lie in the gutter."
A Scottish government spokesperson said: "The Scottish government has always wanted to be as open and transparent as possible on this issue.
"Based on legal considerations about the most effective way of overcoming constraints of existing legislation, we are now considering primary legislation to address the issue of consent while retaining the necessary protection for any third parties potentially affected."
The Foreign Office had not responded by time of press.
Timeline of events leading to Megrahi's release
A useful timeline can be found here on the 24dash.com website.
Another Lockerbie bomb is set to go off
[This is the heading over an article by George Galloway on his blog on the Daily Record website. It reads as follows:]
I'm going to Libya in the first week of the new year with Mick Devine, of the Scottish-Libyan business link, and Celtic supporters champion Brian Dempsey. The priority is to win business orders for Scots companies and thus jobs for Scottish workers. But if Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is still alive and conscious, I hope to speak with him.
If not, I'm promised discussions with those in possession of the kind of evidence which will explode the real scandal.
Not that the Scottish government released Megrahi from jail but that the Crown kept Megrahi behind bars when they knew he was an innocent man.
In any case, I will be discussing these issues at the highest levels and I give the Crown Office fair notice that if I get to Holyrood, I'm going to unmask this conspiracy.
The Scottish Crown Office is in all sorts of trouble now but that's as nothing, compared to the storm brewing for them if I get elected to the Scottish Parliament in May.
There are several decisions they have made which I shall be pursuing but none is as serious as the case of Megrahi. The Scottish government took abuse for releasing him on compassionate grounds due to his imminent demise, now so imminent that even the most hardened cynic should shut up, surely.
The First Minister was even accused of seeking Libyan largesse for Scotland in return for the release now debunked by the Wikileaks revelations that Scotland turned down "a parade of goodies", as Salmond always insisted.
But the real scandal is not that he was released but that he was incarcerated for so long in the first place.
The appeal against conviction, which he was forced to withdraw for no necessary legal reason, contained material so explosive as to put even the murderous attack on the airliner into the shade.
Those who placed the bomb on board PanAm 103 were terrorists. The bombs in Megrahi's appeal all relate to the Crown Office.
I believe they knew the Libyan was innocent and he was convicted on trumped-up charges, while his country was falsely accused.
I'm going to Libya in the first week of the new year with Mick Devine, of the Scottish-Libyan business link, and Celtic supporters champion Brian Dempsey. The priority is to win business orders for Scots companies and thus jobs for Scottish workers. But if Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is still alive and conscious, I hope to speak with him.
If not, I'm promised discussions with those in possession of the kind of evidence which will explode the real scandal.
Not that the Scottish government released Megrahi from jail but that the Crown kept Megrahi behind bars when they knew he was an innocent man.
In any case, I will be discussing these issues at the highest levels and I give the Crown Office fair notice that if I get to Holyrood, I'm going to unmask this conspiracy.
The Scottish Crown Office is in all sorts of trouble now but that's as nothing, compared to the storm brewing for them if I get elected to the Scottish Parliament in May.
There are several decisions they have made which I shall be pursuing but none is as serious as the case of Megrahi. The Scottish government took abuse for releasing him on compassionate grounds due to his imminent demise, now so imminent that even the most hardened cynic should shut up, surely.
The First Minister was even accused of seeking Libyan largesse for Scotland in return for the release now debunked by the Wikileaks revelations that Scotland turned down "a parade of goodies", as Salmond always insisted.
But the real scandal is not that he was released but that he was incarcerated for so long in the first place.
The appeal against conviction, which he was forced to withdraw for no necessary legal reason, contained material so explosive as to put even the murderous attack on the airliner into the shade.
Those who placed the bomb on board PanAm 103 were terrorists. The bombs in Megrahi's appeal all relate to the Crown Office.
I believe they knew the Libyan was innocent and he was convicted on trumped-up charges, while his country was falsely accused.
Sunday, 19 December 2010
Lockerbie bomber's family set to appeal
[This is the headline over a report by Ben Borland in today's edition of the Sunday Express. It reads in part:]
Two of the Lockerbie bomber’s children are set to launch an appeal against his conviction within days of his death, the Sunday Express understands.
Ghada and Khaled al-Megrahi are determined to clear their father’s name and have been working hard behind the scenes to prepare another legal challenge in the Scottish courts.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who is believed to be close to death in a coma in a Libyan hospital, dropped his second appeal shortly before his compassionate release in August 2009.
Ghada, 27, who is a qualified lawyer in Tripoli, and Khaled, 24, now plan to use the evidence gathered by his legal team, much of which has never been in the public domain before.
Legal experts said there is a much greater likelihood of an appeal being granted after death if the request comes from a member of the convicted person’s immediate family.
Both siblings, the eldest of Megrahi’s five children, spent many years in Scotland and are understood to be confident about tackling the intricacies of the legal system.
Families campaigner Jim Swire, who met the entire family when he flew to Tripoli to visit Megrahi recently, said they were determined to ensure that the “fight goes on” after his death.
“Between the two of them they know what they are going to do,” he added.
Khaled has also signed a Scottish Parliament petition calling for a new inquiry into the 1988 atrocity, which claimed 270 lives when a Pan Am passenger jet was blown up over Scotland.
Mr Swire said: “I spoke to him before he signed it and he was in favour of anything that might lead to a further inspection of the conviction of his dad. I also understand from my visit that the money set aside by Colonel Gaddafi for fighting his corner has pretty much gone. His advice to us has been to hold your horses until poor old Baset has gone.”
Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, explained Megrahi’s appeal was now “dead” and a fresh application would have to be made to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
“There are two tests for granting an appeal,” he said. “One, has there been a miscarriage of justice and the SCCRC has already decided that there may have been.
And two, is it in the interests of justice?
“It would be easier for the convicted man’s family to establish that an appeal is in the interests of justice than for anybody else, such as a victim’s relative like Jim Swire.” (...)
In a rare interview before Megrahi’s release, after Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill judged he had less than three months to live, both Ghada and Khaled spoke of their anger.
Khaled, who recently completed a four year IT degree at a Glasgow university, said: “We have always tried to believe in the Scottish justice system and don’t want to be let down now. Everyone in Libya believes my father is innocent and I think many here do too.”
Ghada added: “I wanted to go into law because of what happened to my father and people like him who are wrongly accused.”
[Any attempt by Mr Megrahi's family to launch a fresh appeal via the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission would, of course, have to surmount the disgraceful new hurdles erected by the Scottish Parliament in section 7 of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 (the Cadder emergency legislation).]
Two of the Lockerbie bomber’s children are set to launch an appeal against his conviction within days of his death, the Sunday Express understands.
Ghada and Khaled al-Megrahi are determined to clear their father’s name and have been working hard behind the scenes to prepare another legal challenge in the Scottish courts.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who is believed to be close to death in a coma in a Libyan hospital, dropped his second appeal shortly before his compassionate release in August 2009.
Ghada, 27, who is a qualified lawyer in Tripoli, and Khaled, 24, now plan to use the evidence gathered by his legal team, much of which has never been in the public domain before.
Legal experts said there is a much greater likelihood of an appeal being granted after death if the request comes from a member of the convicted person’s immediate family.
Both siblings, the eldest of Megrahi’s five children, spent many years in Scotland and are understood to be confident about tackling the intricacies of the legal system.
Families campaigner Jim Swire, who met the entire family when he flew to Tripoli to visit Megrahi recently, said they were determined to ensure that the “fight goes on” after his death.
“Between the two of them they know what they are going to do,” he added.
Khaled has also signed a Scottish Parliament petition calling for a new inquiry into the 1988 atrocity, which claimed 270 lives when a Pan Am passenger jet was blown up over Scotland.
Mr Swire said: “I spoke to him before he signed it and he was in favour of anything that might lead to a further inspection of the conviction of his dad. I also understand from my visit that the money set aside by Colonel Gaddafi for fighting his corner has pretty much gone. His advice to us has been to hold your horses until poor old Baset has gone.”
Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, explained Megrahi’s appeal was now “dead” and a fresh application would have to be made to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
“There are two tests for granting an appeal,” he said. “One, has there been a miscarriage of justice and the SCCRC has already decided that there may have been.
And two, is it in the interests of justice?
“It would be easier for the convicted man’s family to establish that an appeal is in the interests of justice than for anybody else, such as a victim’s relative like Jim Swire.” (...)
In a rare interview before Megrahi’s release, after Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill judged he had less than three months to live, both Ghada and Khaled spoke of their anger.
Khaled, who recently completed a four year IT degree at a Glasgow university, said: “We have always tried to believe in the Scottish justice system and don’t want to be let down now. Everyone in Libya believes my father is innocent and I think many here do too.”
Ghada added: “I wanted to go into law because of what happened to my father and people like him who are wrongly accused.”
[Any attempt by Mr Megrahi's family to launch a fresh appeal via the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission would, of course, have to surmount the disgraceful new hurdles erected by the Scottish Parliament in section 7 of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 (the Cadder emergency legislation).]
Saturday, 18 December 2010
Gaddafi's threats or treats
[This is the headline over an article by John Fund on the website of The Wall Street Journal. It reads as follows:]
Despite its unsavory and reckless practices, WikiLeaks is clearing up some international mysteries—among them last year's release of the Lockerbie bomber by Scottish authorities.
At the time, Sean Connery, the actor and longtime Scottish nationalist, said that "I doubt we will ever know the full story" of why the Libyan agent who helped blow a Pan Am airliner out of the sky in 1988 was freed. Well, we now know a lot more. US diplomatic cables show that Britain was threatened and bullied into releasing the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi. He was finally sent home based on flimsy medical predictions that he had three months to live and should be allowed to die at home with his family. That was 16 months ago and Megrahi is still very much alive.
A cable by US diplomat Richard LeBaron reveals that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi made "thuggish" threats to kill all trade deals with Britain and harass its embassy staff in Tripoli if no release was forthcoming. In 2008, Mr. LeBaron wrote to Washington that "The Libyans have told [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."
Although the Libyans combined their threats with an offer of "treats" for Scottish authorities in exchange for Megrahi's release, the US cables indicate that the Scots turned the offer down. British ministers weren't so honorable. When they faced international outrage over the release, they tried to deflect blame for it onto the Scots. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hid behind the fact that Scotland has control of its own criminal justice system and said that his government "could not interfere and had no control over the final outcome."
But the cables reveal that it was British ministers who nudged Alex Salmond, the Scottish Nationalist minister, to take the political heat for releasing Megrahi. US diplomats were told by Jack Straw, who was British Justice Secretary at the time, that Megrahi might live another five years after any release, but the decision was still made to let him go.
While it's true that Britain kept its trade deals with Libya, the episode is now revealed to be another example of a democracy knuckling under to a dictator's threats. The latest revelations only embolden other dictators to use the same tactics in the future.
Despite its unsavory and reckless practices, WikiLeaks is clearing up some international mysteries—among them last year's release of the Lockerbie bomber by Scottish authorities.
At the time, Sean Connery, the actor and longtime Scottish nationalist, said that "I doubt we will ever know the full story" of why the Libyan agent who helped blow a Pan Am airliner out of the sky in 1988 was freed. Well, we now know a lot more. US diplomatic cables show that Britain was threatened and bullied into releasing the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi. He was finally sent home based on flimsy medical predictions that he had three months to live and should be allowed to die at home with his family. That was 16 months ago and Megrahi is still very much alive.
A cable by US diplomat Richard LeBaron reveals that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi made "thuggish" threats to kill all trade deals with Britain and harass its embassy staff in Tripoli if no release was forthcoming. In 2008, Mr. LeBaron wrote to Washington that "The Libyans have told [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."
Although the Libyans combined their threats with an offer of "treats" for Scottish authorities in exchange for Megrahi's release, the US cables indicate that the Scots turned the offer down. British ministers weren't so honorable. When they faced international outrage over the release, they tried to deflect blame for it onto the Scots. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hid behind the fact that Scotland has control of its own criminal justice system and said that his government "could not interfere and had no control over the final outcome."
But the cables reveal that it was British ministers who nudged Alex Salmond, the Scottish Nationalist minister, to take the political heat for releasing Megrahi. US diplomats were told by Jack Straw, who was British Justice Secretary at the time, that Megrahi might live another five years after any release, but the decision was still made to let him go.
While it's true that Britain kept its trade deals with Libya, the episode is now revealed to be another example of a democracy knuckling under to a dictator's threats. The latest revelations only embolden other dictators to use the same tactics in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)