[What follows is the text of a press release issued yesterday by Senator Frank Lautenberg:]
US Senator Frank R Lautenberg (D-NJ) released the following statement today after video footage showed Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi attending a pro-Qaddafi rally in Libya. Megrahi is the only person convicted of the Pan Am 103 bombing and was released from prison on August 20, 2009, under the presumption he had only three months to live.
“The families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 have suffered so much already, and the images of Megrahi at a pro-Qaddafi rally in Libya only add salt to their wounds,” said Lautenberg. “Parading one terrorist out to support another is an affront to justice and further affirmation that Megrahi was released from prison on false pretenses. We will continue to fight for justice on behalf of the Pan Am 103 families.”
Last month, Lautenberg and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder to continue working to bring to justice those responsible for the Pan Am 103 bombing, which killed 189 Americans, as well as to return convicted terrorist Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to prison. A copy of their letter can be found here.
Thursday, 28 July 2011
Campaign group challenges Scots authorities on “duty of care” to Megrahi as Libyan regime changes
[This is the headline over a news item just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
The likelihood of rendition by US authorities of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in the aftermath of the UK’s recognition of the former Libyan rebel forces as the new Government of Libya, has prompted the Justice for Megrahi campaign group to challenge the Scottish prison service, First Minister, Justice Minister and Lord Advocate to explain what commitments have been made to ensure his safety.
Megrahi remains a Scottish prisoner under licence to East Renfrewshire Council, to whom he reports back on a regular basis following his compassionate release.
“In light of the fact that Mr. Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi currently finds himself in a war zone, we wish to ascertain whether or not the Scottish Government, the Scottish Prison Service, Crown Office or other responsible Scottish authorities has any ongoing responsibility for his safety and care and if so what those commitments are?” said Robert Forrester, secretary of the Justice for Megrahi Committee.
“Has he been or will he be offered assistance or advice or the opportunity to return to Scotland, where his safety and medical requirements can be catered for in the company of his family until such time as the conflict in Libya has resolved itself?”
The letter warns of the “additional and very real threats” to Megrahi from the National Transitional Council of Libya, which Foreign Secretary William Hague confirmed was now recognised as the official government of Libya by the UK
“To compound this, demands have been made over the past few months by American officials to arrest and retry Mr. al-Megrahi in the US. Clearly, having been tried and convicted under the arrangements laid down for the Kamp van Zeist trial, to which the United States agreed, Mr. al-Megrahi is still subject to Scottish jurisdiction. One assumes, therefore, that Scotland has a duty of care for the prisoner.”
Professor Robert Black QC has previously said that the United States has no locus or jurisdiction to retry Megrahi without applying for a resolution of the United Nations Security Council.
Proposals floated recently by US Senators and echoed in US media included sending in Navy SEAL "snatch squads" to kidnap and render Megrahi into US custody.
Black has previously warned that the US could "simply ignore international legality, as it did, with the UK's supine support, in launching the invasion of Iraq, and seize Megrahi by force, with or without the connivance of a new Libyan regime."
The Justice for Megrahi Committee have successfully lobbied the Holyrood Petitions Committee to refer their call for an inquiry into the entire Pan Am 103 debacle to the Justice Committee. The matter will be reviewed after the Parliamentary recess.
The letter can be read here.
The likelihood of rendition by US authorities of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in the aftermath of the UK’s recognition of the former Libyan rebel forces as the new Government of Libya, has prompted the Justice for Megrahi campaign group to challenge the Scottish prison service, First Minister, Justice Minister and Lord Advocate to explain what commitments have been made to ensure his safety.
Megrahi remains a Scottish prisoner under licence to East Renfrewshire Council, to whom he reports back on a regular basis following his compassionate release.
“In light of the fact that Mr. Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi currently finds himself in a war zone, we wish to ascertain whether or not the Scottish Government, the Scottish Prison Service, Crown Office or other responsible Scottish authorities has any ongoing responsibility for his safety and care and if so what those commitments are?” said Robert Forrester, secretary of the Justice for Megrahi Committee.
“Has he been or will he be offered assistance or advice or the opportunity to return to Scotland, where his safety and medical requirements can be catered for in the company of his family until such time as the conflict in Libya has resolved itself?”
The letter warns of the “additional and very real threats” to Megrahi from the National Transitional Council of Libya, which Foreign Secretary William Hague confirmed was now recognised as the official government of Libya by the UK
“To compound this, demands have been made over the past few months by American officials to arrest and retry Mr. al-Megrahi in the US. Clearly, having been tried and convicted under the arrangements laid down for the Kamp van Zeist trial, to which the United States agreed, Mr. al-Megrahi is still subject to Scottish jurisdiction. One assumes, therefore, that Scotland has a duty of care for the prisoner.”
Professor Robert Black QC has previously said that the United States has no locus or jurisdiction to retry Megrahi without applying for a resolution of the United Nations Security Council.
Proposals floated recently by US Senators and echoed in US media included sending in Navy SEAL "snatch squads" to kidnap and render Megrahi into US custody.
Black has previously warned that the US could "simply ignore international legality, as it did, with the UK's supine support, in launching the invasion of Iraq, and seize Megrahi by force, with or without the connivance of a new Libyan regime."
The Justice for Megrahi Committee have successfully lobbied the Holyrood Petitions Committee to refer their call for an inquiry into the entire Pan Am 103 debacle to the Justice Committee. The matter will be reviewed after the Parliamentary recess.
The letter can be read here.
No justice until we find the truth surrounding Lockerbie
[This is the heading over a letter from Ruth Marr in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Many years ago, doctors told a family friend that his heart and lungs were in a very bad way, and he had around six months to live; he lived for another 20 years.
Probably most people could recite similar situations, and Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi would also appear to be in that category, still alive almost two years after doctors pronounced that he had approximately three months to live (“Megrahi attends pro-Gaddafi rally”, The Herald, July 27).
It is totally understandable that those who believe Megrahi to be guilty of the Lockerbie bombing atrocity should feel anger and bitterness, but many worrying questions which demand answers hang over the Lockerbie case, and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has identified six areas which suggests the possiblity that Mr Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
The Justice for Megrahi Group has campaigned tirelessly for a public inquiry into all the facts surrounding Lockerbie, and the Public Petition which it raised with the Scottish Parliament, calling for an inquiry, and which garnered huge support from the public, is to be considered by the Parliament’s Justice Committee.
Until we get at the truth surrounding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, and the conviction of Mr Megrahi for that heinous crime, we cannot get justice – not only for Megrahi, but for the victims who perished, the grieving families left behind, and everyone connected with the Lockerbie case, who more than 20 years later, still carry the scars of that terrible tragedy.
[In stark contrast is the article by Iain Macwhirter (with whose views I normally, unlike today, find myself in agreement) in the same newspaper. It reads in relevant part:]
Sometimes in life, you just have to admit you got it wrong.
With hindsight it was a mistake to release Adelbasset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, on compassionate grounds in 2009.
The Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, did the right thing by the tenets of Scots law.
He thought long and hard and, on the basis of medical advice that Megrahi had three months to live, he made the wrong call. So did I, by the way, so I’m not exercising 20/20 hindsight here.
Why was it wrong? First of all, because of the impact on the Lockerbie victims’ families, who have had to endure two years of seeing Megrahi celebrated as a national hero by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s murderous regime in Tripoli.
He has become a potent symbol of defiance by the regime against Western “imperialism”. He was paraded again this week in the latest show of strength by the Libyan dictator.
Of course, we didn’t know in 2009 that we would be at war, effectively, with Gaddafi but Megrahi has now turned into a major propaganda asset for the enemy.
Damage has also been caused to Scotland’s image in America and the rest of the world and it has made our justice system look absurd. Kenny MacAskill took guidance on Scots law on compassionate release, but he was not bound to follow it.
In retrospect he should have said that this involved such an exceptional crime, under such extraordinary circumstances, that it would be morally deficient, if legally correct, to release him from jail. Megrahi could have been allowed compassionate time with his family in Scotland, while still a prisoner.
And yes, I realise there were serious doubts about Megrahi’s guilt. The key prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, was allegedly paid $2 million by the US authorities.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board appeared minded to give him another appeal. But the fact remains that he was convicted by the judges in Camp Zeist in a fair trial; found guilty of the worst terrorist single atrocity in British history. That stands.
Megrahi’s release also fuelled the conspiracy stories that, for some reason, Alex Salmond had become Tony Blair’s best friend and had agreed to spring the Lockerbie bomber so that BP could get its hands on Libyan oil.
The infamous “deal in the desert” did involve a prisoner transfer agreement , though the Scottish Government had no involvement in that, and did not repatriate him under any kind of guidance from London.
It was, as Salmond said, a Scottish decision taken in Scotland. The wrong one – albeit for the right reasons.
[Related news reports in The Herald can be read here and in The Scotsman here. An editorial in The Scotsman can be read here.]
Many years ago, doctors told a family friend that his heart and lungs were in a very bad way, and he had around six months to live; he lived for another 20 years.
Probably most people could recite similar situations, and Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi would also appear to be in that category, still alive almost two years after doctors pronounced that he had approximately three months to live (“Megrahi attends pro-Gaddafi rally”, The Herald, July 27).
It is totally understandable that those who believe Megrahi to be guilty of the Lockerbie bombing atrocity should feel anger and bitterness, but many worrying questions which demand answers hang over the Lockerbie case, and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has identified six areas which suggests the possiblity that Mr Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
The Justice for Megrahi Group has campaigned tirelessly for a public inquiry into all the facts surrounding Lockerbie, and the Public Petition which it raised with the Scottish Parliament, calling for an inquiry, and which garnered huge support from the public, is to be considered by the Parliament’s Justice Committee.
Until we get at the truth surrounding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, and the conviction of Mr Megrahi for that heinous crime, we cannot get justice – not only for Megrahi, but for the victims who perished, the grieving families left behind, and everyone connected with the Lockerbie case, who more than 20 years later, still carry the scars of that terrible tragedy.
[In stark contrast is the article by Iain Macwhirter (with whose views I normally, unlike today, find myself in agreement) in the same newspaper. It reads in relevant part:]
Sometimes in life, you just have to admit you got it wrong.
With hindsight it was a mistake to release Adelbasset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, on compassionate grounds in 2009.
The Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, did the right thing by the tenets of Scots law.
He thought long and hard and, on the basis of medical advice that Megrahi had three months to live, he made the wrong call. So did I, by the way, so I’m not exercising 20/20 hindsight here.
Why was it wrong? First of all, because of the impact on the Lockerbie victims’ families, who have had to endure two years of seeing Megrahi celebrated as a national hero by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s murderous regime in Tripoli.
He has become a potent symbol of defiance by the regime against Western “imperialism”. He was paraded again this week in the latest show of strength by the Libyan dictator.
Of course, we didn’t know in 2009 that we would be at war, effectively, with Gaddafi but Megrahi has now turned into a major propaganda asset for the enemy.
Damage has also been caused to Scotland’s image in America and the rest of the world and it has made our justice system look absurd. Kenny MacAskill took guidance on Scots law on compassionate release, but he was not bound to follow it.
In retrospect he should have said that this involved such an exceptional crime, under such extraordinary circumstances, that it would be morally deficient, if legally correct, to release him from jail. Megrahi could have been allowed compassionate time with his family in Scotland, while still a prisoner.
And yes, I realise there were serious doubts about Megrahi’s guilt. The key prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, was allegedly paid $2 million by the US authorities.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board appeared minded to give him another appeal. But the fact remains that he was convicted by the judges in Camp Zeist in a fair trial; found guilty of the worst terrorist single atrocity in British history. That stands.
Megrahi’s release also fuelled the conspiracy stories that, for some reason, Alex Salmond had become Tony Blair’s best friend and had agreed to spring the Lockerbie bomber so that BP could get its hands on Libyan oil.
The infamous “deal in the desert” did involve a prisoner transfer agreement , though the Scottish Government had no involvement in that, and did not repatriate him under any kind of guidance from London.
It was, as Salmond said, a Scottish decision taken in Scotland. The wrong one – albeit for the right reasons.
[Related news reports in The Herald can be read here and in The Scotsman here. An editorial in The Scotsman can be read here.]
Lockerbie convict appears at rally in Libya
[This is the headline over an item published yesterday on The Lede blog on The New York Times website. It reads in part:]
Video broadcast on Libyan state television on Tuesday of a rally in support of Col Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government appeared to show Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people.
The public appearance in Libya comes nearly two years after Mr Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds and said to have just three months to live.
In a copy of the video posted online by London’s Telegraph, Mr Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence agent, was seated in a wheelchair, wearing a surgical mask. (...)
Britain’s foreign secretary, William Hague, said the footage would stoke further “anger and outrage” at Mr Megrahi’s release from jail in 2009 and was “a further reminder that a great mistake was made,” by Scotland’s local government, the BBC reports. (...)
His continued survival is likely to further anger from some of the families of the victims killed in the bombing. Several American families objected to the release of Mr Megrahi, who served only 8 years of a 27-year minimum sentence. Of the 259 people killed on the plane, 198 were American, and the United States strongly opposed his release. Other victims were killed as the wreckage of the plane plunged to earth in Lockerbie.
Scottish politicians from opposition parties reacted to the footage with anger, Scotland’s STV reports. Iain Gray, of the Scottish Labour Party, called Mr Megrahi’s appearance an “embarrassment” for Mr MacAskill, and the leader of the Scottish government, Alex Salmond. Mr MacAskill and Mr Salmond are leaders of the ruling Scottish National Party.
John Lamont, a Scottish Conservative, said: “The last thing relatives of the 270 people murdered by the Lockerbie bomber need to see is the sight of him alive and well and free, almost two years after he was released by the SNP government.”
Complicating the debate is the fact that the relatives of some people killed in the bombing continue to doubt that Mr Megrahi was responsible for the attack and have called for a fresh inquiry.
Christine Grahame, a member of the Scottish Parliament’s justice committee from the Scottish National Party told STV that she believes Mr Megrahi was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, and is “not unhappy” to see him alive.
[This report at least recognises that serious concerns exist over the conviction of Megrahi, something very unusual, and very welcome, in coverage of Lockerbie in the United States. It also (unlike most UK newspapers apart from The Herald) refers to Megrahi as the "Lockerbie convict", which he is, and not as the "Lockerbie bomber", which, on the evidence, he is not.
An altogether more sensationalist and unbalanced report appears in today's edition of the British tabloid Daily Mirror under the headline Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could be put back behind bars. It reads in part:]
Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could be sent back to prison after Foreign Secretary William Hague dismissed the medical evidence that clinched his freedom. (...)
Mr Hague said: “His appearance on television is a further reminder that a great mistake was made when he was released. This was absolutely the wrong thing to do.
“It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless.
“I think the anger and outrage of many people, particularly the families of those killed at Lockerbie, will be further intensified by what we have seen.”
Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said: “Seeing al-Megrahi as a cheerleader for a dictator indicted for war crimes has turned the stomach of our nation.”
A senior Foreign Office source said Libyan rebels could hand al-Megrahi, 59, back to Britain or extradite him to the US if they topple Gaddafi.
[Yet more coverage of William Hague's defamatory comments about the medical advice on which Kenny MacAskill acted. Don't newspapers have their reports legalled any more?
A typically inflammatory editorial in the Daily Mail headed "Libya is a stain on Britain’s conscience" can be read here.]
Video broadcast on Libyan state television on Tuesday of a rally in support of Col Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government appeared to show Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people.
The public appearance in Libya comes nearly two years after Mr Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds and said to have just three months to live.
In a copy of the video posted online by London’s Telegraph, Mr Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence agent, was seated in a wheelchair, wearing a surgical mask. (...)
Britain’s foreign secretary, William Hague, said the footage would stoke further “anger and outrage” at Mr Megrahi’s release from jail in 2009 and was “a further reminder that a great mistake was made,” by Scotland’s local government, the BBC reports. (...)
His continued survival is likely to further anger from some of the families of the victims killed in the bombing. Several American families objected to the release of Mr Megrahi, who served only 8 years of a 27-year minimum sentence. Of the 259 people killed on the plane, 198 were American, and the United States strongly opposed his release. Other victims were killed as the wreckage of the plane plunged to earth in Lockerbie.
Scottish politicians from opposition parties reacted to the footage with anger, Scotland’s STV reports. Iain Gray, of the Scottish Labour Party, called Mr Megrahi’s appearance an “embarrassment” for Mr MacAskill, and the leader of the Scottish government, Alex Salmond. Mr MacAskill and Mr Salmond are leaders of the ruling Scottish National Party.
John Lamont, a Scottish Conservative, said: “The last thing relatives of the 270 people murdered by the Lockerbie bomber need to see is the sight of him alive and well and free, almost two years after he was released by the SNP government.”
Complicating the debate is the fact that the relatives of some people killed in the bombing continue to doubt that Mr Megrahi was responsible for the attack and have called for a fresh inquiry.
Christine Grahame, a member of the Scottish Parliament’s justice committee from the Scottish National Party told STV that she believes Mr Megrahi was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, and is “not unhappy” to see him alive.
[This report at least recognises that serious concerns exist over the conviction of Megrahi, something very unusual, and very welcome, in coverage of Lockerbie in the United States. It also (unlike most UK newspapers apart from The Herald) refers to Megrahi as the "Lockerbie convict", which he is, and not as the "Lockerbie bomber", which, on the evidence, he is not.
An altogether more sensationalist and unbalanced report appears in today's edition of the British tabloid Daily Mirror under the headline Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could be put back behind bars. It reads in part:]
Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could be sent back to prison after Foreign Secretary William Hague dismissed the medical evidence that clinched his freedom. (...)
Mr Hague said: “His appearance on television is a further reminder that a great mistake was made when he was released. This was absolutely the wrong thing to do.
“It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless.
“I think the anger and outrage of many people, particularly the families of those killed at Lockerbie, will be further intensified by what we have seen.”
Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said: “Seeing al-Megrahi as a cheerleader for a dictator indicted for war crimes has turned the stomach of our nation.”
A senior Foreign Office source said Libyan rebels could hand al-Megrahi, 59, back to Britain or extradite him to the US if they topple Gaddafi.
[Yet more coverage of William Hague's defamatory comments about the medical advice on which Kenny MacAskill acted. Don't newspapers have their reports legalled any more?
A typically inflammatory editorial in the Daily Mail headed "Libya is a stain on Britain’s conscience" can be read here.]
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Defamation, anyone?
[The following are excerpts from the report on The Telegraph website of Foreign Secretary William Hague's press conference comments following the television pictures of Abdelbaset Megrahi at a Tripoli rally yesterday:]
"The Prime Minister and I, when we were in opposition, both strongly disagreed with that position by Scottish ministers", said Mr Hague at a press conference in London when he announced the expulsion of Libyan diplomats loyal to Gaddafi.
"We disagreed with what has subsequently been revealed about the facilitation by the previous Labour government at Westminster of moves towards the release of al-Megrahi."
He added: "This was absolutely the wrong thing to do. It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless." (...)
The Scottish Government stood by its decision to release al-Megrahi on Wednesday and defended the medical advice that led to it.
“Al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds based on the recommendations of the Parole Board, the prison governor and the medical report of the Scottish Prison Service’s most senior health professional,” a spokesman from the Scottish government said.
“This material is all in the public domain – including the medical report – and it all vindicates the Scottish Government’s position.”
"Indeed, it is clear that only the Scottish Government played with a straight bat on this matter, while the UK Government said one thing in public and another in private," the spokesman insisted.
“The Scottish Parliament Justice Committee examined all relevant aspects of this issue, and concluded that the decision was taken ‘in good faith’.
“Instead of criticising a senior health professional, Mr Hague should understand that the medical advice to the Justice Secretary came from Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, a professional of impeccable integrity."
[To accuse a senior doctor of supplying medical advice which was "pretty much worthless" is grossly defamatory. Mr Hague was speaking at a press conference, not in Parliament. His comments are accordingly not subject to absolute privilege. Dr Fraser should consider suing for defamation.
In this and the previous post, I should not, of course, have disseminated the defamatory imputation. But since The Independent, The Telegraph and countless other organs of the media have done so, I'm prepared to live (just a little) dangerously.]
"The Prime Minister and I, when we were in opposition, both strongly disagreed with that position by Scottish ministers", said Mr Hague at a press conference in London when he announced the expulsion of Libyan diplomats loyal to Gaddafi.
"We disagreed with what has subsequently been revealed about the facilitation by the previous Labour government at Westminster of moves towards the release of al-Megrahi."
He added: "This was absolutely the wrong thing to do. It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless." (...)
The Scottish Government stood by its decision to release al-Megrahi on Wednesday and defended the medical advice that led to it.
“Al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds based on the recommendations of the Parole Board, the prison governor and the medical report of the Scottish Prison Service’s most senior health professional,” a spokesman from the Scottish government said.
“This material is all in the public domain – including the medical report – and it all vindicates the Scottish Government’s position.”
"Indeed, it is clear that only the Scottish Government played with a straight bat on this matter, while the UK Government said one thing in public and another in private," the spokesman insisted.
“The Scottish Parliament Justice Committee examined all relevant aspects of this issue, and concluded that the decision was taken ‘in good faith’.
“Instead of criticising a senior health professional, Mr Hague should understand that the medical advice to the Justice Secretary came from Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, a professional of impeccable integrity."
[To accuse a senior doctor of supplying medical advice which was "pretty much worthless" is grossly defamatory. Mr Hague was speaking at a press conference, not in Parliament. His comments are accordingly not subject to absolute privilege. Dr Fraser should consider suing for defamation.
In this and the previous post, I should not, of course, have disseminated the defamatory imputation. But since The Independent, The Telegraph and countless other organs of the media have done so, I'm prepared to live (just a little) dangerously.]
William Hague condemns Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report just published on The Independent website. It reads in part:]
The appearance of the convicted Lockerbie bomber on Libyan television has confirmed that a "great mistake" was made in releasing him from jail, Foreign Secretary William Hague said today.
Mr Hague said Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's release from a Scottish prison almost two years ago on compassionate grounds was "absolutely the wrong thing to do".
In footage seen by the BBC last night, a television presenter introduced Megrahi at what appeared to be a pro-government rally, and said his conviction was the result of a "conspiracy". (...)
He returned to Libya in August 2009 after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. The Scottish Government accepted advice that he had about three months to live.
At a press conference in central London, Mr Hague said the footage demonstrated that this advice was "pretty much worthless".
He said: "I think the appearance of Mr al-Megrahi on our television screens is a further reminder that a great mistake was made when he was released.
"The Prime Minister and I, when we were in opposition, both strongly disagreed with that position by Scottish ministers.
"We disagreed with what has subsequently been revealed about the facilitation by the previous Labour government at Westminster of moves towards the release of al-Megrahi."
He added: "This was absolutely the wrong thing to do. It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless and I think many people, particularly the families of those killed at Lockerbie, I think their anger and outrage at this release will be further intensified by what we have seen. [RB: Not much anger and outrage seems to be emanating from the UK relatives of those killed over Lockerbie.]
"So it has always been our view this was a mistake and this simply confirms that."
The appearance of the convicted Lockerbie bomber on Libyan television has confirmed that a "great mistake" was made in releasing him from jail, Foreign Secretary William Hague said today.
Mr Hague said Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's release from a Scottish prison almost two years ago on compassionate grounds was "absolutely the wrong thing to do".
In footage seen by the BBC last night, a television presenter introduced Megrahi at what appeared to be a pro-government rally, and said his conviction was the result of a "conspiracy". (...)
He returned to Libya in August 2009 after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. The Scottish Government accepted advice that he had about three months to live.
At a press conference in central London, Mr Hague said the footage demonstrated that this advice was "pretty much worthless".
He said: "I think the appearance of Mr al-Megrahi on our television screens is a further reminder that a great mistake was made when he was released.
"The Prime Minister and I, when we were in opposition, both strongly disagreed with that position by Scottish ministers.
"We disagreed with what has subsequently been revealed about the facilitation by the previous Labour government at Westminster of moves towards the release of al-Megrahi."
He added: "This was absolutely the wrong thing to do. It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless and I think many people, particularly the families of those killed at Lockerbie, I think their anger and outrage at this release will be further intensified by what we have seen. [RB: Not much anger and outrage seems to be emanating from the UK relatives of those killed over Lockerbie.]
"So it has always been our view this was a mistake and this simply confirms that."
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Megrahi at rally broadcast by Libyan state television
[What follows is from a report on the BBC News website:]
The man convicted of blowing up a plane over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988 has appeared at a rally broadcast by Libyan state television.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from prison in Scotland almost two years ago on health grounds.
Introducing him at a televised rally of members of Megrahi's tribe, the presenter said his conviction was the result of a conspiracy.
He said his release had been a victory against oppression. (...)
Megrahi returned to Libya where has rarely been seen.
During the broadcast from Tripoli, which was described as live, Megrahi was seen in a wheelchair.
After playing the national anthem, a presenter said "half of the world conspired against" Megrahi.
[In a comment on this blog, Rolfe wrote:
"I saw Megrahi on TV about an hour ago. It was a clip from a pro-Gadaffi rally in Tripoli, and he was sitting in a wheelchair watching the proceedings. He was wearing a large white head-dress, like a big turban. He didn't look too bad, from what I could see, though it was a short clip and not close-up.
"No doubt this will enrage the Americans even further."
A friend in Scotland e-mailed me this:
"Reporting Scotland had on, right at the very end, saying they had just got the video in, a brief (10-ish seconds) video of Megrahi in a wheelchair supposedly at a pro-government rally in Libya. There was some Arabic title underneath and the date as 2011-07-26.
"He was looking appropriately frail. Either coughing or lifting an oxygen mask to his face – couldn’t make out exactly. The wheelchair was itself on a dais, alongside other spectators of whatever was going on (which they didn’t show)."
A report on The Herald website can be read here, one on The Guardian website can be read here, and one on the CNN website can be read here. The report on The Telegraph website contains the following:]
The pictures compounded embarassment in the Scottish Executive which appears to have seized on a misdiagnosis to grant parole on medical grounds in 2009.
He was expected to live less that 90 days but has since passed more than 400 days in his native Libya.
The man convicted of blowing up a plane over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988 has appeared at a rally broadcast by Libyan state television.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from prison in Scotland almost two years ago on health grounds.
Introducing him at a televised rally of members of Megrahi's tribe, the presenter said his conviction was the result of a conspiracy.
He said his release had been a victory against oppression. (...)
Megrahi returned to Libya where has rarely been seen.
During the broadcast from Tripoli, which was described as live, Megrahi was seen in a wheelchair.
After playing the national anthem, a presenter said "half of the world conspired against" Megrahi.
[In a comment on this blog, Rolfe wrote:
"I saw Megrahi on TV about an hour ago. It was a clip from a pro-Gadaffi rally in Tripoli, and he was sitting in a wheelchair watching the proceedings. He was wearing a large white head-dress, like a big turban. He didn't look too bad, from what I could see, though it was a short clip and not close-up.
"No doubt this will enrage the Americans even further."
A friend in Scotland e-mailed me this:
"Reporting Scotland had on, right at the very end, saying they had just got the video in, a brief (10-ish seconds) video of Megrahi in a wheelchair supposedly at a pro-government rally in Libya. There was some Arabic title underneath and the date as 2011-07-26.
"He was looking appropriately frail. Either coughing or lifting an oxygen mask to his face – couldn’t make out exactly. The wheelchair was itself on a dais, alongside other spectators of whatever was going on (which they didn’t show)."
A report on The Herald website can be read here, one on The Guardian website can be read here, and one on the CNN website can be read here. The report on The Telegraph website contains the following:]
The pictures compounded embarassment in the Scottish Executive which appears to have seized on a misdiagnosis to grant parole on medical grounds in 2009.
He was expected to live less that 90 days but has since passed more than 400 days in his native Libya.
Anders Behring Breivik and Abdelbaset al-Megrahi
[As might have been expected, US commentators are drawing parallels between the sentence facing Anders Breivik if convicted of the Utoya killings and the sentence served by Abdelbaset Megrahi. Here is Michael Rubin in Commentary magazine:]
Alana Goodman pens an excellent post regarding how little jail time the confessed Norwegian terrorist and killer can expect for killing scores of civilians, both in his initial truck bomb blast and then in his shooting spree on Utoya island. According to some Norwegian analysts, he might expect a maximum of 21 years, or approximately 83 days per murder and, as Alana points out, will serve his time in relative luxury.
This certainly is outrageous, but unfortunately it’s the rule rather than the exception in many European states as postmodern theories of compassion and rehabilitation trump the importance of justice. Just take a look at that other mass murderer on the other side of the North Sea: On August 20, 2009, a Scottish court released Libyan agent and Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi after serving just 11.5 days per murder for downing Pan Am Flight 103 and killing 270 people. Scottish authorities defended Megrahi’s release on the grounds of compassion: He had, after all, only weeks to live. Never mind that today he appears to be doing quite fine in Tripoli.
It’s well past time for Europe to put justice first and reserve compassion for the victims of crime and terror, not the perpetrators.
[And here is Debra Saunders in the San Francisco Chronicle:]
Now 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik stands accused of killing 76 individuals, many of them teenagers, in a vicious rampage that began with a bombing in Oslo on Friday. If convicted, he can expect to be a free man in his 50s. (...)
There is a lesson for Americans in this tale. Politicians in some states, including California, are pushing to end their state's death penalty. There are consequences.
Our Betters in Europe got rid of capital punishment decades ago. Next, Western European leaders went after life without parole. As Eurocrats focused on the redemption of offenders, they seemed to forget their obligation to protect the innocent and serve as a voice for silenced victims.
Hoover Institution legal fellow Abraham D Sofaer sees the 21-year cap as "absurdly inadequate" for this type of heinous crime. "I'm sure it's well intentioned. Maybe it works in most cases," he added. "But then you get these cases, where one would think almost anyone would agree that 21 years is an insult."
This wouldn't be a first time a modern terrorist won short time for a long list of victims on European soil. In 2001, three Scottish judges found former Libya intelligence operative Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi guilty in the 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, which killed all 270 aboard. Scotland's life sentence made him eligible for parole in 27 years.
But after eight years, Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill granted Megrahi "compassionate" release on the grounds the Libyan had terminal cancer and was not expected to live more than three months. Almost two years later, Megrahi is alive and living large in Libya - having served mere weeks per victim.
When a country's justice system dispenses with the death penalty, then life sentences, it has no mechanism to redress evil.
Alana Goodman pens an excellent post regarding how little jail time the confessed Norwegian terrorist and killer can expect for killing scores of civilians, both in his initial truck bomb blast and then in his shooting spree on Utoya island. According to some Norwegian analysts, he might expect a maximum of 21 years, or approximately 83 days per murder and, as Alana points out, will serve his time in relative luxury.
This certainly is outrageous, but unfortunately it’s the rule rather than the exception in many European states as postmodern theories of compassion and rehabilitation trump the importance of justice. Just take a look at that other mass murderer on the other side of the North Sea: On August 20, 2009, a Scottish court released Libyan agent and Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi after serving just 11.5 days per murder for downing Pan Am Flight 103 and killing 270 people. Scottish authorities defended Megrahi’s release on the grounds of compassion: He had, after all, only weeks to live. Never mind that today he appears to be doing quite fine in Tripoli.
It’s well past time for Europe to put justice first and reserve compassion for the victims of crime and terror, not the perpetrators.
[And here is Debra Saunders in the San Francisco Chronicle:]
Now 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik stands accused of killing 76 individuals, many of them teenagers, in a vicious rampage that began with a bombing in Oslo on Friday. If convicted, he can expect to be a free man in his 50s. (...)
There is a lesson for Americans in this tale. Politicians in some states, including California, are pushing to end their state's death penalty. There are consequences.
Our Betters in Europe got rid of capital punishment decades ago. Next, Western European leaders went after life without parole. As Eurocrats focused on the redemption of offenders, they seemed to forget their obligation to protect the innocent and serve as a voice for silenced victims.
Hoover Institution legal fellow Abraham D Sofaer sees the 21-year cap as "absurdly inadequate" for this type of heinous crime. "I'm sure it's well intentioned. Maybe it works in most cases," he added. "But then you get these cases, where one would think almost anyone would agree that 21 years is an insult."
This wouldn't be a first time a modern terrorist won short time for a long list of victims on European soil. In 2001, three Scottish judges found former Libya intelligence operative Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi guilty in the 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, which killed all 270 aboard. Scotland's life sentence made him eligible for parole in 27 years.
But after eight years, Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill granted Megrahi "compassionate" release on the grounds the Libyan had terminal cancer and was not expected to live more than three months. Almost two years later, Megrahi is alive and living large in Libya - having served mere weeks per victim.
When a country's justice system dispenses with the death penalty, then life sentences, it has no mechanism to redress evil.
Sunday, 24 July 2011
Barlinnie unlocked: Gaddafi Cafe gets a world famous guest
[This is the headline over a story in today's edition of the Sunday Mail (not to be confused with the Mail on Sunday). I reproduce it here simply because it links Abdelbaset Megrahi and South Africa, my second home.]
Huge crowds greeted Nelson Mandela as he travelled from South Africa to meet Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
He met the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in 2002 on a diplomatic excursion to see how he was being treated.
The former president of South Africa also discussed a campaign for Megrahi to serve his sentence in a Libyan prison.
Everyone who has met Mandela speaks of his kindness, gentleness and good manners.
His visit to Gaddafi's Cafe, the nickname given to the area of Barlinnie where Megrahi was held, underlined the humanity of the man.
After all, Mandela himself spent 18 of his 27 years in jail on Robben Island after being locked up by the South Africa's apartheid government.
Most of the crowd hoping to meet him were positioned around the reception and the main gates. Everyone on the staff wanted a glimpse of the great man. The wellwishers were rows deep.
But as he passed through the throng, Mandela stopped, looked to the edge of the crowd and spotted a young prison officer right at the back.
He said: "You sir, step down here."
When the officer got to the front, Mandela shook his hand, giving him a moment he would never forget.
Mandela remarked that he, too, knew what it was like to be at the back row and not noticed.
The great leader then went inside to meet Megrahi.
But he declined an offer to visit the cell blocks.
Mandela had seen enough to last a lifetime.
[My South African friends are in mourning over the miserable Springbok performance in yesterday's match against the Wallabies. In the bar at Gannaga Lodge while the game was in progess I greatly expanded my knowledge of demotic Afrikaans. Every cloud has a silver lining.]
Huge crowds greeted Nelson Mandela as he travelled from South Africa to meet Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
He met the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in 2002 on a diplomatic excursion to see how he was being treated.
The former president of South Africa also discussed a campaign for Megrahi to serve his sentence in a Libyan prison.
Everyone who has met Mandela speaks of his kindness, gentleness and good manners.
His visit to Gaddafi's Cafe, the nickname given to the area of Barlinnie where Megrahi was held, underlined the humanity of the man.
After all, Mandela himself spent 18 of his 27 years in jail on Robben Island after being locked up by the South Africa's apartheid government.
Most of the crowd hoping to meet him were positioned around the reception and the main gates. Everyone on the staff wanted a glimpse of the great man. The wellwishers were rows deep.
But as he passed through the throng, Mandela stopped, looked to the edge of the crowd and spotted a young prison officer right at the back.
He said: "You sir, step down here."
When the officer got to the front, Mandela shook his hand, giving him a moment he would never forget.
Mandela remarked that he, too, knew what it was like to be at the back row and not noticed.
The great leader then went inside to meet Megrahi.
But he declined an offer to visit the cell blocks.
Mandela had seen enough to last a lifetime.
[My South African friends are in mourning over the miserable Springbok performance in yesterday's match against the Wallabies. In the bar at Gannaga Lodge while the game was in progess I greatly expanded my knowledge of demotic Afrikaans. Every cloud has a silver lining.]
Exploding Lockerbie
[This is the title of a two-part article in the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly by David Wolchover, barrister and Head of Chambers Emeritus at 7 Bell Yard, London. It examines in detail the evidence led at Camp Zeist about the ingestion of the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. Part I of the article can be read here and Part II here. The conclusion of the two-part article reads as follows:]
It will have become apparent from the analysis of the evidence before the court offered here that wherever the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103 was built the Samsonite hardshell bag in which it was packed could not have come from Luqa as an anonymous item of baggage on KM180, or from Frankfurt on PA103A. It should have been as “plain as a pikestaff” that it was smuggled into the system at Heathrow.
Why the Judges lost sight of the wood for the trees is not a matter which warrants conjecture. That they did so is beyond doubt. When asked by Lord MacLean to confirm that al-Megrahi’s Abdusamad passport was never used again after December 21, 1988, William Taylor QC said “We don’t know that”, to which Lord Maclean riposted “Yes I do” and gave the reference. The Judge got the acerbic reply he truly deserved: “Thank you. I am corrected. So your Lordship has asked me a question to which your Lordship already had the answer.” The application of a sight more judicial cleverness and rather less too cleverness by half might have delivered a truer verdict.
[An earlier Lockerbie article by Mr Wolchover "Masking justice with 'mercy'" can be accessed here.]
It will have become apparent from the analysis of the evidence before the court offered here that wherever the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103 was built the Samsonite hardshell bag in which it was packed could not have come from Luqa as an anonymous item of baggage on KM180, or from Frankfurt on PA103A. It should have been as “plain as a pikestaff” that it was smuggled into the system at Heathrow.
Why the Judges lost sight of the wood for the trees is not a matter which warrants conjecture. That they did so is beyond doubt. When asked by Lord MacLean to confirm that al-Megrahi’s Abdusamad passport was never used again after December 21, 1988, William Taylor QC said “We don’t know that”, to which Lord Maclean riposted “Yes I do” and gave the reference. The Judge got the acerbic reply he truly deserved: “Thank you. I am corrected. So your Lordship has asked me a question to which your Lordship already had the answer.” The application of a sight more judicial cleverness and rather less too cleverness by half might have delivered a truer verdict.
[An earlier Lockerbie article by Mr Wolchover "Masking justice with 'mercy'" can be accessed here.]
Thursday, 21 July 2011
Retrying Megrahi in the United States
In the light of suggestions that have been made over the past few months by American officials and commentators that the United States might wish to have Abdelbaset Megrahi handed over to the United States for retrial in America, it is perhaps worthwhile to consider some of the legal problems that would be faced in bringing this about.
As I said in a blog post on 6 March 2011:
"The United States Government, along with that of the United Kingdom, proposed the UN Security Council resolutions that set up the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist. Both governments thereby undertook internationally binding obligations to comply with the legal processes thus set in motion. The United States cannot lawfully renounce those obligations either unilaterally or in conjunction with whatever new government it chooses to recognise in Libya. To have Abdelbaset Megrahi lawfully handed over to the US would require a further UN Security Council resolution. The United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council could, of course, propose such a resolution. But would the other members support it? The US could also, naturally, simply ignore international legality (as it did, with the UK's supine support, in launching the invasion of Iraq) and seize Megrahi by force (with or without the connivance of a new Libyan regime)."
Furthermore, the Constitution of the United States, provides (art VI, clause 2): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". This means that the binding international obligation entered into by the United States in respect of the Lockerbie trial precludes any US court from trying Megrahi since that would be a breach of the international agreement regarding Lockerbie jurisdiction which the US itself co-sponsored.
Moreover, during the Camp Zeist trial, US government lawyers sat amongst the prosecutors and when their presence was questioned the Crown Office responded that the Lord Advocate could select whomsoever he chose to form part of the prosecution team. It can be strongly argued that this active participation by United States officials, as part of the prosecution team, in a trial which the US co-sponsored, personally bars (estops) the US from instituting its own national criminal proceedings.
As mentioned above, the US could sponsor a new UN Security Council resolution permitting it to retry Megrahi. But is there any realistic prospect of such a resolution being passed? The United States could also seek to pass internal US legislation permitting a retrial. But, in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution amending the existing ones, would not any such legislation be liable to be struck down under art VI clause 2 of the Constitution?
[This post has now been picked up in a news item on Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.
Because I shall be on duty at Gannaga Lodge for the next few days, it is unlikely that there will be further blog posts before Sunday, 24 July.]
As I said in a blog post on 6 March 2011:
"The United States Government, along with that of the United Kingdom, proposed the UN Security Council resolutions that set up the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist. Both governments thereby undertook internationally binding obligations to comply with the legal processes thus set in motion. The United States cannot lawfully renounce those obligations either unilaterally or in conjunction with whatever new government it chooses to recognise in Libya. To have Abdelbaset Megrahi lawfully handed over to the US would require a further UN Security Council resolution. The United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council could, of course, propose such a resolution. But would the other members support it? The US could also, naturally, simply ignore international legality (as it did, with the UK's supine support, in launching the invasion of Iraq) and seize Megrahi by force (with or without the connivance of a new Libyan regime)."
Furthermore, the Constitution of the United States, provides (art VI, clause 2): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". This means that the binding international obligation entered into by the United States in respect of the Lockerbie trial precludes any US court from trying Megrahi since that would be a breach of the international agreement regarding Lockerbie jurisdiction which the US itself co-sponsored.
Moreover, during the Camp Zeist trial, US government lawyers sat amongst the prosecutors and when their presence was questioned the Crown Office responded that the Lord Advocate could select whomsoever he chose to form part of the prosecution team. It can be strongly argued that this active participation by United States officials, as part of the prosecution team, in a trial which the US co-sponsored, personally bars (estops) the US from instituting its own national criminal proceedings.
As mentioned above, the US could sponsor a new UN Security Council resolution permitting it to retry Megrahi. But is there any realistic prospect of such a resolution being passed? The United States could also seek to pass internal US legislation permitting a retrial. But, in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution amending the existing ones, would not any such legislation be liable to be struck down under art VI clause 2 of the Constitution?
[This post has now been picked up in a news item on Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.
Because I shall be on duty at Gannaga Lodge for the next few days, it is unlikely that there will be further blog posts before Sunday, 24 July.]
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
US ambassador repeats "try Megrahi" nonsense
[An interview with the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, Stephen Rapp, published today on The Guardian website, contains the following:]
On Libya, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues confirmed that Washington is interested in bringing the former Libyan intelligence officer, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, to trial for his role in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 above Lockerbie in 1988.
Megrahi, who was convicted in Scotland, was returned to Libya from the UK on grounds of ill health in 2009.
"The majority of those [on the Pan Am flight] were US citizens and there's a strong interest in the US to achieve justice. It was an act of terror.
"There's jurisdiction in the UK and US over individuals who were involved. I can't speak for the [US] department of justice, but there would be an interest in the US … in continuing the investigation and going beyond Mr Megrahi and determining whether other individuals [were involved]."
[As I have written elsewhere on this blog: "Megrahi has already faced trial and been convicted -- wrongly, in my view -- in a process supported by the United States. He could not be tried again in the USA unless Federal Law were changed to allow it."]
On Libya, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues confirmed that Washington is interested in bringing the former Libyan intelligence officer, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, to trial for his role in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 above Lockerbie in 1988.
Megrahi, who was convicted in Scotland, was returned to Libya from the UK on grounds of ill health in 2009.
"The majority of those [on the Pan Am flight] were US citizens and there's a strong interest in the US to achieve justice. It was an act of terror.
"There's jurisdiction in the UK and US over individuals who were involved. I can't speak for the [US] department of justice, but there would be an interest in the US … in continuing the investigation and going beyond Mr Megrahi and determining whether other individuals [were involved]."
[As I have written elsewhere on this blog: "Megrahi has already faced trial and been convicted -- wrongly, in my view -- in a process supported by the United States. He could not be tried again in the USA unless Federal Law were changed to allow it."]
General Magnus Malan
The obituary in The Telegraph of General Magnus Malan, South Africa's defence minister at the time of the Lockerbie disaster, who died on 18 July, can be read here. That in the Cape Times can be read here. The controversy over whether a South African delegation to the United Nations, including Malan, was initially booked on Pan Am 103 but transferred onto an earlier flight to New York is explored in blog posts and comments that can be read here and by typing "Magnus Malan" into the blog's Google search facility.
[Yesterday, for the first time in a month, this blog was accessed from within Libya.]
[Yesterday, for the first time in a month, this blog was accessed from within Libya.]
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
Blame Iran, not Libya, for Pan Am Flight 103 bombing
[This is the headline over an article by Arthur F Bethea published today on the website of the Massachusetts newspaper South Coast Today. It reads as follows:]
In a late June press conference, President Obama said that Col Gadhafi, "prior to Osama bin Laden, was responsible for more American deaths than just about anybody on the planet."
Ignoring George Bush's needless invasion of Iraq that led to the deaths of more than 4,400 US soldiers, Obama linked Gadhafi and bin Laden to deceive less-informed viewers into thinking that the two are one and the same. They aren't. In 1998, Libya issued the first official Interpol arrest warrant against bin Laden, and Gadhafi condemned 9/11. An enemy of bin Laden, Gadhafi opposes radical Islamic fundamentalism.
Obama was also alluding to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that murdered 189 Americans. This indirect smearing is reminiscent of Bush, who implied falsely (but never directly asserted) that Saddam sponsored 9/11. If Obama wants to accuse Gadhafi of Lockerbie, he should man up and state the charge directly.
Many people assume that Gadhafi is guilty of the Lockerbie bombing because a Libyan intelligence officer (Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi) was eventually convicted. What few Americans know is that the trial's fairness has been convincingly disputed. Key witnesses appear to have been paid for their testimony, evidence may have been fabricated, one crucial witness has admitted to perjury, and the witness who identified Megrahi has had his reliability attacked by the prosecutor who brought the original charges.
A former professor of Scottish law at Edinburgh University, Robert Black, said, "No reasonable tribunal, on the evidence heard at the original trial, should or could have convicted" Megrahi. The conviction was "an absolute disgrace and outrage." Megrahi is "an innocent man."
Some readers will protest, "But Gadhafi paid damages; he must be guilty." Yes, Libya paid more than $2.5 billion in reparations, but, according to one source, sanctions had cost the country $30 billion. Saif al-Islam, Gadhafi's son and former heir apparent, explained, "We wrote a letter to the Security Council saying we are responsible for the acts of our employees," but this "doesn't mean that we did it in fact." "What can you do?" he asked. "Without writing that letter we would not be able to get rid of sanctions."
Compelling evidence implicates Iran in the Lockerbie bombing. Thinking it was about to be attacked by a fighter jet, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airbus in July 1988, killing 290 people, most of them Iranians. Iran's religious dictator, the Ayatollah Khomeini, promised that the skies would rain with American blood. Iran offered a huge reward for revenge; a Palestinian terrorist organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, apparently accepted the offer; and 5½ months after the Vincennes disaster, 189 Americans were murdered.
A senior CIA officer in 1988, Robert Baer, worked the case from the start and concluded that Iran sponsored the bombing. According to Baer, now retired from the CIA, financial records indicate that Iran transferred $11 million to the Swiss bank account of the PFLP-GC two days after the bombing. Obviously, if Iran did transfer $11 million to a Palestinian terrorist group two days after the atrocity, this is overwhelming evidence of Iranian involvement. England's Sunday Herald said it saw the "CIA paperwork that supports" Baer's claims.
In 2009, Baer told England's Sunday Mail that the CIA had "hard evidence" of Iranian involvement "almost from the moment the plane exploded."
Another American intelligence organization also linked the bombing to Iran. A September 1989 memo from the Defense Intelligence Agency states: "The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorized and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran's former interior minister."
There are many good reasons to oppose Obama's Libyan adventure but no good ones [to support it], including false revenge for Lockerbie.
In a late June press conference, President Obama said that Col Gadhafi, "prior to Osama bin Laden, was responsible for more American deaths than just about anybody on the planet."
Ignoring George Bush's needless invasion of Iraq that led to the deaths of more than 4,400 US soldiers, Obama linked Gadhafi and bin Laden to deceive less-informed viewers into thinking that the two are one and the same. They aren't. In 1998, Libya issued the first official Interpol arrest warrant against bin Laden, and Gadhafi condemned 9/11. An enemy of bin Laden, Gadhafi opposes radical Islamic fundamentalism.
Obama was also alluding to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that murdered 189 Americans. This indirect smearing is reminiscent of Bush, who implied falsely (but never directly asserted) that Saddam sponsored 9/11. If Obama wants to accuse Gadhafi of Lockerbie, he should man up and state the charge directly.
Many people assume that Gadhafi is guilty of the Lockerbie bombing because a Libyan intelligence officer (Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi) was eventually convicted. What few Americans know is that the trial's fairness has been convincingly disputed. Key witnesses appear to have been paid for their testimony, evidence may have been fabricated, one crucial witness has admitted to perjury, and the witness who identified Megrahi has had his reliability attacked by the prosecutor who brought the original charges.
A former professor of Scottish law at Edinburgh University, Robert Black, said, "No reasonable tribunal, on the evidence heard at the original trial, should or could have convicted" Megrahi. The conviction was "an absolute disgrace and outrage." Megrahi is "an innocent man."
Some readers will protest, "But Gadhafi paid damages; he must be guilty." Yes, Libya paid more than $2.5 billion in reparations, but, according to one source, sanctions had cost the country $30 billion. Saif al-Islam, Gadhafi's son and former heir apparent, explained, "We wrote a letter to the Security Council saying we are responsible for the acts of our employees," but this "doesn't mean that we did it in fact." "What can you do?" he asked. "Without writing that letter we would not be able to get rid of sanctions."
Compelling evidence implicates Iran in the Lockerbie bombing. Thinking it was about to be attacked by a fighter jet, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airbus in July 1988, killing 290 people, most of them Iranians. Iran's religious dictator, the Ayatollah Khomeini, promised that the skies would rain with American blood. Iran offered a huge reward for revenge; a Palestinian terrorist organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, apparently accepted the offer; and 5½ months after the Vincennes disaster, 189 Americans were murdered.
A senior CIA officer in 1988, Robert Baer, worked the case from the start and concluded that Iran sponsored the bombing. According to Baer, now retired from the CIA, financial records indicate that Iran transferred $11 million to the Swiss bank account of the PFLP-GC two days after the bombing. Obviously, if Iran did transfer $11 million to a Palestinian terrorist group two days after the atrocity, this is overwhelming evidence of Iranian involvement. England's Sunday Herald said it saw the "CIA paperwork that supports" Baer's claims.
In 2009, Baer told England's Sunday Mail that the CIA had "hard evidence" of Iranian involvement "almost from the moment the plane exploded."
Another American intelligence organization also linked the bombing to Iran. A September 1989 memo from the Defense Intelligence Agency states: "The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorized and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran's former interior minister."
There are many good reasons to oppose Obama's Libyan adventure but no good ones [to support it], including false revenge for Lockerbie.
Monday, 18 July 2011
Libyan foreign minister admits Lockerbie bombing involvement
[This is the headline over a report published this evening on The Telegraph website. It amplifies the AFP news agency report that was the subject of the immediately preceding blog post. The report reads in part:]
A former Libyan foreign minister has admitted the country was involved in the Lockerbie bombing but said for the first time it was part of a wider conspiracy.
The former minister, Abdul Rahman al-Shalgham, who was ambassador to the United Nations when he defected in February, revealed a new theory about who was responsible for the explosion on board Pan-Am Flight 103 in an interview with an Arabic newspaper.
"The Lockerbie bombing was a complex and tangled operation" he said, when asked to describe the background to the disaster.
"There was talk at the time of the roles played by states and organisations. Libyan security played a part but I believe it was not a strictly Libyan operation."
He went on to say that the compensation payment to the families he helped negotiate on behalf of the regime – while disclaiming responsibility – angered the Libyan leader, Col Muammar Gaddafi.
"He used to say, 'We had no role in Lockerbie, so why should we have to pay compensation'," Mr Shalgham said.
Two Libyan state employees were put on trial in The Hague [RB: Actually, of course, Camp Zeist, near Utrecht] under Scottish law for the bombing of Flight 103, in which 270 people died in 1988. One, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, though he was released on medical grounds in 2009.
Libya always denied involvement, and alternative theories state that it was the work of Iranian intelligence, or a Palestinian terrorist group.
Mr Shalgham's revelations are the first serious suggestion that there could be elements of truth to both stories.
Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the former minister of justice who defected at the beginning of the uprising against the Gaddafi regime in February and is now chairman of the opposition Transitional National Council, claimed in an earlier interview that Col Gaddafi personally ordered the bombing.
But Mr Abdul Jalil was only involved in politics from 2007, having been a provincial judge most of his career. Mr Shalgham, by contrast, was Libyan ambassador to Rome at the time of the bombing and later at the heart of government.
[See my comment at the end of the preceding blog post.]
A former Libyan foreign minister has admitted the country was involved in the Lockerbie bombing but said for the first time it was part of a wider conspiracy.
The former minister, Abdul Rahman al-Shalgham, who was ambassador to the United Nations when he defected in February, revealed a new theory about who was responsible for the explosion on board Pan-Am Flight 103 in an interview with an Arabic newspaper.
"The Lockerbie bombing was a complex and tangled operation" he said, when asked to describe the background to the disaster.
"There was talk at the time of the roles played by states and organisations. Libyan security played a part but I believe it was not a strictly Libyan operation."
He went on to say that the compensation payment to the families he helped negotiate on behalf of the regime – while disclaiming responsibility – angered the Libyan leader, Col Muammar Gaddafi.
"He used to say, 'We had no role in Lockerbie, so why should we have to pay compensation'," Mr Shalgham said.
Two Libyan state employees were put on trial in The Hague [RB: Actually, of course, Camp Zeist, near Utrecht] under Scottish law for the bombing of Flight 103, in which 270 people died in 1988. One, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, though he was released on medical grounds in 2009.
Libya always denied involvement, and alternative theories state that it was the work of Iranian intelligence, or a Palestinian terrorist group.
Mr Shalgham's revelations are the first serious suggestion that there could be elements of truth to both stories.
Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the former minister of justice who defected at the beginning of the uprising against the Gaddafi regime in February and is now chairman of the opposition Transitional National Council, claimed in an earlier interview that Col Gaddafi personally ordered the bombing.
But Mr Abdul Jalil was only involved in politics from 2007, having been a provincial judge most of his career. Mr Shalgham, by contrast, was Libyan ambassador to Rome at the time of the bombing and later at the heart of government.
[See my comment at the end of the preceding blog post.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)