[This is the headline over a long article by Marcello Mega in today's edition of The Scottish Sun. It reads in part:]
The Scottish Sun today lifts the lid on a top-secret dossier that accuses Scots cops and prosecutors of suppressing seven key areas of evidence that cast doubt on the Lockerbie bomber's conviction.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission looked into the evidence against Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi - and found a murky web of lies.
The SCCRC's explosive report suspects the Scots authorities are behind a deliberate cover-up over the trial that saw Megrahi jailed for killing 270 people in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Dumfriesshire town.
Now on the second anniversary of cancer-stricken Megrahi's controversial release from a Scots jail, we can reveal the commission has grave concerns over the evidence against the 59-year-old following a multi-million-pound, four-year investigation.
In the dossier - seen by The Scottish Sun - Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who helped finger Megrahi as the bomber, is described as an "unreliable" witness.
Police are also accused of lying in court while prosecutors - including then Lord Advocate Colin Boyd QC - are suspected of suppressing bombshell evidence that would likely have seen Megrahi walk free.
Last night Robert Black QC, retired Professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University and the architect of the Lockerbie trial, told how he believes Megrahi is innocent.
Mr Black said: "Megrahi is not the Lockerbie bomber and these revelations further underline that.
"I said after reading the daily transcripts of the evidence at the trial and before the judges delivered their verdict that there was no way Megrahi could be convicted on the evidence presented.
"That the judges did convict him on the flimsiest of evidence, which required several leaps of faith on a number of crucial matters that had not been proven by the Crown, remains a matter of profound concern for all of us."
Mr Black said it was now vital that a top-level public inquiry is held to get to the truth.
He said: "We need strong leadership now. We need to admit publicly that we got it wrong, and set about putting right that injustice." (...)
[Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny] MacAskill has wanted the SCCRC findings to be released for months.
First Minister Alex Salmond and his SNP Government insist the law will be changed to publish the commission's 800-page report - to end ongoing speculation about Megrahi's conviction.
Mr MacAskill declined to comment on The Scottish Sun's revelations but his spokesman said: "We do not doubt the guilt of Mr al-Megrahi."
Some relatives of Megrahi's victims also believe he is guilty. Pete Lowenstein, who lost his 21-year-old son Alexander, said: 'I have great faith in the Scottish investigators and FBI agents. They did an amazing job, and I have no doubt in Megrahi's guilt."
Last night a spokesman for the Crown Office said they had "supported the conviction vigorously and stood ready, willing and able to do so throughout the appeal process which Mr Megrahi abandoned".
A spokesman for the SCCRC refused to comment.
Seven key flaws
Denied fair trial
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission says Megrahi WAS denied a fair trial in their damning report.
They said the Crown suppressed from Megrahi's defence team statements showing how much key witness Tony Gauci changed his mind about crucial details over the years.
Maltese shopkeeper Gauci's evidence fingered Megrahi as the man who bought clothes in his shop on the Mediterranean isle that were linked to the suitcase carrying the bomb that blew up Pan Am flight 103.
The SCCRC report says Gauci was an "unreliable" witness but this was not shown to be the case in court.
They said: "The effect of all of these inconsistencies is powerful. The court was left with a distorted and different impression of the witness. In this way Megrahi was denied a fair trial."
Cop lies
The SCCRC found that police said in evidence they first showed Gauci photos of Megrahi on September 14, 1989 - when he had in fact also been shown them on September 8.
The report said: "This was not disclosed to the defence. There is no statement from Gauci produced, no police witness statements produced."
The SCCRC said if Gauci had been shown Megrahi's pic six days before he picked him out as resembling the buyer at his shop, then that ID was totally undermined.
Diary dispute
In its report, the SCCRC challenges the integrity of evidence given by retired Strathclyde DCI Harry Bell, who had a close bond with Gauci.
The commission found that events recorded in Bell's diaries didn't always match what he said in evidence.
The commission noted that Bell claimed the Megrahi photo shown to Gauci on September 14, 1989, was the first one. This was not true.
It also reveals Bell, DC John Crawford, a retired Lothian and Borders cop, and an FBI agent all made statements claiming that Gauci had talked of a "striking similarity" between Megrahi and the buyer.
But Maltese officers revealed Gauci was unsure, was coached and told to age the photos by ten to 15 years.
The report says: "This is different to DCI Bell's evidence at trial. It also implies the witness is unclear."
Cash for answers
The commission obtained evidence from police memos that Gauci was made aware from his first contact with investigators that his testimony could be worth MILLIONS.
This contradicted evidence given by Scots and US investigators at Megrahi's trial.
One undisclosed memo reveals the FBI discussed with Scots cops an offer of unlimited cash to Gauci - with "$10,000 available immediately".
If a judge was made aware of this in another case, they'd tell a jury to discount the evidence.
Xmas lights lies
In court Gauci was vague about the exact date on which the clothes were bought.
The date was narrowed to either November 23, 1988, when Megrahi was not on Malta, or December 7, 1988, when he was.
Gauci said Christmas lights were NOT on yet in his hometown Sliema when the suspect visited his shop.
Cops said they could not find out when the lights were switched on.
But the SCCRC easily established it was December 6 - a day too early for Megrahi to have been the buyer.
The commission's report says: "It is clear that the police were in no doubt that Gauci was clear in his recollection." It adds "no reasonable court" could have concluded Megrahi bought the clothes from Gauci's shop.
Defence in the dark
It appears efforts were made to cover up key evidence that would have been useful for Megrahi's defence team.
The commission noted that early uncertainty on the part of Gauci was never passed over to the defence, nor was the fact that Scots detectives feared he was trying too hard to please them.
The fact a senior Maltese detective also considered Gauci to be an unreliable witness was never disclosed to lawyers representing Megrahi.
Evidence supressed
The SCCRC claims Colin Boyd QC, who was Lord Advocate at the time of Megrahi's trial and conviction in 2001, suppressed key evidence.
The trial judges maintained Gauci was "entirely reliable" on the list of clothing he claimed the buyer suspect purchased.
Yet a statement he made in 1999, and discovered by the SCCRC, saw him produce "a wholly different list of items and prices". This, along with many other files that could damage the Crown case, was suppressed. The report says Mr Boyd failed in his duty of disclosure to the defence.
[Long reports marking the second anniversary of Megrahi's compassionate release can be read on the BBC News website here, on the STV News website here, on The Herald website here, on The Scotsman website here, on The Independent website here, on The Telegraph website here, on the Newsnet Scotland website here and on The Times website here behind the paywall.]
Saturday, 20 August 2011
Friday, 19 August 2011
Britain and US head for clash on fate of Lockerbie bomber
[This is the headline over an article published this evening on the United Arab Emirates The National website. It reads in part:]
The British and US governments appear to be on a legal collision course over the fate of a Libyan convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
The UK government accepts that Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, who was released from a Scottish prison two years ago today, can never be returned to Britain to complete his jail sentence.
But the Obama administration is believed to be ready to demand Al Megrahi's extradition to the US if Col Muammar Qaddafi is forced from power.
The release of Al Megrahi, who had completed fewer than eight years of a 27-year sentence, appalled the US government and most of the relatives of the 259 passengers and crew aboard Pan Am Flight 103, plus those of the 11 victims killed when the jumbo crashed on the Scottish border town.
It also angered David Cameron, who has since become Britain's prime minister, and his Conservative Party.
But while a Downing Street spokesman accepted this week the legal process had been exhausted and there was "no mechanism" for putting Al Megrahi back behind bars, the US administration is understood to be determined to extradite him to America, home to 189 of the victims.
"The US has not said anything officially but it is widely believed that the administration will try to get Megrahi back to the States if NTC [National Transitional Council] forces succeed in ousting Qaddafi," a diplomat said yesterday.
The NTC is the rebel authority Britain and the US recognise as the legitimate government of Libya. (...)
Guma El Gamaty, the UK coordinator for the NTC, this week described Al Megrahi's release as "helping Qaddafi and not the Libyan people".
"Unfortunately, it gave Qaddafi a political and diplomatic victory," Mr El Gamaty said. "By releasing Megrahi, it was the wrong signal."
But should the US and NTC agree to Al Megrahi's extradition, it would almost certainly cause a transatlantic rift and a clash over international law, not least because he has already been found guilty at a trial in The Netherlands under an agreement that included the US.
He also still falls within the jurisdiction of the Scottish legal system.
A Scottish government spokesman said: "East Renfrewshire Council, as the supervising local authority, has been able to maintain contact with Al Megrahi since his return to Libya, including during the recent conflict, and he continues to abide by the terms of his release licence."
But Robert Forrester, the secretary of Justice for Megrahi - a British-based lobby group that believes the Libyan was the victim of a miscarriage of justice - thinks the US will have no hesitation in trying to extradite him if Col Qaddafi and his regime fall.
"There is a strong likelihood that if members of the NTC lay their hands on Mr Al Megrahi, he may quickly find himself in possession of a one-way ticket to the USA, with all the dire consequences that that could hold in store for him," Mr Forrester said.
The Justice for Megrahi campaign has been joined by civil rights activists, relatives of two British victims, lawyers, journalists and even the Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
It wants the Scottish authorities to offer Al Megrahi "an open door" to enable him to flee to Scotland and live out his remaining time on licence in Britain.
But more strident voices have been calling for him to be brought back to Scotland to complete his prison term.
However, a spokesman for Mr Cameron said: "I don't think there is any mechanism by which he can be brought back to the UK."
Libyan authorities say Al Megrahi is already close to death, despite his appearance at the Qaddafi rally last month.
"His health has taken another turn for the worse after doctors discovered a growth on his neck," a government spokesman told the The Mail on Sunday.
"For the cancer to reach a part of the body so far away from the prostate confirms that Brother Megrahi's body is now ravaged by the disease."
The British and US governments appear to be on a legal collision course over the fate of a Libyan convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
The UK government accepts that Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, who was released from a Scottish prison two years ago today, can never be returned to Britain to complete his jail sentence.
But the Obama administration is believed to be ready to demand Al Megrahi's extradition to the US if Col Muammar Qaddafi is forced from power.
The release of Al Megrahi, who had completed fewer than eight years of a 27-year sentence, appalled the US government and most of the relatives of the 259 passengers and crew aboard Pan Am Flight 103, plus those of the 11 victims killed when the jumbo crashed on the Scottish border town.
It also angered David Cameron, who has since become Britain's prime minister, and his Conservative Party.
But while a Downing Street spokesman accepted this week the legal process had been exhausted and there was "no mechanism" for putting Al Megrahi back behind bars, the US administration is understood to be determined to extradite him to America, home to 189 of the victims.
"The US has not said anything officially but it is widely believed that the administration will try to get Megrahi back to the States if NTC [National Transitional Council] forces succeed in ousting Qaddafi," a diplomat said yesterday.
The NTC is the rebel authority Britain and the US recognise as the legitimate government of Libya. (...)
Guma El Gamaty, the UK coordinator for the NTC, this week described Al Megrahi's release as "helping Qaddafi and not the Libyan people".
"Unfortunately, it gave Qaddafi a political and diplomatic victory," Mr El Gamaty said. "By releasing Megrahi, it was the wrong signal."
But should the US and NTC agree to Al Megrahi's extradition, it would almost certainly cause a transatlantic rift and a clash over international law, not least because he has already been found guilty at a trial in The Netherlands under an agreement that included the US.
He also still falls within the jurisdiction of the Scottish legal system.
A Scottish government spokesman said: "East Renfrewshire Council, as the supervising local authority, has been able to maintain contact with Al Megrahi since his return to Libya, including during the recent conflict, and he continues to abide by the terms of his release licence."
But Robert Forrester, the secretary of Justice for Megrahi - a British-based lobby group that believes the Libyan was the victim of a miscarriage of justice - thinks the US will have no hesitation in trying to extradite him if Col Qaddafi and his regime fall.
"There is a strong likelihood that if members of the NTC lay their hands on Mr Al Megrahi, he may quickly find himself in possession of a one-way ticket to the USA, with all the dire consequences that that could hold in store for him," Mr Forrester said.
The Justice for Megrahi campaign has been joined by civil rights activists, relatives of two British victims, lawyers, journalists and even the Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
It wants the Scottish authorities to offer Al Megrahi "an open door" to enable him to flee to Scotland and live out his remaining time on licence in Britain.
But more strident voices have been calling for him to be brought back to Scotland to complete his prison term.
However, a spokesman for Mr Cameron said: "I don't think there is any mechanism by which he can be brought back to the UK."
Libyan authorities say Al Megrahi is already close to death, despite his appearance at the Qaddafi rally last month.
"His health has taken another turn for the worse after doctors discovered a growth on his neck," a government spokesman told the The Mail on Sunday.
"For the cancer to reach a part of the body so far away from the prostate confirms that Brother Megrahi's body is now ravaged by the disease."
The Lockerbie bomber I know
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Guardian. It reads in part:]
Two years ago Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was controversially released on the grounds he was about to die. But this shadowy figure has survived to become a pawn in the Libyan conflict. John Ashton, who has long believed in his innocence, describes the man behind the myth
It's an anniversary that the Scottish justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, will have long dreaded. Two years ago tomorrow MacAskill granted Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, AKA "the Lockerbie bomber", compassionate release from the life sentence he was serving for the murder of the 270 victims of the 1988 bombing. MacAskill had been advised that terminal cancer was likely to end the Libyan's life within the following three months: he had, in short, been "sent home to die". As Megrahi's recent appearance at a pro-Gaddafi rally reminded us, he has not stuck to the script.
The anniversary presents sections of the media with another opportunity to splutter its outrage at MacAskill's decision, and to resurrect the theory that it was driven by backroom deals rather than medical evidence. More seriously, for many of the relatives of the Lockerbie dead it adds an appalling insult to their already grievous injury.
But Megrahi's survival, and the Lockerbie case in general, now has far wider significance. For western governments struggling to justify why Libya should be singled out for enforced regime change, the issue has become a godsend. In recent weeks both Barack Obama and William Hague have tried to boost wilting public support for the war by highlighting Gaddafi's responsibility for the 1988 attack.
Libya's government-in-waiting, the National Transitional Council, has weighed in too. Its leader, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, claimed in February that Gaddafi personally ordered the bombing, and its London PR company, Bell-Pottinger, followed up Hague's comments by circulating a claim by a leading cancer specialist that MacAskill's decision was based on flawed medical advice. [RB: This claim is repeated in an article published today on the BBC News website.]
There is, though, another view that is shared by many who have scrutinised the Lockerbie case. They hold that the true scandal was not Megrahi's release, but his 2001 conviction. The Justice for Megrahi campaign, founded in 2008, counts among its signatories Dr Jim Swire and Rev John Mosey, each of whom lost a daughter in the bombing, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O'Brien. Another signatory, Scottish QC Ian Hamilton, last year blogged: "I don't think there's a lawyer in Scotland who now believes Mr Megrahi was justly convicted."
I go further than those lawyers: I am as certain as I can be that Megrahi is innocent. For three years until his return to Libya I worked as a researcher alongside his legal team and since then have been writing a book with him. I have read all his case files and have visited him many times, both in prison and in Tripoli. I'm one of a handful of people familiar with both the man and the evidence that convicted him.
It requires a book to explain all the flaws in that evidence. In 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) granted Megrahi an appeal, having identified six possible grounds for overturning the conviction. Among these, remarkably, was that the original judgment, delivered by three Scottish judges at a specially constructed court in the Netherlands, was unreasonable. Four of the other grounds concerned the Crown's most important witness, a Maltese shopkeeper called Tony Gauci, in whose shop Megrahi allegedly bought the clothes that ended up in the same suitcase as the bomb. In 1991 he picked out Megrahi from a lineup of photos. The SCCRC discovered that before doing so he had expressed an interest in receiving a reward, and that after Megrahi's conviction the Scottish police secretly approached the US Department of Justice to secure a $2m payment. Gauci's evidence was, in any case, highly unreliable. His descriptions of the clothes purchaser all suggested the man was around 50 years old, 6ft tall and with dark skin, whereas Megrahi was 36, is 5ft 8in and has light skin. (...)
He was born in Tripoli in 1952, into poverty that was typical of the times in Libya. One of eight siblings, his family shared a house with two others, and his mother supplemented his father's customs officer's income by sewing for neighbours. As a young child he was plagued by chest problems, for which he received daily vitamin supplements at his Unesco-administered school. His main passion was football, which continues to absorb him.
After finishing school in 1970, he briefly trained as a marine engineer at Rumney Technical College in Cardiff, hoping to become a ship's captain or navigator. When his eyesight proved too poor, he dropped out and returned to Tripoli, where he trained as a flight dispatcher for the state-owned Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA). Having completed his training and gained his dispatcher's licence in the US, he was gradually promoted to head of operations at Tripoli airport. Keen to improve his education, he studied geography at the University of Benghazi. He came top in his year and was invited to join the teaching staff on the promise that he could study for a master's degree in climatology in the US. When the promise proved hollow, he opted to boost his salary by returning to LAA.
In 1986 he became a partner in a small company called ABH and was temporarily appointed LAA's head of airline security. The following year he became part-time coordinator of the Libyan Centre for Strategic Studies. His Scottish prosecutors aimed to prove that these roles were cover for his activities as a senior agent for the Libyan intelligence service, the JSO.
Megrahi maintains that his only involvement with the JSO came during his 12-month tenure as head of airline security when he was seconded to the organisation to oversee the training of some of its personnel for security positions within the airline. There is ample documentary evidence to support his claim that ABH was a legitimate trading company whose main business was the purchase of spares for LAA aircraft, often in breach of US sanctions. He admits that he sometimes travelled on a false passport, but insists that it was issued to give him cover for his sanctions-busting activities; unlike his true passport, it did not betray his airline background.
Megrahi says that it came as a complete surprise when, in November 1991, he and his former LAA colleague Lamin Fhimah were charged with the bombing (Fhimah was found not guilty). Megrahi also maintains that it was their decision to stand trial and that they were not ordered to by their government. He was repeatedly warned that he was unlikely to receive a fair trial, but believed he would be acquitted.
During his decade in prison his good manners and cooperative behaviour earned him the respect of the officers. (...)
He was cheered by visits from well-known figures, most notably Nelson Mandela, and by hundreds of letters of support. In 2005 he was transferred to a low-security wing of HMP Gateside in Greenock, where he was placed among long-term prisoners nearing the end of their sentences. He was soon accepted by both inmates and officers, one of whom volunteered to me: "We all know he didn't do it." (...)
We were optimistic that his appeal would succeed, but its progress was glacial. In autumn 2008, with the first hearing still six months away, he was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. He had always dreamed of clearing his name and returning to his family, but eventually felt compelled to choose between the two. Although the compassionate release decision carried no legal preconditions, he knew that abandoning the appeal would smooth the process. No longer able to make his case in court, he asked me to write his story so he could make it to the public.
Writing the book required numerous visits to Tripoli, where he received me warmly in the home he shares with his wife and four sons in a middle-class suburb. His illness limited our sessions to a couple of hours. He would check every word I'd written for accuracy and was insistent that I include the case for both sides and not shy away from awkward facts. He repeatedly told me: "I understand that people will judge me with their hearts, but I ask them to please also judge me with their heads."
His reception, on his return to Tripoli, was portrayed as a triumphant official welcome, but, as a WikiLeaks cable revealed, the Libyan authorities limited the crowd to 200, with thousands of supporters and the international media kept away. A few months later the Sunday Times reported that, at the time he was convicted, he had $1.8m in a Swiss bank account. In fact the account had been dormant since 1993, when it had a balance of $23,000. This year the same paper reported a claim by NTC leader Abdel-Jalil that Megrahi had blackmailed Gaddafi to secure his release from prison "by threatening to expose the dictator's role" in the bombing. Had he done so he would have severely jeopardised both his chance of freedom and the safety of his family in Libya. Although he responded to such misreporting with a faint smile and a roll of the eyes, it hurt him deeply that anyone could believe him guilty of murder. (...)
When I last saw him, in September 2010, he visited me at my hotel. It was the only time I saw him among ordinary Libyans. Again we were repeatedly interrupted, this time by strangers thanking him, not for an act of terrorism, but for sacrificing his liberty for the good of the nation. His decision to stand trial helped free the country from UN sanctions that imposed 12 years of collective punishment on the assumption of his guilt. We now know that that assumption was based on evidence that was, at best, flimsy and, at worst, fabricated.
His appearance at the rally in a wheelchair probably won't silence the conspiracy theorists who claim he is living the life of Riley. The fact that he has made it this far is partly down to the superior medical care he receives. But I believe it's as much to do with his will to live and the knowledge that every day survived is a fragment of justice reclaimed.
[Today's edition of The Independent contains a report headlined Lockerbie release milestone nears which records the varying views of Lockerbie relatives and commentators on Megrahi and his release. There is a similar article in The Scotsman. An article in The Times, behind the paywall, contains, apart from reactions to Megrahi's release and survival, the latest information on the state of his health. An article on The Telegraph website attributes his survival to Abiraterone, a drug developed in the UK but not yet approved for use here. A letter from Rev Dr John Cameron supportive of the release decision appears in today's edition of The Herald.]
Two years ago Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was controversially released on the grounds he was about to die. But this shadowy figure has survived to become a pawn in the Libyan conflict. John Ashton, who has long believed in his innocence, describes the man behind the myth
It's an anniversary that the Scottish justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, will have long dreaded. Two years ago tomorrow MacAskill granted Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, AKA "the Lockerbie bomber", compassionate release from the life sentence he was serving for the murder of the 270 victims of the 1988 bombing. MacAskill had been advised that terminal cancer was likely to end the Libyan's life within the following three months: he had, in short, been "sent home to die". As Megrahi's recent appearance at a pro-Gaddafi rally reminded us, he has not stuck to the script.
The anniversary presents sections of the media with another opportunity to splutter its outrage at MacAskill's decision, and to resurrect the theory that it was driven by backroom deals rather than medical evidence. More seriously, for many of the relatives of the Lockerbie dead it adds an appalling insult to their already grievous injury.
But Megrahi's survival, and the Lockerbie case in general, now has far wider significance. For western governments struggling to justify why Libya should be singled out for enforced regime change, the issue has become a godsend. In recent weeks both Barack Obama and William Hague have tried to boost wilting public support for the war by highlighting Gaddafi's responsibility for the 1988 attack.
Libya's government-in-waiting, the National Transitional Council, has weighed in too. Its leader, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, claimed in February that Gaddafi personally ordered the bombing, and its London PR company, Bell-Pottinger, followed up Hague's comments by circulating a claim by a leading cancer specialist that MacAskill's decision was based on flawed medical advice. [RB: This claim is repeated in an article published today on the BBC News website.]
There is, though, another view that is shared by many who have scrutinised the Lockerbie case. They hold that the true scandal was not Megrahi's release, but his 2001 conviction. The Justice for Megrahi campaign, founded in 2008, counts among its signatories Dr Jim Swire and Rev John Mosey, each of whom lost a daughter in the bombing, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O'Brien. Another signatory, Scottish QC Ian Hamilton, last year blogged: "I don't think there's a lawyer in Scotland who now believes Mr Megrahi was justly convicted."
I go further than those lawyers: I am as certain as I can be that Megrahi is innocent. For three years until his return to Libya I worked as a researcher alongside his legal team and since then have been writing a book with him. I have read all his case files and have visited him many times, both in prison and in Tripoli. I'm one of a handful of people familiar with both the man and the evidence that convicted him.
It requires a book to explain all the flaws in that evidence. In 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) granted Megrahi an appeal, having identified six possible grounds for overturning the conviction. Among these, remarkably, was that the original judgment, delivered by three Scottish judges at a specially constructed court in the Netherlands, was unreasonable. Four of the other grounds concerned the Crown's most important witness, a Maltese shopkeeper called Tony Gauci, in whose shop Megrahi allegedly bought the clothes that ended up in the same suitcase as the bomb. In 1991 he picked out Megrahi from a lineup of photos. The SCCRC discovered that before doing so he had expressed an interest in receiving a reward, and that after Megrahi's conviction the Scottish police secretly approached the US Department of Justice to secure a $2m payment. Gauci's evidence was, in any case, highly unreliable. His descriptions of the clothes purchaser all suggested the man was around 50 years old, 6ft tall and with dark skin, whereas Megrahi was 36, is 5ft 8in and has light skin. (...)
He was born in Tripoli in 1952, into poverty that was typical of the times in Libya. One of eight siblings, his family shared a house with two others, and his mother supplemented his father's customs officer's income by sewing for neighbours. As a young child he was plagued by chest problems, for which he received daily vitamin supplements at his Unesco-administered school. His main passion was football, which continues to absorb him.
After finishing school in 1970, he briefly trained as a marine engineer at Rumney Technical College in Cardiff, hoping to become a ship's captain or navigator. When his eyesight proved too poor, he dropped out and returned to Tripoli, where he trained as a flight dispatcher for the state-owned Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA). Having completed his training and gained his dispatcher's licence in the US, he was gradually promoted to head of operations at Tripoli airport. Keen to improve his education, he studied geography at the University of Benghazi. He came top in his year and was invited to join the teaching staff on the promise that he could study for a master's degree in climatology in the US. When the promise proved hollow, he opted to boost his salary by returning to LAA.
In 1986 he became a partner in a small company called ABH and was temporarily appointed LAA's head of airline security. The following year he became part-time coordinator of the Libyan Centre for Strategic Studies. His Scottish prosecutors aimed to prove that these roles were cover for his activities as a senior agent for the Libyan intelligence service, the JSO.
Megrahi maintains that his only involvement with the JSO came during his 12-month tenure as head of airline security when he was seconded to the organisation to oversee the training of some of its personnel for security positions within the airline. There is ample documentary evidence to support his claim that ABH was a legitimate trading company whose main business was the purchase of spares for LAA aircraft, often in breach of US sanctions. He admits that he sometimes travelled on a false passport, but insists that it was issued to give him cover for his sanctions-busting activities; unlike his true passport, it did not betray his airline background.
Megrahi says that it came as a complete surprise when, in November 1991, he and his former LAA colleague Lamin Fhimah were charged with the bombing (Fhimah was found not guilty). Megrahi also maintains that it was their decision to stand trial and that they were not ordered to by their government. He was repeatedly warned that he was unlikely to receive a fair trial, but believed he would be acquitted.
During his decade in prison his good manners and cooperative behaviour earned him the respect of the officers. (...)
He was cheered by visits from well-known figures, most notably Nelson Mandela, and by hundreds of letters of support. In 2005 he was transferred to a low-security wing of HMP Gateside in Greenock, where he was placed among long-term prisoners nearing the end of their sentences. He was soon accepted by both inmates and officers, one of whom volunteered to me: "We all know he didn't do it." (...)
We were optimistic that his appeal would succeed, but its progress was glacial. In autumn 2008, with the first hearing still six months away, he was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. He had always dreamed of clearing his name and returning to his family, but eventually felt compelled to choose between the two. Although the compassionate release decision carried no legal preconditions, he knew that abandoning the appeal would smooth the process. No longer able to make his case in court, he asked me to write his story so he could make it to the public.
Writing the book required numerous visits to Tripoli, where he received me warmly in the home he shares with his wife and four sons in a middle-class suburb. His illness limited our sessions to a couple of hours. He would check every word I'd written for accuracy and was insistent that I include the case for both sides and not shy away from awkward facts. He repeatedly told me: "I understand that people will judge me with their hearts, but I ask them to please also judge me with their heads."
His reception, on his return to Tripoli, was portrayed as a triumphant official welcome, but, as a WikiLeaks cable revealed, the Libyan authorities limited the crowd to 200, with thousands of supporters and the international media kept away. A few months later the Sunday Times reported that, at the time he was convicted, he had $1.8m in a Swiss bank account. In fact the account had been dormant since 1993, when it had a balance of $23,000. This year the same paper reported a claim by NTC leader Abdel-Jalil that Megrahi had blackmailed Gaddafi to secure his release from prison "by threatening to expose the dictator's role" in the bombing. Had he done so he would have severely jeopardised both his chance of freedom and the safety of his family in Libya. Although he responded to such misreporting with a faint smile and a roll of the eyes, it hurt him deeply that anyone could believe him guilty of murder. (...)
When I last saw him, in September 2010, he visited me at my hotel. It was the only time I saw him among ordinary Libyans. Again we were repeatedly interrupted, this time by strangers thanking him, not for an act of terrorism, but for sacrificing his liberty for the good of the nation. His decision to stand trial helped free the country from UN sanctions that imposed 12 years of collective punishment on the assumption of his guilt. We now know that that assumption was based on evidence that was, at best, flimsy and, at worst, fabricated.
His appearance at the rally in a wheelchair probably won't silence the conspiracy theorists who claim he is living the life of Riley. The fact that he has made it this far is partly down to the superior medical care he receives. But I believe it's as much to do with his will to live and the knowledge that every day survived is a fragment of justice reclaimed.
[Today's edition of The Independent contains a report headlined Lockerbie release milestone nears which records the varying views of Lockerbie relatives and commentators on Megrahi and his release. There is a similar article in The Scotsman. An article in The Times, behind the paywall, contains, apart from reactions to Megrahi's release and survival, the latest information on the state of his health. An article on The Telegraph website attributes his survival to Abiraterone, a drug developed in the UK but not yet approved for use here. A letter from Rev Dr John Cameron supportive of the release decision appears in today's edition of The Herald.]
Thursday, 18 August 2011
Why isn't he dead yet?
[This is the headline over a long and important article by Justice for Megrahi's secretary, Robert Forrester, published online today in the Scottish Review. The first few and last few paragraphs read as follows:]
Here we go again. As the anniversary of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's compassionate release approaches, we enter what has become the annual 'Lockerbie Bomber' blood fest. On the menu: politicos on both sides of the pond bewailing the fact that the man isn't dead; journalists, editors and pro-Zeist commentators attempting to stir up ill-informed public opinion with their equally ill-informed views, the Scottish government on the defensive, etc, etc.
And, one must ask, amongst these worthies, have any even bothered to read the Zeist trial transcript or the judgement, let alone done any further and deeper research into the trial and the investigation into the tragedy of Lockerbie? Doubtful.
The evidence against Mr al-Megrahi was entirely circumstantial. The fact that he was selected as the candidate is based on a determination to find a best fit for the frame and to build a case around this construct to the exclusion of eliminating any flies in the ointment by making assumption upon supposition upon thin air. Such is not the stuff of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This is not justice, it is guess work. Guess work which provides a convenient fix, condemns and vilifies an individual (and his nation), dupes the bereaved and the public at large, and cripples the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system. (...)
In the last few days Dr [Jim] Swire, a Justice for Megrahi committee member, has expressed concern that Mr al-Megrahi could find himself either being assassinated by the US or, should the Libyan rebels manage to get hold of him, they would hand him over to the Americans so that he might benefit from a whole new slant on healthcare. Lest it be forgotten, the US agreed to the arrangements for the Zeist trial. Despite this, though, successive American administrations claiming to represent the voice of the American people, which quite clearly they don't, have shown no compunction when it comes to trampling over the sovereignty and sensibilities of others, have 'renditioned' their enemies for the purposes of torture to countries where such practices are par for the course, endorse a criminal justice system that seems to think that financial inducement in return for testimony is acceptable (...) and recognise no laws other than their own are clearly not going to bat an eyelid over the fact that Mr al-Megrahi is still a Scottish prisoner released under licence. It is a sorry world in which we live when the leaders of the most powerful 21st century, self-proclaimed Christian country have yet to mature beyond Urban II's 1095 call to arms.
The justice campaign lobbying the Scottish Parliament is not some random collection of fruitcake conspiracy theorists, despite the barricades set up by governments, the dizzyingly circular arguments presented by the crown and the vilification thrown at them by their pro-Zeist critics ('whores of a terrorist syndicate' being my own particular favourite). It comprises renowned figures from the worlds of the legal profession, politics, academia, the clergy, the police, journalism, and the arts etc as well as professionals who attended the crash site. But above all, it lists members of the bereaved and others who sat through every day of the trial. This is an issue which is crying out for an independent inquiry. It requires supreme courage on the part of the Scottish Government to show that we are not afraid to look ourselves in the mirror and admit that we are simply human and are capable of making mistakes no matter how hard we may try to avoid them.
It is also important to recognise that whilst there may well have been an element of malice involved in the case and its outcome, the majority of the problems associated with it are more likely a result of blind fixation, laziness, idiocy and a desperate need to avoid the excruciating embarrassment of not producing a conviction in the most high-profile case ever to come before a Scots court, dealing, as it was, with such a tragic case of mass murder.
Ultimately then, the question ought not to be should Mr al-Megrahi have been released, or why is he still alive, but why was he convicted in the first instance?
[Here is a response to this article published in the 23 August edition of the Scottish Review:]
I was disappointed in Robert Forrester's article (18 August) on Megrahi. He confuses the legitimate debate about the guilt of Megrahi with the release on medical grounds.
At the time I have no doubt that Dr Andrew Fraser acted in good faith. But, and it is a big but, it has never been made clear as to the medical opinions on which he based his report to the justice secretary. As an associate member of the British Association of Urological Surgeons – a membership offered to me by BAUSCH because of my work on prostate disease including cancer – I expressed serious concerns about the decision at the time.
Readers may remember that in the three weeks before the medical opinion stating that 'he was likely to die within three months' (first week, August 2009) the experts including urological oncologists (prostate cancer specialists) had stated a likely survival of 10 to 24 or more months. This sudden change has never been explained.
Who actually conducted the review and examination beyond the local GP medical officer at Greenock is unclear. The government's failure to publish the detailed facts and timeline adds to the anguish felt by some of the families.
The dropping of the appeal, a decision which was not a necessary prerequisite of release on medical grounds, has led to the confused thinking this article portrays. Has Megrahi even been asked if all the medical facts can be published? It would be interesting to know whether he refused treatment in Greenock rather than hinting at inadequacies in Scotland's treatment of his condition, which is an unbelievable slur promoted here.
Dr Richard Simpson MSP is shadow public health and sport minister.
Here we go again. As the anniversary of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's compassionate release approaches, we enter what has become the annual 'Lockerbie Bomber' blood fest. On the menu: politicos on both sides of the pond bewailing the fact that the man isn't dead; journalists, editors and pro-Zeist commentators attempting to stir up ill-informed public opinion with their equally ill-informed views, the Scottish government on the defensive, etc, etc.
And, one must ask, amongst these worthies, have any even bothered to read the Zeist trial transcript or the judgement, let alone done any further and deeper research into the trial and the investigation into the tragedy of Lockerbie? Doubtful.
The evidence against Mr al-Megrahi was entirely circumstantial. The fact that he was selected as the candidate is based on a determination to find a best fit for the frame and to build a case around this construct to the exclusion of eliminating any flies in the ointment by making assumption upon supposition upon thin air. Such is not the stuff of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This is not justice, it is guess work. Guess work which provides a convenient fix, condemns and vilifies an individual (and his nation), dupes the bereaved and the public at large, and cripples the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system. (...)
In the last few days Dr [Jim] Swire, a Justice for Megrahi committee member, has expressed concern that Mr al-Megrahi could find himself either being assassinated by the US or, should the Libyan rebels manage to get hold of him, they would hand him over to the Americans so that he might benefit from a whole new slant on healthcare. Lest it be forgotten, the US agreed to the arrangements for the Zeist trial. Despite this, though, successive American administrations claiming to represent the voice of the American people, which quite clearly they don't, have shown no compunction when it comes to trampling over the sovereignty and sensibilities of others, have 'renditioned' their enemies for the purposes of torture to countries where such practices are par for the course, endorse a criminal justice system that seems to think that financial inducement in return for testimony is acceptable (...) and recognise no laws other than their own are clearly not going to bat an eyelid over the fact that Mr al-Megrahi is still a Scottish prisoner released under licence. It is a sorry world in which we live when the leaders of the most powerful 21st century, self-proclaimed Christian country have yet to mature beyond Urban II's 1095 call to arms.
The justice campaign lobbying the Scottish Parliament is not some random collection of fruitcake conspiracy theorists, despite the barricades set up by governments, the dizzyingly circular arguments presented by the crown and the vilification thrown at them by their pro-Zeist critics ('whores of a terrorist syndicate' being my own particular favourite). It comprises renowned figures from the worlds of the legal profession, politics, academia, the clergy, the police, journalism, and the arts etc as well as professionals who attended the crash site. But above all, it lists members of the bereaved and others who sat through every day of the trial. This is an issue which is crying out for an independent inquiry. It requires supreme courage on the part of the Scottish Government to show that we are not afraid to look ourselves in the mirror and admit that we are simply human and are capable of making mistakes no matter how hard we may try to avoid them.
It is also important to recognise that whilst there may well have been an element of malice involved in the case and its outcome, the majority of the problems associated with it are more likely a result of blind fixation, laziness, idiocy and a desperate need to avoid the excruciating embarrassment of not producing a conviction in the most high-profile case ever to come before a Scots court, dealing, as it was, with such a tragic case of mass murder.
Ultimately then, the question ought not to be should Mr al-Megrahi have been released, or why is he still alive, but why was he convicted in the first instance?
[Here is a response to this article published in the 23 August edition of the Scottish Review:]
I was disappointed in Robert Forrester's article (18 August) on Megrahi. He confuses the legitimate debate about the guilt of Megrahi with the release on medical grounds.
At the time I have no doubt that Dr Andrew Fraser acted in good faith. But, and it is a big but, it has never been made clear as to the medical opinions on which he based his report to the justice secretary. As an associate member of the British Association of Urological Surgeons – a membership offered to me by BAUSCH because of my work on prostate disease including cancer – I expressed serious concerns about the decision at the time.
Readers may remember that in the three weeks before the medical opinion stating that 'he was likely to die within three months' (first week, August 2009) the experts including urological oncologists (prostate cancer specialists) had stated a likely survival of 10 to 24 or more months. This sudden change has never been explained.
Who actually conducted the review and examination beyond the local GP medical officer at Greenock is unclear. The government's failure to publish the detailed facts and timeline adds to the anguish felt by some of the families.
The dropping of the appeal, a decision which was not a necessary prerequisite of release on medical grounds, has led to the confused thinking this article portrays. Has Megrahi even been asked if all the medical facts can be published? It would be interesting to know whether he refused treatment in Greenock rather than hinting at inadequacies in Scotland's treatment of his condition, which is an unbelievable slur promoted here.
Dr Richard Simpson MSP is shadow public health and sport minister.
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Tam Dalyell: Megrahi is not guilty
[This is the headline over a report published this evening on the STV News website. It reads in part:]
The former Labour MP told an audience in Edinburgh that the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was innocent.
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is not guilty, veteran politician Tam Dalyell has claimed.
Speaking three days before the second anniversary of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, Mr Dalyell also repeated his claim that former prime minister Margaret Thatcher personally dismissed calls for a public inquiry into the bombing.
The former MP told an audience at the Edinburgh International Book Festival that Megrahi "is not guilty as charged".
He said: "The people who did it were the gangs of [Ahmed] Jibril and Abu Nidal from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC).
"One of the reasons why the commission (The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) said the verdict wasn't safe was the matter of the bill of £10m which was paid into the coffers of the PFLP-GC on December 23 1988, two days after Lockerbie."
The SCCRC referred Megrahi's conviction back to the High Court in 2007, but the appeal was subsequently dropped to clear the way for his compassionate release.
However, calls persist for a public inquiry, with Holyrood's Justice Committee preparing to consider a petition on the matter by the Justice For Megrahi group, led my Jim Swire whose daughter Flora died in the bombing.
However, Mr Dalyell claimed that Mrs Thatcher personally rejected earlier calls for an inquiry.
He said: "I asked her why, across 800 pages of her autobiography, that she didn't mention Lockerbie once.
"And she said: 'I didn't know about it...I don't know exactly what happened, and I don't write about things that I don't know about'."
He added: "It was clear by that time that she had been told by the Americans that they did not want a public inquiry.
"And you will remember that Jim Swire and John Mosey, the relatives, had gone to Cecil Parkinson, the Transport Secretary, who agreed that there should be a public inquiry.
"However, he came back rather sheepishly and said: 'I'm afraid my colleagues don't agree'.
"But there was only one colleague, and she didn't agree."
The former Labour MP told an audience in Edinburgh that the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was innocent.
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is not guilty, veteran politician Tam Dalyell has claimed.
Speaking three days before the second anniversary of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, Mr Dalyell also repeated his claim that former prime minister Margaret Thatcher personally dismissed calls for a public inquiry into the bombing.
The former MP told an audience at the Edinburgh International Book Festival that Megrahi "is not guilty as charged".
He said: "The people who did it were the gangs of [Ahmed] Jibril and Abu Nidal from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC).
"One of the reasons why the commission (The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) said the verdict wasn't safe was the matter of the bill of £10m which was paid into the coffers of the PFLP-GC on December 23 1988, two days after Lockerbie."
The SCCRC referred Megrahi's conviction back to the High Court in 2007, but the appeal was subsequently dropped to clear the way for his compassionate release.
However, calls persist for a public inquiry, with Holyrood's Justice Committee preparing to consider a petition on the matter by the Justice For Megrahi group, led my Jim Swire whose daughter Flora died in the bombing.
However, Mr Dalyell claimed that Mrs Thatcher personally rejected earlier calls for an inquiry.
He said: "I asked her why, across 800 pages of her autobiography, that she didn't mention Lockerbie once.
"And she said: 'I didn't know about it...I don't know exactly what happened, and I don't write about things that I don't know about'."
He added: "It was clear by that time that she had been told by the Americans that they did not want a public inquiry.
"And you will remember that Jim Swire and John Mosey, the relatives, had gone to Cecil Parkinson, the Transport Secretary, who agreed that there should be a public inquiry.
"However, he came back rather sheepishly and said: 'I'm afraid my colleagues don't agree'.
"But there was only one colleague, and she didn't agree."
Where are our role models in Britain's 'broken society'?
[This is the headline over an article by Dan Mackay published today on the website of the John O'Groat Journal and Caithness Courier. It reads in part:]
Doctor Jim Swire, the father of one of the Lockerbie bombing victims, spoke of his continuing sadness when he appeared on stage with the author of a play about his quest for justice.
Lockerbie: Unfinished Business, was a one-off performance at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.
Dr Swire's daughter, Flora, was 23 years old when she became one of the 270 victims of the 1988 atrocity.
Dr Swire stood shoulder to shoulder with writer and actor David Benson and members of the Justice for Megrahi committee. Dr Swire and the convicted bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, have become firm friends after they met at Greenock Prison. Dr Swire believes Megrahi is an innocent man and has been leading calls for a fresh inquiry.
He told a festival audience: "This is not my tragedy, it is not even the tragedy of other families. It is a tragedy for Scotland."
Swire insists the Megrahi conviction is one of the worst miscarriages of justice. It's an unusual position for a man who lost his daughter in the Pan Am Flight 103 attack. Remember, though, that Dr Swire is a hugely intelligent and informed man. More than practically anyone else he will know the case inside out.
Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds by the Scottish Government in August 2009 following the diagnosis of a terminal prostate cancer. He had apparently only three months to live. That was two years ago...
His release was conditional to relinquishing a legal challenge to contest the outcome of his conviction. [RB: Although dropping the appeal was not a necessary prerequisite for compassionate release, it was for prisoner transfer. And if Megrahi wished to keep both options open he had to abandon, given that Kenny MacAskill had intimated that he would deal with both applications concurrently.]
Many questions have since been raised about the underlying reason for his release and whether his conviction might have been quashed had he appealed it. Megrahi appeared, controversially, at a recent pro-Gadaffi rally in Tripoli, the Libyan capital.
As Dr Swire told his audience at the end of the play, the Lockerbie story is "unfinished business": it is Scotland's tragedy.
Doctor Jim Swire, the father of one of the Lockerbie bombing victims, spoke of his continuing sadness when he appeared on stage with the author of a play about his quest for justice.
Lockerbie: Unfinished Business, was a one-off performance at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.
Dr Swire's daughter, Flora, was 23 years old when she became one of the 270 victims of the 1988 atrocity.
Dr Swire stood shoulder to shoulder with writer and actor David Benson and members of the Justice for Megrahi committee. Dr Swire and the convicted bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, have become firm friends after they met at Greenock Prison. Dr Swire believes Megrahi is an innocent man and has been leading calls for a fresh inquiry.
He told a festival audience: "This is not my tragedy, it is not even the tragedy of other families. It is a tragedy for Scotland."
Swire insists the Megrahi conviction is one of the worst miscarriages of justice. It's an unusual position for a man who lost his daughter in the Pan Am Flight 103 attack. Remember, though, that Dr Swire is a hugely intelligent and informed man. More than practically anyone else he will know the case inside out.
Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds by the Scottish Government in August 2009 following the diagnosis of a terminal prostate cancer. He had apparently only three months to live. That was two years ago...
His release was conditional to relinquishing a legal challenge to contest the outcome of his conviction. [RB: Although dropping the appeal was not a necessary prerequisite for compassionate release, it was for prisoner transfer. And if Megrahi wished to keep both options open he had to abandon, given that Kenny MacAskill had intimated that he would deal with both applications concurrently.]
Many questions have since been raised about the underlying reason for his release and whether his conviction might have been quashed had he appealed it. Megrahi appeared, controversially, at a recent pro-Gadaffi rally in Tripoli, the Libyan capital.
As Dr Swire told his audience at the end of the play, the Lockerbie story is "unfinished business": it is Scotland's tragedy.
It’s better for everybody if Megrahi stays in Libya for the time he has left
[This is the heading over a letter from Iain A D Mann in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Lord George Foulkes suggests that, if or when Colonel Gaddafi is deposed, the convicted terrorist bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi should be brought back from Libya to resume his sentence in Scotland (“Take Megrahi back to face Scottish jail”, The Herald, August 16).
I’m sure that is the last thing the Scottish judicial system and both the Scottish and UK governments would want, as it would re-open all the doubts and debate about the original trial and conviction.
If the journey didn’t kill Megrahi, I doubt if he would last long in a Scottish prison cell. But if he did survive could he be prevented from re-opening his second appeal, which was mysteriously dropped and for which no official explanation has ever been given? Was his defence counsel Maggie Scott, QC, consulted before he made his decision? We have never been told.
The authorities assured us that Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds was not dependent on his dropping the appeal. But there has always been a strong suspicion that the two were somehow related, especially after Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill’s visit to meet him in Greenock Prison.
One theory is that the Government and some people in the Scottish justice system feared the second appeal would have been upheld, on one or more of the six grounds for serious doubt about the Camp Zeist conviction identified by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
There is also the possibility that he might seek to take his case to the UK Supreme Court, now that court has assumed the final right to adjudicate on Scottish criminal cases. [RB: The UK Supreme Court has this right only where the criminal case in question raises a devolution issue, which includes an alleged breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.] Unlike in England, this would not require the prior permission of our highest appeal court.
All in all, returning Megrahi to Scotland would do nothing but open up a nasty can of worms.
Better for all concerned if stones are left unturned, and Megrahi remains in Libya for whatever time he has left.
Lord George Foulkes suggests that, if or when Colonel Gaddafi is deposed, the convicted terrorist bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi should be brought back from Libya to resume his sentence in Scotland (“Take Megrahi back to face Scottish jail”, The Herald, August 16).
I’m sure that is the last thing the Scottish judicial system and both the Scottish and UK governments would want, as it would re-open all the doubts and debate about the original trial and conviction.
If the journey didn’t kill Megrahi, I doubt if he would last long in a Scottish prison cell. But if he did survive could he be prevented from re-opening his second appeal, which was mysteriously dropped and for which no official explanation has ever been given? Was his defence counsel Maggie Scott, QC, consulted before he made his decision? We have never been told.
The authorities assured us that Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds was not dependent on his dropping the appeal. But there has always been a strong suspicion that the two were somehow related, especially after Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill’s visit to meet him in Greenock Prison.
One theory is that the Government and some people in the Scottish justice system feared the second appeal would have been upheld, on one or more of the six grounds for serious doubt about the Camp Zeist conviction identified by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
There is also the possibility that he might seek to take his case to the UK Supreme Court, now that court has assumed the final right to adjudicate on Scottish criminal cases. [RB: The UK Supreme Court has this right only where the criminal case in question raises a devolution issue, which includes an alleged breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.] Unlike in England, this would not require the prior permission of our highest appeal court.
All in all, returning Megrahi to Scotland would do nothing but open up a nasty can of worms.
Better for all concerned if stones are left unturned, and Megrahi remains in Libya for whatever time he has left.
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Anniversary of "responsibility" letter
Today is the eighth anniversary of the delivery to the President of the United Nations Security Council of the letter in which the Libyan Government accepted responsibility for the actions of its officials in relation to Pan Am 103. The full text of the letter can be read here.
Take Megrahi back to face Scottish jail
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, should be extradited back to the UK and returned to a Scottish jail to undergo a health review, according to Labour peer George Foulkes.
Ahead of the second anniversary on Saturday of the release of the only person convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the former Scotland Office minister said that once the Gaddafi regime fell, Megrahi should be transported back to a Scottish jail.
“He should be extradited back to the UK and put in custody in a Scottish jail and a health review undertaken on whether he should be kept in some kind of secure place. There needs to be a proper examination of his medical condition.”
Responding to calls from politicians in America that, once Tripoli falls, Megrahi should be extradited to the US to face justice there, Lord Foulkes insisted it would be more appropriate for him to be returned to Scotland, where the offence took place. (...)
Lord Foulkes said he accepted that extraditing Megrahi would present First Minister Alex Salmond and Mr MacAskill with a major dilemma, but he argued the decision to release the Libyan, while it might have been taken in good faith, was “manifestly wrong” given that it was based on inaccurate medical evidence that Megrahi had only a short time to live.
“That was two years ago. The decision was manifestly wrong. It needs to be reviewed,” said the Labour peer.
Only last month, the Libyan appeared on TV, attending a rally in support of Colonel Gaddafi.
Thomas Docherty, the Labour MP for Dunfermline and West Fife, insisted Mr MacAskill had made a “terrible mistake” in releasing Megrahi but believed the Scottish judicial process had ended with it.
“It was a hugely embarrassing decision, which damaged Scotland’s standing with America, and if the Americans wish to bring fresh charges, they’re entitled to do so,” explained the backbencher.
Mr Docherty said that if Megrahi were deemed fit, then an independent medical diagnosis should be undertaken to see if he could serve more time behind bars. “But that’s a matter for the Libyans,” he added.
At the weekend, a newspaper survey showed strong support among Scots for Megrahi to be returned to prison either in Scotland (35%) or in Libya (31%), with 24% saying he should remain free. (...)
At the weekend, Jim Swire, father of Flora, who died in the Lockerbie bombing, said he feared US special forces could shoot dead the convicted Libyan in an operation similar to the one that claimed the life of Osama bin Laden.
Dr Swire, a former GP who believes Megrahi to be innocent of the Lockerbie bombing, said: “Presumably, they wouldn’t extract him but kill him on the spot.”
[August is traditionally the silly season in the newspaper industry. It is good to see that Scotland's sillier politicians are upholding that fine tradition. In stark contrast, a sensible letter appears in today's edition of The Scotsman.]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, should be extradited back to the UK and returned to a Scottish jail to undergo a health review, according to Labour peer George Foulkes.
Ahead of the second anniversary on Saturday of the release of the only person convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the former Scotland Office minister said that once the Gaddafi regime fell, Megrahi should be transported back to a Scottish jail.
“He should be extradited back to the UK and put in custody in a Scottish jail and a health review undertaken on whether he should be kept in some kind of secure place. There needs to be a proper examination of his medical condition.”
Responding to calls from politicians in America that, once Tripoli falls, Megrahi should be extradited to the US to face justice there, Lord Foulkes insisted it would be more appropriate for him to be returned to Scotland, where the offence took place. (...)
Lord Foulkes said he accepted that extraditing Megrahi would present First Minister Alex Salmond and Mr MacAskill with a major dilemma, but he argued the decision to release the Libyan, while it might have been taken in good faith, was “manifestly wrong” given that it was based on inaccurate medical evidence that Megrahi had only a short time to live.
“That was two years ago. The decision was manifestly wrong. It needs to be reviewed,” said the Labour peer.
Only last month, the Libyan appeared on TV, attending a rally in support of Colonel Gaddafi.
Thomas Docherty, the Labour MP for Dunfermline and West Fife, insisted Mr MacAskill had made a “terrible mistake” in releasing Megrahi but believed the Scottish judicial process had ended with it.
“It was a hugely embarrassing decision, which damaged Scotland’s standing with America, and if the Americans wish to bring fresh charges, they’re entitled to do so,” explained the backbencher.
Mr Docherty said that if Megrahi were deemed fit, then an independent medical diagnosis should be undertaken to see if he could serve more time behind bars. “But that’s a matter for the Libyans,” he added.
At the weekend, a newspaper survey showed strong support among Scots for Megrahi to be returned to prison either in Scotland (35%) or in Libya (31%), with 24% saying he should remain free. (...)
At the weekend, Jim Swire, father of Flora, who died in the Lockerbie bombing, said he feared US special forces could shoot dead the convicted Libyan in an operation similar to the one that claimed the life of Osama bin Laden.
Dr Swire, a former GP who believes Megrahi to be innocent of the Lockerbie bombing, said: “Presumably, they wouldn’t extract him but kill him on the spot.”
[August is traditionally the silly season in the newspaper industry. It is good to see that Scotland's sillier politicians are upholding that fine tradition. In stark contrast, a sensible letter appears in today's edition of The Scotsman.]
Monday, 15 August 2011
Downing Street powerless to force return of Lockerbie bomber
[This is the headline over a report published this evening on The Telegraph website. It reads in part:]
Downing Street has admitted that it is powerless to force the return of the Lockerbie bomber to Britain almost two years after the Libyan was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds.
David Cameron's official spokesman said that there was "no mechanism" to return Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to Britain even if he was captured by Libyan rebels or American special forces.
The admission came amid some speculation that the bomber may be seized and passed to Nato forces during the ongoing conflict in Libya.
This weekend marks the second anniversary of the release of Megrahi who was freed from prison after a medical assessment that he only had a few months to live after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. He was released after serving just eight years of a 27-year sentence for killing 270 people in the Lockerbie airline bombing.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister's spokesman was asked if the second anniversary would lead to a renewed push to return Megrahi to prison.
"I don't think there is any mechanism by which he can be brought back to the United Kingdom," he said.
The Daily Telegraph understands that the British Government believes that the Scottish authorities would have had to have led any attempt to bring back Megrahi. However, the Scottish authorities have repeatedly defended the decision to release the prisoner and say that the "due and proper process" was followed.
The Libyan Government insisted last week that Megrahi's condition had recently taken "another turn for the worse" after doctors discovered a growth on his neck.
Downing Street has admitted that it is powerless to force the return of the Lockerbie bomber to Britain almost two years after the Libyan was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds.
David Cameron's official spokesman said that there was "no mechanism" to return Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to Britain even if he was captured by Libyan rebels or American special forces.
The admission came amid some speculation that the bomber may be seized and passed to Nato forces during the ongoing conflict in Libya.
This weekend marks the second anniversary of the release of Megrahi who was freed from prison after a medical assessment that he only had a few months to live after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. He was released after serving just eight years of a 27-year sentence for killing 270 people in the Lockerbie airline bombing.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister's spokesman was asked if the second anniversary would lead to a renewed push to return Megrahi to prison.
"I don't think there is any mechanism by which he can be brought back to the United Kingdom," he said.
The Daily Telegraph understands that the British Government believes that the Scottish authorities would have had to have led any attempt to bring back Megrahi. However, the Scottish authorities have repeatedly defended the decision to release the prisoner and say that the "due and proper process" was followed.
The Libyan Government insisted last week that Megrahi's condition had recently taken "another turn for the worse" after doctors discovered a growth on his neck.
Gaddafi’s Megrahi ‘victory’
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
The release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing gave Muammar Gaddafi a “political and diplomatic victory”, according to the London ambassador of the newly recognised Libyan Government.
This Saturday is the second anniversary of the decision by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds as he was suffering from prostate cancer. Experts said he had three months to live.
The anniversary has prompted a rash of stories about Megrahi. One had him riddled with tumours and close to death, another suggested the US might assassinate him, while a poll suggested public opinion has hardened against the decision to release him.
Guma el-Gamaty, UK co-ordinator for the Libyan National Transitional Council, which took over the Libyan Embassy in London and is recognised as the legitimate Government of Libya by Britain, also spoke out.
He said of Megrahi’s return to Libya: “I think it has helped Gaddafi and not the Libyan people. Unfortunately it gave Gaddafi a political and diplomatic victory. By releasing Megrahi it was the wrong signal. Megrahi was pursuing an appeal for so long and he should have been allowed to conclude the appeal.”
Mr el-Gamaty was also critical of the Blair Government’s relations with Gaddafi, saying London was involved in “murky” deals with the dictator. (...)
As the anniversary of Megrahi’s release approaches, Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was one of the 270 victims of the 1988 atrocity, has said he is to step back from campaigning on behalf the UK victims’ families.
A long-term critic of the safety of the Camp Zeist conviction, he said of Megrahi: “I am worried for him. I can just see the unit they sent to kill Osama bin Laden being sent to extract Megrahi. Presumably, they wouldn’t extract him but kill him.”
A Gaddafi Government spokesman said of Megrahi at the weekend: “Doctors discovered a growth on his neck. For the cancer to reach a part of the body so far away from the prostate confirms that Brother Megrahi’s body is now ravaged by the disease.”
A survey for a Sunday newspaper [The Sunday Times] showed strong support among Scots for Megrahi to be returned to prison either in Scotland (35%) or in Libya (31%), with 24% saying he should stay free. Belief that he was innocent was far higher in Scotland (21%) than the UK (6%).
Stephanie Bernstein from Washington State, who lost her husband Michael in the Pan-Am atrocity, described any possible return of Megrahi to prison as “a fairytale” adding that his release had simply propped up the Gaddafi regime while causing deep distress for the families of the victims.
Ms Bernstein said: “It is a fairytale to think that he would ever be returned to prison now. The time to have done the right thing was two years ago.
“In releasing him, the Scottish Government and the British Government helped to prop up the regime.”
Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said: “This poll and comments from Libya’s newly-recognised government show how wrong this decision was and why it is time for Alex Salmond, on the second anniversary of al-Megrahi’s release, to apologise finally to the relatives of the victims.”
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Regardless of people’s views they can have complete confidence that the decision was taken on the basis of Scots Law, and without any consideration of the economic, political and diplomatic factors that the UK Labour Government based their hypocritical position on.”
[A similar article can be found here behind the paywall on The Times website.
Further media coverage of Dr Swire's comments can be found here on The Scotsman website; here on The Telegraph website; and here on the Daily Mail website.]
The release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing gave Muammar Gaddafi a “political and diplomatic victory”, according to the London ambassador of the newly recognised Libyan Government.
This Saturday is the second anniversary of the decision by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds as he was suffering from prostate cancer. Experts said he had three months to live.
The anniversary has prompted a rash of stories about Megrahi. One had him riddled with tumours and close to death, another suggested the US might assassinate him, while a poll suggested public opinion has hardened against the decision to release him.
Guma el-Gamaty, UK co-ordinator for the Libyan National Transitional Council, which took over the Libyan Embassy in London and is recognised as the legitimate Government of Libya by Britain, also spoke out.
He said of Megrahi’s return to Libya: “I think it has helped Gaddafi and not the Libyan people. Unfortunately it gave Gaddafi a political and diplomatic victory. By releasing Megrahi it was the wrong signal. Megrahi was pursuing an appeal for so long and he should have been allowed to conclude the appeal.”
Mr el-Gamaty was also critical of the Blair Government’s relations with Gaddafi, saying London was involved in “murky” deals with the dictator. (...)
As the anniversary of Megrahi’s release approaches, Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was one of the 270 victims of the 1988 atrocity, has said he is to step back from campaigning on behalf the UK victims’ families.
A long-term critic of the safety of the Camp Zeist conviction, he said of Megrahi: “I am worried for him. I can just see the unit they sent to kill Osama bin Laden being sent to extract Megrahi. Presumably, they wouldn’t extract him but kill him.”
A Gaddafi Government spokesman said of Megrahi at the weekend: “Doctors discovered a growth on his neck. For the cancer to reach a part of the body so far away from the prostate confirms that Brother Megrahi’s body is now ravaged by the disease.”
A survey for a Sunday newspaper [The Sunday Times] showed strong support among Scots for Megrahi to be returned to prison either in Scotland (35%) or in Libya (31%), with 24% saying he should stay free. Belief that he was innocent was far higher in Scotland (21%) than the UK (6%).
Stephanie Bernstein from Washington State, who lost her husband Michael in the Pan-Am atrocity, described any possible return of Megrahi to prison as “a fairytale” adding that his release had simply propped up the Gaddafi regime while causing deep distress for the families of the victims.
Ms Bernstein said: “It is a fairytale to think that he would ever be returned to prison now. The time to have done the right thing was two years ago.
“In releasing him, the Scottish Government and the British Government helped to prop up the regime.”
Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said: “This poll and comments from Libya’s newly-recognised government show how wrong this decision was and why it is time for Alex Salmond, on the second anniversary of al-Megrahi’s release, to apologise finally to the relatives of the victims.”
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Regardless of people’s views they can have complete confidence that the decision was taken on the basis of Scots Law, and without any consideration of the economic, political and diplomatic factors that the UK Labour Government based their hypocritical position on.”
[A similar article can be found here behind the paywall on The Times website.
Further media coverage of Dr Swire's comments can be found here on The Scotsman website; here on The Telegraph website; and here on the Daily Mail website.]
Sunday, 14 August 2011
A prediction concerning the coming anniversary
[An interesting article by G A Ponsonby on the mainstream Scottish press's synthetic outrage at the First Minister's insistence that last week's riots were not a UK but an English phenomenon has just been published on the Newsnet Scotland website. The author coins the expression "junionalism" for journalism in which every story is slanted in a way that always seeks to uphold the Union and to disparage the independence movement. The following are excerpts:]
[The media's] frustration exploded in anger when Alex Salmond pointed out that Scotland had remained calm as England’s civil strife exploded. Salmond called for an end to the ‘UK’ description of the riots and asked for accuracy in reporting. A kind of media riot ensued where Salmond’s words were hacked, twisted then burnt on a fire of fundamental Unionism. (...)
This mindset is unable to see the damage that is being wrought on Scotland and therefore cannot begin to understand the need for change that is now gaining widespread support in Scotland. That Scottish tourism jobs could be lost as a result of media misinformation was mere collateral damage, a sacrifice on the altar at the worship of Unionism.
This thinking has rendered Labour, the Lib Dems and Tories unable to appreciate just how out of touch they were last week when ordinary Scots were angered by the media’s insistence that these were UK riots.
The hypocrisy of the Unionists over the whole ‘UK riot’ media misreporting can be demonstrated with ease. One need only mention the banking bailout where HBOS and the Royal Bank were, and still are, described as “Scottish Banks”. That these institutions carried out 90% of their business in England and were regulated by an English based body is ignored.
We can throw in sectarianism, described by Labour as “Scotland’s shame”, and of course the spiritual home of sectarianism, Northern Ireland, never sees its own street rioting described as anything other than “Northern Irish”.
The hypocrisy will be further exposed this coming week when Scotland’s ‘junionalists’ reheat and sink their teeth into the Megrahi story once again. The compassionate release will be described as Scotland’s problem and Scottish health workers and professionals will have their reputations traduced as the medical evidence is criticised by the ignorant.
The same people who lied and misrepresented from the beginning will do so again and the same attacks on Scotland’s reputation will be wheeled out. Labour politicians, whose UK leaders were negotiating secret desert deals with Gadaffi will again condemn Kenny MacAskill.
[The media's] frustration exploded in anger when Alex Salmond pointed out that Scotland had remained calm as England’s civil strife exploded. Salmond called for an end to the ‘UK’ description of the riots and asked for accuracy in reporting. A kind of media riot ensued where Salmond’s words were hacked, twisted then burnt on a fire of fundamental Unionism. (...)
This mindset is unable to see the damage that is being wrought on Scotland and therefore cannot begin to understand the need for change that is now gaining widespread support in Scotland. That Scottish tourism jobs could be lost as a result of media misinformation was mere collateral damage, a sacrifice on the altar at the worship of Unionism.
This thinking has rendered Labour, the Lib Dems and Tories unable to appreciate just how out of touch they were last week when ordinary Scots were angered by the media’s insistence that these were UK riots.
The hypocrisy of the Unionists over the whole ‘UK riot’ media misreporting can be demonstrated with ease. One need only mention the banking bailout where HBOS and the Royal Bank were, and still are, described as “Scottish Banks”. That these institutions carried out 90% of their business in England and were regulated by an English based body is ignored.
We can throw in sectarianism, described by Labour as “Scotland’s shame”, and of course the spiritual home of sectarianism, Northern Ireland, never sees its own street rioting described as anything other than “Northern Irish”.
The hypocrisy will be further exposed this coming week when Scotland’s ‘junionalists’ reheat and sink their teeth into the Megrahi story once again. The compassionate release will be described as Scotland’s problem and Scottish health workers and professionals will have their reputations traduced as the medical evidence is criticised by the ignorant.
The same people who lied and misrepresented from the beginning will do so again and the same attacks on Scotland’s reputation will be wheeled out. Labour politicians, whose UK leaders were negotiating secret desert deals with Gadaffi will again condemn Kenny MacAskill.
Libyans hit out at release of Megrahi
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads in part:]
Scotland's release of the Lockerbie bomber sent out the "wrong signal," handing Colonel Gaddafi "a political and diplomatic victory", the UK head of the newly-recognised Libyan government has said.
Guma el-Gamaty, the UK co-ordinator for the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC), officially recognised by Britain as the country's new legitimate government, said Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi should have remained in Scotland to allow his appeal to be heard.
He also said Libya's newly recogised government would want "to get to the bottom" of the crimes committed during the Gaddafi era, if and when the dictator is ousted from power in Tripoli.
"No decent Libyan would disagree that the Lockerbie bombing in 1989 was a barbaric, heinous and shameful international crime," he added.
El-Gamaty's comments come ahead of the second anniversary of Megrahi's release next Saturday. (...)
El-Gamaty told Scotland on Sunday that Megrahi's return to Libya was a boost to Gaddafi. "I think it has helped Gaddafi and not the Libyan people. Unfortunately it gave Gaddafi a political and diplomatic victory," he said.
"Everyone admits that it was the wrong signal. By releasing Megrahi it was the wrong signal. Megrahi was pursuing an appeal for so long and he should have been allowed to conclude the appeal."
Last night, the SNP's political opponents said that it was time for the SNP administration to publish all the medical evidence on which Megrahi's three-month prognosis was based.
El-Gamaty was speaking a week after the NTC took over the Libyan Embassy. He said any commitment on co-operating with the Lockerbie case would have to wait for a new democratically-elected government in Tripoli.
But he added: "Having said that, I think there are so many issues that need to be revisited in terms of what are the roles and involvements in the Gaddafi regime in these international horrendous crimes which have given Libya and Libyans a very bad name."
He added that it was "possible" that further details of Megrahi's involvement in the bombing might be found in hundreds of files which have been discovered in the Libyan Embassy in London. He also criticised the fact that the UK Government had allowed Gaddafi's former foreign minister, Moussa Koussa, to leave the country following his defection from Libya earlier this spring.
"I am sure he knows the inside story of Lockerbie," he said. "I think if these two guys (Megrahi and Lamin Khalifa Fhimah, his co-accused who was found not guilty) are implicated they are a very, very small fish in the chain. The people higher up are the real culprits. The Moussa Koussas of this world and Gaddafi himself."
However, he also hit out at the Blair government's relations with the Gaddafi regime, saying he thought it was London, not Edinburgh, which was involved in "murky" deals with the dictator.
Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray last night called on Scottish Ministers to release all the reports made by Megrahi's doctors prior to his release.
[A long article in today's Sunday Mail headed "Lockerbie campaigner fears hit squad will kill Megrahi as he reveals secrets of justice fight" about Dr Jim Swire's twenty-year campaign for truth and justice in relation to Lockerbie can be read here. A shorter report headlined Swire fears for Megrahi safety appears on the Belfast Telegraph website and one headlined Fears voiced for Megrahi safety on The Independent website.
The Scottish edition of The Sunday Times leads today with a report by Jason Allardyce on an opinion poll on Scottish attitudes towards Megrahi's release and what should now happen to him. The report does not appear to feature on The Sunday Times website.]
Scotland's release of the Lockerbie bomber sent out the "wrong signal," handing Colonel Gaddafi "a political and diplomatic victory", the UK head of the newly-recognised Libyan government has said.
Guma el-Gamaty, the UK co-ordinator for the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC), officially recognised by Britain as the country's new legitimate government, said Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi should have remained in Scotland to allow his appeal to be heard.
He also said Libya's newly recogised government would want "to get to the bottom" of the crimes committed during the Gaddafi era, if and when the dictator is ousted from power in Tripoli.
"No decent Libyan would disagree that the Lockerbie bombing in 1989 was a barbaric, heinous and shameful international crime," he added.
El-Gamaty's comments come ahead of the second anniversary of Megrahi's release next Saturday. (...)
El-Gamaty told Scotland on Sunday that Megrahi's return to Libya was a boost to Gaddafi. "I think it has helped Gaddafi and not the Libyan people. Unfortunately it gave Gaddafi a political and diplomatic victory," he said.
"Everyone admits that it was the wrong signal. By releasing Megrahi it was the wrong signal. Megrahi was pursuing an appeal for so long and he should have been allowed to conclude the appeal."
Last night, the SNP's political opponents said that it was time for the SNP administration to publish all the medical evidence on which Megrahi's three-month prognosis was based.
El-Gamaty was speaking a week after the NTC took over the Libyan Embassy. He said any commitment on co-operating with the Lockerbie case would have to wait for a new democratically-elected government in Tripoli.
But he added: "Having said that, I think there are so many issues that need to be revisited in terms of what are the roles and involvements in the Gaddafi regime in these international horrendous crimes which have given Libya and Libyans a very bad name."
He added that it was "possible" that further details of Megrahi's involvement in the bombing might be found in hundreds of files which have been discovered in the Libyan Embassy in London. He also criticised the fact that the UK Government had allowed Gaddafi's former foreign minister, Moussa Koussa, to leave the country following his defection from Libya earlier this spring.
"I am sure he knows the inside story of Lockerbie," he said. "I think if these two guys (Megrahi and Lamin Khalifa Fhimah, his co-accused who was found not guilty) are implicated they are a very, very small fish in the chain. The people higher up are the real culprits. The Moussa Koussas of this world and Gaddafi himself."
However, he also hit out at the Blair government's relations with the Gaddafi regime, saying he thought it was London, not Edinburgh, which was involved in "murky" deals with the dictator.
Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray last night called on Scottish Ministers to release all the reports made by Megrahi's doctors prior to his release.
[A long article in today's Sunday Mail headed "Lockerbie campaigner fears hit squad will kill Megrahi as he reveals secrets of justice fight" about Dr Jim Swire's twenty-year campaign for truth and justice in relation to Lockerbie can be read here. A shorter report headlined Swire fears for Megrahi safety appears on the Belfast Telegraph website and one headlined Fears voiced for Megrahi safety on The Independent website.
The Scottish edition of The Sunday Times leads today with a report by Jason Allardyce on an opinion poll on Scottish attitudes towards Megrahi's release and what should now happen to him. The report does not appear to feature on The Sunday Times website.]
Saturday, 13 August 2011
Dental records for Hana Gaddafi reopen mystery of Libyan leader's daughter
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. It reads in part:]
Files stored in a basement room in one of London's most expensive districts could shed new light on one of the greatest mysteries of Muammar Gaddafi's Libya: the alleged death of his baby daughter.
The documents were found in the Libyan Embassy in Knightsbridge this week after rebels fighting to end Gaddafi's reign formally took possession of the "People's Bureau". They disclose a London dentist's work for the Gaddafi regime, reopening the mystery of the daughter the Libyan leader claims was killed in a US bombing raid.
The Daily Telegraph has seen the papers. They show that in 2008 Libyan officials in London arranged for the dentist, Stephen Hopson, to fly to Tripoli to treat a patient called "Hana Ghadafi".
Hana was the name of the baby daughter that Gaddafi claimed was killed in the US air strike on Tripoli in 1986. The attack is said to have led the dictator to order terrorist reprisals, including the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
Hana Gaddafi's death has never been verified, and many Libyans believe she actually survived the 1986 attack and still lives in Tripoli. (...)
Asked about Miss Gaddafi and the Libyan trip, Mr Hopson said he was "neither admitting or denying" anything. He said he could not give any details about his patient.
"There's an element of patient confidentiality and if you were a patient, you wouldn't want me revealing anything about any care that you had received and that's why I can make no comment about any of this" he said.
Asked if his patient was Col Gaddafi's daughter, Mr Hopson said: "It's possible perhaps there could be a second Hana Gaddafi. It's not beyond the realms of possibility."
This week, Die Welt, a German newspaper, reported that Gaddafi's daughter is alive and well and living in Tripoli. (...)
A Libyan government official on Friday night claimed that Hana is a second adopted daughter taken on by Col Gaddafi after the first one was killed in the 1986 bombing.
"This not an important issue when we have children dead and Nato bombing civilians in our country," a Tripoli official said. "The Daily Telegraph should concentrate on these important issues."
Files stored in a basement room in one of London's most expensive districts could shed new light on one of the greatest mysteries of Muammar Gaddafi's Libya: the alleged death of his baby daughter.
The documents were found in the Libyan Embassy in Knightsbridge this week after rebels fighting to end Gaddafi's reign formally took possession of the "People's Bureau". They disclose a London dentist's work for the Gaddafi regime, reopening the mystery of the daughter the Libyan leader claims was killed in a US bombing raid.
The Daily Telegraph has seen the papers. They show that in 2008 Libyan officials in London arranged for the dentist, Stephen Hopson, to fly to Tripoli to treat a patient called "Hana Ghadafi".
Hana was the name of the baby daughter that Gaddafi claimed was killed in the US air strike on Tripoli in 1986. The attack is said to have led the dictator to order terrorist reprisals, including the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
Hana Gaddafi's death has never been verified, and many Libyans believe she actually survived the 1986 attack and still lives in Tripoli. (...)
Asked about Miss Gaddafi and the Libyan trip, Mr Hopson said he was "neither admitting or denying" anything. He said he could not give any details about his patient.
"There's an element of patient confidentiality and if you were a patient, you wouldn't want me revealing anything about any care that you had received and that's why I can make no comment about any of this" he said.
Asked if his patient was Col Gaddafi's daughter, Mr Hopson said: "It's possible perhaps there could be a second Hana Gaddafi. It's not beyond the realms of possibility."
This week, Die Welt, a German newspaper, reported that Gaddafi's daughter is alive and well and living in Tripoli. (...)
A Libyan government official on Friday night claimed that Hana is a second adopted daughter taken on by Col Gaddafi after the first one was killed in the 1986 bombing.
"This not an important issue when we have children dead and Nato bombing civilians in our country," a Tripoli official said. "The Daily Telegraph should concentrate on these important issues."
Friday, 12 August 2011
New York Times support for US imperial wars
[This is the headline over an article by Stephen Lendman just published on the San Francisco Bay Area Indymedia website. It reads in part:]
The [New York] Times never met a US imperial war it didn't endorse or designated enemy it didn't vilify. Nor are concerns ever raised about constitutional and international law issues, crimes of war and against humanity, or mass slaughter and destruction. (...)
A March 21 editorial headlined, At War in Libya, saying:
Gaddafi "has long been a thug and a murderer who has never paid for his many crimes, including the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103."
Of course, neither he or falsely convicted Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi had anything to do with it, what Times writers won't explain. In fact, Scottish judges knew Megrahi was innocent, saying so in their final opinion. [RB: They certainly do not say so. But their approach to the evidence and the flaws in their reasoning make it abundantly clear that he was not properly convicted.] In addition, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's investigation called his conviction a gross miscarriage of justice, saying no credible evidence of his involvement exists. Nor Gaddafi's.
In fact, he never admitted fault, saying only Libya would accept responsibility to have international sanctions lifted. Nonetheless, to this day, he stands falsely accused, including by The New York Times.
The [New York] Times never met a US imperial war it didn't endorse or designated enemy it didn't vilify. Nor are concerns ever raised about constitutional and international law issues, crimes of war and against humanity, or mass slaughter and destruction. (...)
A March 21 editorial headlined, At War in Libya, saying:
Gaddafi "has long been a thug and a murderer who has never paid for his many crimes, including the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103."
Of course, neither he or falsely convicted Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi had anything to do with it, what Times writers won't explain. In fact, Scottish judges knew Megrahi was innocent, saying so in their final opinion. [RB: They certainly do not say so. But their approach to the evidence and the flaws in their reasoning make it abundantly clear that he was not properly convicted.] In addition, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's investigation called his conviction a gross miscarriage of justice, saying no credible evidence of his involvement exists. Nor Gaddafi's.
In fact, he never admitted fault, saying only Libya would accept responsibility to have international sanctions lifted. Nonetheless, to this day, he stands falsely accused, including by The New York Times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)