[This is the headline over an article posted this morning on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The letter from Dr Jim Swire to which it refers can be read here. The article reads as follows:]
Dr Jim Swire, in a letter sent exclusively to The Firm, has called for the swift securing of case papers relating to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's second appeal, and for an "honest re-evaluation" of the circumstances of the incident over Lockerbie in 1988.
Swire also criticises Margaret Thatcher's Government for failing to ensure the protection of Pan Am Flight 103, and also blamed subsequent Governments for failing to convene an inquiry into the events.
"We are all in the dock now, and only by honest re-evaluation of how we failed before during and after the disaster, can we retrieve anything of value from the wreckage of how we have dealt with it," he says.
"Although our Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1993 was crippled by the concealment from it of the evidence demonstrating a singularly apposite break-in at Heathrow, just as the Zeist trial court was, the FAI did record that Lockerbie was a preventable disaster. Yet no UK Prime Minister has agreed in 20 years to our call for a full inquiry.
"The failure of prevention was the direct reponsibility of the Thatcher government of the day, very possibly through the woefully inadequate security at Heathrow perimeter, rather than baggage transfer arrangements there, neither aspect had made any useful response to the many known and timely warnings received by the UK government."
Swire, who has frequently expressed his frustration and distrust of the conduct of the Crown Office, also called on Holyrood to act on the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which found that a miscarriage of justice may have occured.
"The Scottish government can now draw on the full findings of our SCCRC. The real possibility they raised that there might have been a miscarriage of justice must be resolved at once," he said.
"Not at the glacial pace imposed upon the early stages of Megrahi's second appeal largely by the Crown Office's delaying tactics, but swiftly."
Thursday, 27 August 2009
MacAskill prison visit absurd, says Lord Fraser
One of Scotland’s most respected legal figures has bitterly attacked Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, for his decision to visit the convicted Lockerbie bomber in prison.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who as Lord Advocate was responsible for drawing up the indictment in 1991 against Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi and his co-accused, described Mr MacAskill’s decision to go to Greenock Prison on August 5 as “absurd”.
Lord Fraser, who also led the public inquiry into the Scottish Parliament building cost scandal, said in a television interview that instead of going to see al-Megrahi, Mr MacAskill would have done better to have gone to the United States to explain his decision to free the Lockerbie bomber, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, on compassionate grounds.
He added: “The idea that he [Mr MacAskill] goes to Greenock Prison and he doesn’t get on a plane and go to Washington and explain his position to those who are really important ... just seems to me to be quite extraordinary ... I just think that was absurd.”
Lord Fraser, in the interview, made clear that he supported the decision to release al-Megrahi. His criticism was directed at the way the affair had been handled.
Mr MacAskill’s defence of his prison visit is that he was “duty bound” to go because of a commitment given by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Minister. Under the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, the prisoner must be given the opportunity to make representations. “Mr Al-Megrahi chose to do so in person,” Mr MacAskill said.
Mr Straw has denied this, saying that he only recommended that a prisoner make representations in writing.
[The above is the text of an article in today's edition of The Times.
The description of Peter Fraser as "one of Scotland’s most respected legal figures" will be causing unbridled mirth in the Scottish legal profession. He may be a respected figure, but it certainly is not for his eminence as a lawyer.
The visit by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to Abdelbaset Megrahi became inevitable as soon as Mr MacAskill decided, presumably after taking advice from his officials, to take representations in person (and not just in writing) from interested persons, such as relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103. He could not, while complying with the requirement of procedural fairness incumbent upon him, offer the opportunity to make representations in person to categories of interested persons while denying that opportunity to the prisoner himself.
Are the politicians who have rushed to criticise Kenny MacAskill for meeting Abdelbaset Megrahi prepared to criticise him for meeting (in person in some cases, by video link in others) Lockerbie relatives? If not, their criticism is based on a misunderstanding of the legal position and reflects on them, not on Mr MacAskill.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who as Lord Advocate was responsible for drawing up the indictment in 1991 against Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi and his co-accused, described Mr MacAskill’s decision to go to Greenock Prison on August 5 as “absurd”.
Lord Fraser, who also led the public inquiry into the Scottish Parliament building cost scandal, said in a television interview that instead of going to see al-Megrahi, Mr MacAskill would have done better to have gone to the United States to explain his decision to free the Lockerbie bomber, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, on compassionate grounds.
He added: “The idea that he [Mr MacAskill] goes to Greenock Prison and he doesn’t get on a plane and go to Washington and explain his position to those who are really important ... just seems to me to be quite extraordinary ... I just think that was absurd.”
Lord Fraser, in the interview, made clear that he supported the decision to release al-Megrahi. His criticism was directed at the way the affair had been handled.
Mr MacAskill’s defence of his prison visit is that he was “duty bound” to go because of a commitment given by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Minister. Under the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, the prisoner must be given the opportunity to make representations. “Mr Al-Megrahi chose to do so in person,” Mr MacAskill said.
Mr Straw has denied this, saying that he only recommended that a prisoner make representations in writing.
[The above is the text of an article in today's edition of The Times.
The description of Peter Fraser as "one of Scotland’s most respected legal figures" will be causing unbridled mirth in the Scottish legal profession. He may be a respected figure, but it certainly is not for his eminence as a lawyer.
The visit by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to Abdelbaset Megrahi became inevitable as soon as Mr MacAskill decided, presumably after taking advice from his officials, to take representations in person (and not just in writing) from interested persons, such as relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103. He could not, while complying with the requirement of procedural fairness incumbent upon him, offer the opportunity to make representations in person to categories of interested persons while denying that opportunity to the prisoner himself.
Are the politicians who have rushed to criticise Kenny MacAskill for meeting Abdelbaset Megrahi prepared to criticise him for meeting (in person in some cases, by video link in others) Lockerbie relatives? If not, their criticism is based on a misunderstanding of the legal position and reflects on them, not on Mr MacAskill.]
Tales of torture prove US has no right to moral leadership
[This is the headline over an article by Ian Bell in today's edition of The Herald. The following are the first four and the last two paragraphs.]
Since this seems to be the week for offending American opinion, let's cram Stalin and the CIA into the same sentence. It's not too much of a stretch. History relates, in gory detail, that the NKVD and sundry other forerunners of the KGB routinely achieved their ends by threatening the families of prisoners. It concentrated minds wonderfully.
The important difference is, of course, that Stalin's psychopaths as often as not carried out their promises to murder children and rape women. They did not serve freedom's cause, either. Still, the point is that there is nothing new in the dark, repulsive world of torture. And its practitioners always claim a higher purpose.
How should we respond, then, to the long-suppressed internal CIA report into the activities of certain of its agents in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks? Cancel a few holidays? Boycott bourbon? Remind ourselves that there is mounting evidence that Britain, too, has been in receipt of intelligence extracted illegally?
Eric Holder, the US attorney- general, has elected to publish the report and has appointed John Durham, an experienced federal prosecutor, to investigate a dozen or so cases. That's progress, of sorts. It will dismay the White House, inflame the Republican right and partly satisfy the American Civil Liberties Union. Whether it will redeem America's sense of rectitude is another matter. (...)
A country that believes it can treat alleged terrorists in any way it sees fit, and then fails to deal with the truth of its actions, is a poor candidate in the moral leadership stakes. Its President's own claims to leadership, especially when he chooses to lecture others, then lose all credibility.
So remind me: what was it that was so especially heinous about the recent actions of Scotland's government?
Since this seems to be the week for offending American opinion, let's cram Stalin and the CIA into the same sentence. It's not too much of a stretch. History relates, in gory detail, that the NKVD and sundry other forerunners of the KGB routinely achieved their ends by threatening the families of prisoners. It concentrated minds wonderfully.
The important difference is, of course, that Stalin's psychopaths as often as not carried out their promises to murder children and rape women. They did not serve freedom's cause, either. Still, the point is that there is nothing new in the dark, repulsive world of torture. And its practitioners always claim a higher purpose.
How should we respond, then, to the long-suppressed internal CIA report into the activities of certain of its agents in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks? Cancel a few holidays? Boycott bourbon? Remind ourselves that there is mounting evidence that Britain, too, has been in receipt of intelligence extracted illegally?
Eric Holder, the US attorney- general, has elected to publish the report and has appointed John Durham, an experienced federal prosecutor, to investigate a dozen or so cases. That's progress, of sorts. It will dismay the White House, inflame the Republican right and partly satisfy the American Civil Liberties Union. Whether it will redeem America's sense of rectitude is another matter. (...)
A country that believes it can treat alleged terrorists in any way it sees fit, and then fails to deal with the truth of its actions, is a poor candidate in the moral leadership stakes. Its President's own claims to leadership, especially when he chooses to lecture others, then lose all credibility.
So remind me: what was it that was so especially heinous about the recent actions of Scotland's government?
Repatriation decision to be scrutinised
A split has emerged among senior Labour figures after John Prescott, the party's former Deputy Prime Minister, backed Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's releasing of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. (...)
Mr Prescott said: "If the man is dying, if compassion is part, as it is, of the Scottish administration and the medical authorities then get proof to that effect, then it's a decision for the legal authority. Scotland has always had a great deal of independence of its legal authority, going back many years, so we have to respect that decision."
Last night, the political row over the Lockerbie decision escalated when Ben Wallace, Shadow Scottish Minister, called on the Commons Scottish Affairs Committee to launch an inquiry into "the role played by the UK Government".
In a letter to Mohammad Sarwar, the committee chairman, Mr Wallace wrote that it was important "to establish if the UK Government made commitments on behalf of the Scottish Government without prior consent or without any constitutional legitimacy and whether ministers did so in exchange for trade or other concessions from Libya".
The Herald can reveal MPs are set to examine the effects of the Lockerbie decision on UK-US relations as part of a formal parliamentary inquiry.In the autumn, the Commons' influential Foreign Affairs Committee will launch an inquiry into the so-called Special Relationship, calling expert witnesses and involving a trip to Washington and the United Nations in New York to interview key US players.
Mike Gapes, the committee chairman, said that he alone could not determine whether the Lockerbie decision would form part of the inquiry but admitted it was likely to. He said: "We will be looking at America and US-UK relations will be an important part of that and involve all the potential areas of difficulty. We never thought of this at the time we decided on the inquiry."
The intervention by Mr Prescott is an embarrassment for Mr Gray and is in contrast to the reluctance of Gordon Brown to offer an opinion on Mr MacAskill's decision.
Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster, described the comments as "very welcome" saying they underlined "the naked opportunism of Iain Gray and Labour in the Scottish Parliament". (...)
LibDem leader Tavish Scott has called for Holyrood's Justice Committee to examine Megrahi's release.
[From a report in today's edition of The Herald.]
Mr Prescott said: "If the man is dying, if compassion is part, as it is, of the Scottish administration and the medical authorities then get proof to that effect, then it's a decision for the legal authority. Scotland has always had a great deal of independence of its legal authority, going back many years, so we have to respect that decision."
Last night, the political row over the Lockerbie decision escalated when Ben Wallace, Shadow Scottish Minister, called on the Commons Scottish Affairs Committee to launch an inquiry into "the role played by the UK Government".
In a letter to Mohammad Sarwar, the committee chairman, Mr Wallace wrote that it was important "to establish if the UK Government made commitments on behalf of the Scottish Government without prior consent or without any constitutional legitimacy and whether ministers did so in exchange for trade or other concessions from Libya".
The Herald can reveal MPs are set to examine the effects of the Lockerbie decision on UK-US relations as part of a formal parliamentary inquiry.In the autumn, the Commons' influential Foreign Affairs Committee will launch an inquiry into the so-called Special Relationship, calling expert witnesses and involving a trip to Washington and the United Nations in New York to interview key US players.
Mike Gapes, the committee chairman, said that he alone could not determine whether the Lockerbie decision would form part of the inquiry but admitted it was likely to. He said: "We will be looking at America and US-UK relations will be an important part of that and involve all the potential areas of difficulty. We never thought of this at the time we decided on the inquiry."
The intervention by Mr Prescott is an embarrassment for Mr Gray and is in contrast to the reluctance of Gordon Brown to offer an opinion on Mr MacAskill's decision.
Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster, described the comments as "very welcome" saying they underlined "the naked opportunism of Iain Gray and Labour in the Scottish Parliament". (...)
LibDem leader Tavish Scott has called for Holyrood's Justice Committee to examine Megrahi's release.
[From a report in today's edition of The Herald.]
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Jack Straw is first British minister to question Lockerbie bomber’s release
Jack Straw became the first British minister to raise questions about the handling of the release of the Lockerbie bomber yesterday.
The Justice Secretary suggested that he would not have visited Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi in jail, in contrast to Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister, who saw him shortly before announcing his decision to release him on compassionate grounds.
Mr Straw said: “That was his decision. If you are asking me if I have ever visited a prisoner in jail who has applied for compassionate release, the answer to that is no.”
He reiterated that last Thursday’s decision to release al-Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, was a matter for the Scottish government. Britain’s relationship with Libya has come under scrutiny amid rumours of trade deals being attached to the prisoner’s fate. Three ministers have made trips to Libya in the past 12 months. (...)
John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, yesterday became the first senior Labour figure to back the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber.
He told Sky News: “If the man is dying, if compassion is passed as it is in the Scottish administration, and the medical authorities then gave proof to that effect as they did, then it’s a decision for their legal authority.”
[The above is from an article in the edition of The Times for 27 August.
It would have been open to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, to stipulate that the only representations from interested persons that he would consider in making his decision on repatriation would be representations in writing. But once he had decided to allow representations to be made in face-to-face meetings or by video link, he could not properly deny this facility to the prisoner himself. Had he done so, any decision reached could have been legally challenged on the ground of procedural unfairness. If Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, does not understand this, he is in the wrong job.]
The Justice Secretary suggested that he would not have visited Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi in jail, in contrast to Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister, who saw him shortly before announcing his decision to release him on compassionate grounds.
Mr Straw said: “That was his decision. If you are asking me if I have ever visited a prisoner in jail who has applied for compassionate release, the answer to that is no.”
He reiterated that last Thursday’s decision to release al-Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, was a matter for the Scottish government. Britain’s relationship with Libya has come under scrutiny amid rumours of trade deals being attached to the prisoner’s fate. Three ministers have made trips to Libya in the past 12 months. (...)
John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, yesterday became the first senior Labour figure to back the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber.
He told Sky News: “If the man is dying, if compassion is passed as it is in the Scottish administration, and the medical authorities then gave proof to that effect as they did, then it’s a decision for their legal authority.”
[The above is from an article in the edition of The Times for 27 August.
It would have been open to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, to stipulate that the only representations from interested persons that he would consider in making his decision on repatriation would be representations in writing. But once he had decided to allow representations to be made in face-to-face meetings or by video link, he could not properly deny this facility to the prisoner himself. Had he done so, any decision reached could have been legally challenged on the ground of procedural unfairness. If Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, does not understand this, he is in the wrong job.]
A view from The New Yorker
[The following is an article by Andrew Solomon on the website of The New Yorker.]
The compassionate release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, has been roundly condemned by both the US government and the American media. President Obama called the release “a mistake,” and Hillary Clinton, who had already said it would be “absolutely wrong” to free him, was “deeply disappointed.” There are two primary questions here. The first is whether Megrahi, and, indeed, Qaddafi’s regime in general, was responsible for the bombings, a question I raised in my 2006 examination of the Libyan political system for this magazine. The second is whether dying people, no matter how gross their sins, deserve compassion, and should be allowed to die at home. But the real issue lies in the conjunction of these two problems. Does the possibility that someone has been wrongly imprisoned increase the imperative to offer compassionate release?
The fact that Megrahi was convicted on thin evidence has been noted by many who were close to the original trial and the hastily assembled first appeal. Robert Black, the Scottish lawyer who was the architect of the original trial, described it as “the most disgraceful miscarriage of justice in Scotland for a hundred years.” Professor Hans Köchler, appointed by Kofi Annan to observe the trial for the UN, called the second court’s decision a “spectacular miscarriage of justice.” One of the primary witnesses—Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who identified Megrahi as having bought the clothes that investigators believed were wrapped around the bomb—has been largely discredited, and the assertion that the Swiss Mebo MST-13 timer used to detonate the bomb had been sold only to the Libyans has proved false. The original CIA inquiries focussed on Tehran, where there had been calls for vengeance after a US Navy cruiser accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger plane. Robert Baer, who worked on the case for the CIA, has said that Iran was responsible, and “60 Minutes” put forward, in 2000, the possibility that Tehran hired a Syria-based Palestinian organization to stage the attack. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review, which examined all this material, determined there was evidence for a second appeal, and that appeal was underway when doctors said Megrahi had only three months to live. Conspiracy theories abound: that the Libyans were fingered in the first place to avoid a confrontation with Iran at a delicate time; that this political jig would have become broadly known if Megrahi hadn’t dropped the appeal in exchange for compassionate release; that Scotland released Megrahi in order to gain access to Libyan oil; and many others too baroque to rehearse here. Any of these may be true, but they would take many years to unfurl. While the conviction of Megrahi may prove to be right, no one could describe it as anywhere near watertight, and reasonable doubt does remain a standard for legal innocence.
Imprisonment serves three functions. It removes people who might commit further crimes from a context in which they can commit them. There was no need to keep Megrahi behind bars with this objective. It sends a signal to others tempted to commit similar crimes that there is a cost. Megrahi’s release on his deathbed will not encourage terrorists; indeed, shows of humane treatment of this kind dampen Islamic anti-Americanism. Finally, it allows those who were injured in a crime to feel the satisfactions of revenge—the retribution principle. This is the ugliest of the three reasons, and indulging it is a problematical standard for compassion. It’s not that it’s wrong, per se, but that it has limits, and the dying days of a man who is possibly innocent of this particular crime seem too high a price to pay for it.
Megrahi has received a hero’s welcome in Libya because Libyans feel that they have been unfairly scapegoated by the West, and that Megrahi has been a martyr to international prejudice against them. They are angry that the US appears not to have fulfilled what they understood as promises of complete diplomatic recognition following Qaddafi’s payment of damages to the Lockerbie families and his renunciation of a nuclear program. They believed in Megrahi’s innocence all along and now feel vindicated, and are thoroughly enjoying the spectacle of American outrage, which is to them as jingoistic as we perceive their jubilation to be. The posture of the President and the Secretary of State is designed to cater to the tough-on-terrorists approach required of all American politicians, and to play to those Lockerbie families who reconciled themselves to tragedy only by believing that the guilty were caught and punished. In the U.S., the voices of the vengeful have been loudest. But, in fact, many Lockerbie families believe that Megrahi was wrongly convicted. Martin Cadman, who lost a son in the disaster, said the trial was “a farce” and that the release of Megrahi was “just righting a wrong.” Jim Swire, who lost a daughter, said, “As time goes by it will become clear that he had nothing to do with it.” The Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, now under attack, was courageous in allowing the confusing evidence to tilt in favor of letting a sick man go home.
The compassionate release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, has been roundly condemned by both the US government and the American media. President Obama called the release “a mistake,” and Hillary Clinton, who had already said it would be “absolutely wrong” to free him, was “deeply disappointed.” There are two primary questions here. The first is whether Megrahi, and, indeed, Qaddafi’s regime in general, was responsible for the bombings, a question I raised in my 2006 examination of the Libyan political system for this magazine. The second is whether dying people, no matter how gross their sins, deserve compassion, and should be allowed to die at home. But the real issue lies in the conjunction of these two problems. Does the possibility that someone has been wrongly imprisoned increase the imperative to offer compassionate release?
The fact that Megrahi was convicted on thin evidence has been noted by many who were close to the original trial and the hastily assembled first appeal. Robert Black, the Scottish lawyer who was the architect of the original trial, described it as “the most disgraceful miscarriage of justice in Scotland for a hundred years.” Professor Hans Köchler, appointed by Kofi Annan to observe the trial for the UN, called the second court’s decision a “spectacular miscarriage of justice.” One of the primary witnesses—Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who identified Megrahi as having bought the clothes that investigators believed were wrapped around the bomb—has been largely discredited, and the assertion that the Swiss Mebo MST-13 timer used to detonate the bomb had been sold only to the Libyans has proved false. The original CIA inquiries focussed on Tehran, where there had been calls for vengeance after a US Navy cruiser accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger plane. Robert Baer, who worked on the case for the CIA, has said that Iran was responsible, and “60 Minutes” put forward, in 2000, the possibility that Tehran hired a Syria-based Palestinian organization to stage the attack. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review, which examined all this material, determined there was evidence for a second appeal, and that appeal was underway when doctors said Megrahi had only three months to live. Conspiracy theories abound: that the Libyans were fingered in the first place to avoid a confrontation with Iran at a delicate time; that this political jig would have become broadly known if Megrahi hadn’t dropped the appeal in exchange for compassionate release; that Scotland released Megrahi in order to gain access to Libyan oil; and many others too baroque to rehearse here. Any of these may be true, but they would take many years to unfurl. While the conviction of Megrahi may prove to be right, no one could describe it as anywhere near watertight, and reasonable doubt does remain a standard for legal innocence.
Imprisonment serves three functions. It removes people who might commit further crimes from a context in which they can commit them. There was no need to keep Megrahi behind bars with this objective. It sends a signal to others tempted to commit similar crimes that there is a cost. Megrahi’s release on his deathbed will not encourage terrorists; indeed, shows of humane treatment of this kind dampen Islamic anti-Americanism. Finally, it allows those who were injured in a crime to feel the satisfactions of revenge—the retribution principle. This is the ugliest of the three reasons, and indulging it is a problematical standard for compassion. It’s not that it’s wrong, per se, but that it has limits, and the dying days of a man who is possibly innocent of this particular crime seem too high a price to pay for it.
Megrahi has received a hero’s welcome in Libya because Libyans feel that they have been unfairly scapegoated by the West, and that Megrahi has been a martyr to international prejudice against them. They are angry that the US appears not to have fulfilled what they understood as promises of complete diplomatic recognition following Qaddafi’s payment of damages to the Lockerbie families and his renunciation of a nuclear program. They believed in Megrahi’s innocence all along and now feel vindicated, and are thoroughly enjoying the spectacle of American outrage, which is to them as jingoistic as we perceive their jubilation to be. The posture of the President and the Secretary of State is designed to cater to the tough-on-terrorists approach required of all American politicians, and to play to those Lockerbie families who reconciled themselves to tragedy only by believing that the guilty were caught and punished. In the U.S., the voices of the vengeful have been loudest. But, in fact, many Lockerbie families believe that Megrahi was wrongly convicted. Martin Cadman, who lost a son in the disaster, said the trial was “a farce” and that the release of Megrahi was “just righting a wrong.” Jim Swire, who lost a daughter, said, “As time goes by it will become clear that he had nothing to do with it.” The Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, now under attack, was courageous in allowing the confusing evidence to tilt in favor of letting a sick man go home.
Where right is right
[The following sentences are from an op-ed by Garrison Keillor in today's edition of The New York Times.]
Nobody is so ready to embrace martyrdom as my fellow liberals, and here they are, seven months after Mr. Obama took the oath, crying out, “Where did it go, the glory and the dream?” Get a grip. Solid majorities in the House and Senate and yet a few puffs of smoke from the other side and Democrats are full of consternation. If they back out on this young president, and if this Congress cannot pass the public option and meet the basic human needs of our people, what does this say about us?
Here in London, people are amused at the wild paranoid fantasies of the right. I don’t care about that, I hold weak-kneed Democrats responsible, and if they get spooked by a few hecklers, then it’s time to find replacements.
Standing in stark contrast was the simple humane decision of the Scottish government to release the Libyan Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi from prison on compassionate grounds, a man near death from prostate cancer, who was convicted in 2001 on the basis of thin circumstantial evidence and the testimony of a paid witness for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. A shaky conviction of a man for a crime that had to have involved many others who, it would seem, Britain and the U.S. have little interest in finding, what with Libyan oil in the balance. Mr. al-Megrahi had “patsy” written all over him. The Scots did the right thing. And caused a public uproar, and so what? Right is right.
Nobody is so ready to embrace martyrdom as my fellow liberals, and here they are, seven months after Mr. Obama took the oath, crying out, “Where did it go, the glory and the dream?” Get a grip. Solid majorities in the House and Senate and yet a few puffs of smoke from the other side and Democrats are full of consternation. If they back out on this young president, and if this Congress cannot pass the public option and meet the basic human needs of our people, what does this say about us?
Here in London, people are amused at the wild paranoid fantasies of the right. I don’t care about that, I hold weak-kneed Democrats responsible, and if they get spooked by a few hecklers, then it’s time to find replacements.
Standing in stark contrast was the simple humane decision of the Scottish government to release the Libyan Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi from prison on compassionate grounds, a man near death from prostate cancer, who was convicted in 2001 on the basis of thin circumstantial evidence and the testimony of a paid witness for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. A shaky conviction of a man for a crime that had to have involved many others who, it would seem, Britain and the U.S. have little interest in finding, what with Libyan oil in the balance. Mr. al-Megrahi had “patsy” written all over him. The Scots did the right thing. And caused a public uproar, and so what? Right is right.
Solicitor excoriates cowardly MSPs
[I am grateful to Steven Raeburn, editor of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm for drawing my attention to this letter sent to all 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament by solicitor Anthony Robson. The full text can be read here, on The Firm's website. The following are extracts.]
This email is being sent to every MSP simply to express my disquiet at the reaction amongst many of you to the decision to release Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
What troubles me most is the censure of Kenny MacAskill. I am not an SNP supporter, but the vitriol poured Mr MacAskill's way seems somewhat misdirected. The simple fact of the matter is that the focus seems to have been placed on the release itself, of a man which we hear referred to often as 'a man CONVICTED of a terrible crime', rather than a man who IS guilty. I'm well aware that a small number of you may know the real truth and are clearly therefore quite happy to lie to the general public.
But the questions being asked seem couched in nothing other than self- interest, appeasement of political alignment, and a strange feeling that you're trying to keep the Americans happy. What you're not asking (and this is directed towards Mr MacAskill as well who avoided the issue entirely) is this, "Was al-Megrahi actually guilty?" How many of you have read the report from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission? I would recommend you also acquaint yourself with writing on the matter by Dr Jim Swire (whose daughter died on the Pan Am flight).
I'm sure each and every one of you went into politics thinking you could help people and make a difference (at least, I certainly hope you did). When the Scottish parliament came into being we were promised a new sort of politics, but I hate to have to tell you, all too often Holyrood descends into mini-Westminster. The unthinking way in which many of you have responded to the release of Mr al-Megrahi; the willingness to condemn an act of compassion, something sadly lacking in our world today; the political interference in what is, after all, a legal situation (separation of the judiciary and legislature anyone?); the rote repetition of words coming from across the water and from the head of the FBI (now if ever there was someone who would know the actual truth).
Not one of you appears to have asked the question. (...) As Joe Public we have little chance to get the message across, or ask the questions in ways in which they might be answered, or cause the truth to leak out. YOU DO.
So stop being a simpering coward (for, I am afraid, this IS simple cowardice). Forget about the safety of your seat or the disapproval of your peers, and remember why you got involved in politics in the first place.
I implore you to search your conscience, and to apply some rational thought, read the information which is out there, and instead of indulging in childish playground name-calling breathe some fresh air into the Scottish political scene and be HONEST, to us and to yourselves. (...)
At present the hatred of many of the families MAY be directed at an innocent man (only a thorough, and open, investigation of the facts could show that either way), and I have no pride in being part of a system that effectively colludes to mask the reality from those who are still grieving. Whatever reason you have for either hiding the truth, or ignoring the holes in the case that stare up so clearly, that reason can never be as strong as the reason the relatives of those who died have for wanting, and deserving, the truth.
YOU are stopping that happening. Do something about it instead of grandstanding. Because at the moment you are complicit, and I for one could not look at myself in the mirror if I knew I was capable of raising merry hell about this in the way you can, but appear to be content not to.
STOP asking the wrong questions; STOP clouding the issue by diverting attention to Mr MacAskill; START acting like grown-up, intelligent, querying, adults.
This email is being sent to every MSP simply to express my disquiet at the reaction amongst many of you to the decision to release Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
What troubles me most is the censure of Kenny MacAskill. I am not an SNP supporter, but the vitriol poured Mr MacAskill's way seems somewhat misdirected. The simple fact of the matter is that the focus seems to have been placed on the release itself, of a man which we hear referred to often as 'a man CONVICTED of a terrible crime', rather than a man who IS guilty. I'm well aware that a small number of you may know the real truth and are clearly therefore quite happy to lie to the general public.
But the questions being asked seem couched in nothing other than self- interest, appeasement of political alignment, and a strange feeling that you're trying to keep the Americans happy. What you're not asking (and this is directed towards Mr MacAskill as well who avoided the issue entirely) is this, "Was al-Megrahi actually guilty?" How many of you have read the report from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission? I would recommend you also acquaint yourself with writing on the matter by Dr Jim Swire (whose daughter died on the Pan Am flight).
I'm sure each and every one of you went into politics thinking you could help people and make a difference (at least, I certainly hope you did). When the Scottish parliament came into being we were promised a new sort of politics, but I hate to have to tell you, all too often Holyrood descends into mini-Westminster. The unthinking way in which many of you have responded to the release of Mr al-Megrahi; the willingness to condemn an act of compassion, something sadly lacking in our world today; the political interference in what is, after all, a legal situation (separation of the judiciary and legislature anyone?); the rote repetition of words coming from across the water and from the head of the FBI (now if ever there was someone who would know the actual truth).
Not one of you appears to have asked the question. (...) As Joe Public we have little chance to get the message across, or ask the questions in ways in which they might be answered, or cause the truth to leak out. YOU DO.
So stop being a simpering coward (for, I am afraid, this IS simple cowardice). Forget about the safety of your seat or the disapproval of your peers, and remember why you got involved in politics in the first place.
I implore you to search your conscience, and to apply some rational thought, read the information which is out there, and instead of indulging in childish playground name-calling breathe some fresh air into the Scottish political scene and be HONEST, to us and to yourselves. (...)
At present the hatred of many of the families MAY be directed at an innocent man (only a thorough, and open, investigation of the facts could show that either way), and I have no pride in being part of a system that effectively colludes to mask the reality from those who are still grieving. Whatever reason you have for either hiding the truth, or ignoring the holes in the case that stare up so clearly, that reason can never be as strong as the reason the relatives of those who died have for wanting, and deserving, the truth.
YOU are stopping that happening. Do something about it instead of grandstanding. Because at the moment you are complicit, and I for one could not look at myself in the mirror if I knew I was capable of raising merry hell about this in the way you can, but appear to be content not to.
STOP asking the wrong questions; STOP clouding the issue by diverting attention to Mr MacAskill; START acting like grown-up, intelligent, querying, adults.
Unlikely to be motion to condemn release of Megrahi
[This is the headline over a report on the heraldscotland website. It reads as follows:]
Opposition MSPs are unlikely to unite around any motion condemning the release on compassionate grounds of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, following a rebellion by Liberal Democrats who support the basic principle.
Labour have one high-profile dissident, former minister Malcolm Chisholm, but it is known that at least three LibDems have made clear that they back the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who has terminal cancer.
It is understood that Liberal Democrat group rules contain a proviso that any conscience or moral matters must be afforded a free vote. This means that to maintain group unity they will have to come up with an amendment critical only of the handling of last week’s decision, rather than the decision itself.
LibDem leader Tavish Scott was critical of Megrahi’s release in Monday’s emergency session at Holyrood, as were Labour leader Iain Gray and Annabel Goldie of the Tories. But three LibDem MSPs have broken cover to say they thought Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill made the right decision.
That dissent is a headache for Mr Scott and Mr Gray, who will be hoping that the three main opposition parties can unite around the strongest possible amendment.
The first indication of internal opposition to Mr Scott’s stance came on Monday when John Farquhar Munro, MSP for Ross, Skye and Inverness West, told BBC Radio Nan Gaidheal: “I’m of the opinion that Mr MacAskill had no other choice but the one he made.”
Then Central Scotland MSP Hugh O’Donnell said: “I thought the release of Megrahi in the circumstances was the right decision.”
Former Presiding Officer and one-time party leader Lord Steel has also clashed with Tavish Scott on the issue.
But LibDem MSPs say they have had emails critical of their party’s stance and veteran LibDem Glasgow councillor, Dr Christopher Mason, in a letter to The Herald, said: “I wish to state, as a Liberal Democrat, that I think Mr MacAskill’s decision to release Mr Megrahi on licence was right.”
Opposition MSPs are unlikely to unite around any motion condemning the release on compassionate grounds of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, following a rebellion by Liberal Democrats who support the basic principle.
Labour have one high-profile dissident, former minister Malcolm Chisholm, but it is known that at least three LibDems have made clear that they back the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who has terminal cancer.
It is understood that Liberal Democrat group rules contain a proviso that any conscience or moral matters must be afforded a free vote. This means that to maintain group unity they will have to come up with an amendment critical only of the handling of last week’s decision, rather than the decision itself.
LibDem leader Tavish Scott was critical of Megrahi’s release in Monday’s emergency session at Holyrood, as were Labour leader Iain Gray and Annabel Goldie of the Tories. But three LibDem MSPs have broken cover to say they thought Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill made the right decision.
That dissent is a headache for Mr Scott and Mr Gray, who will be hoping that the three main opposition parties can unite around the strongest possible amendment.
The first indication of internal opposition to Mr Scott’s stance came on Monday when John Farquhar Munro, MSP for Ross, Skye and Inverness West, told BBC Radio Nan Gaidheal: “I’m of the opinion that Mr MacAskill had no other choice but the one he made.”
Then Central Scotland MSP Hugh O’Donnell said: “I thought the release of Megrahi in the circumstances was the right decision.”
Former Presiding Officer and one-time party leader Lord Steel has also clashed with Tavish Scott on the issue.
But LibDem MSPs say they have had emails critical of their party’s stance and veteran LibDem Glasgow councillor, Dr Christopher Mason, in a letter to The Herald, said: “I wish to state, as a Liberal Democrat, that I think Mr MacAskill’s decision to release Mr Megrahi on licence was right.”
Why as LibDems we oppose our party’s stance on freed Libyan
[The following are two letters published in today's edition of The Herald.]
1.
I wish to state, as a Liberal Democrat, that I think Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on licence was right. I believe Mr MacAskill when he says he was not party to any political or commercial deal, and that he did not seek to persuade Megrahi to withdraw his second appeal. I think his visit to Greenock Prison was quixotic and probably unnecessary, but I do not see it as a crucial matter.
I am deeply concerned that neither the Scottish Government nor the three main opposition parties seems to mind what happens about the questions left unresolved by the abandonment of Megrahi's appeal. If the opposition leaders are truly interested in justice for the relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie atrocity, they should pay more attention to the views of Dr Jim Swire, who plainly wishes to see answers to the questions raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
If the Conservatives want to ask the Prime Minister a really challenging question about this affair, they should ask him why the Foreign Secretary repeatedly acted to hinder the progress of Megrahi's second appeal, and why he was so anxious to keep out of the proceedings the papers he said were vital to the security interests of the UK and an unnamed foreign power.
When the Scottish Parliament debates this affair next Wednesday, I for one will be very disappointed if the main opposition parties do not address the matter of how the doubts raised by the SCCRC are to be resolved. It is clear that none of the governments involved wishes to see these questions addressed.
The SCCRC, in effect, said the Court of Appeal should consider whether the circumstantial evidence on which Megrahi was convicted was reliable. We do not know what the court would have ruled. If it had quashed the conviction, there would have had to be an investigation into how unreliable evidence had been brought into the original trial. Was it just an unfortunate accident? Or was it deliberately procured? These are appalling questions. It is leaving them unresolved that brings shame on Scotland.
Dr Christopher Mason, Liberal Democrat Glasgow City Councillor, City Chambers, George Square, Glasgow.
2.
As a Liberal Democrat party member, I may be breaking ranks, but I can only answer in the affirmative the core question about the political or quasi-judicial decision of Kenny MacAskill to release Megrahi; that is, did Mr MacAskill take the right decision and for the right reason (compassion)?
The only criticisms I have of Mr MacAskill are the advance publicity given to his visit to Greenock Prison and his suggestion that Megrahi's cancer is a sentence "imposed by a higher power", a notion repugnant to me as a strict ethical monotheist and, therefore, as a liberal in all things. However, such are side issues in relation to the core question.
As for criticisms from the US, I would suggest that successive regimes there are in no position to challenge the Scottish justice system. The US federally and in 37 of its states continues to practise the barbarity of capital punishment. There is also a gun culture and a lack of even-handedness in the administration of justice. The US regimes have also condoned the use of torture in interrogating terrorist suspects, a procedure backed, in a recent opinion poll, by a significant percentage of US citizens, including a majority of Republican voters.
I would suggest that priority should now be given to answering the many unanswered questions about the mass murder at Lockerbie in 1988, given the view of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in Megrahi's case. And I would support suggestions that decisions on prisoner release should be taken judicially rather than politically or quasi-judicially.
Dr Alexander S Waugh, Banchory, Kincardineshire.
[Letters from Americans, expressing diverse views on Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation, can be read here.
The letters on the subject in The Scotsman (largely supportive of Kenny MacAskill's decision) can be read here.]
1.
I wish to state, as a Liberal Democrat, that I think Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on licence was right. I believe Mr MacAskill when he says he was not party to any political or commercial deal, and that he did not seek to persuade Megrahi to withdraw his second appeal. I think his visit to Greenock Prison was quixotic and probably unnecessary, but I do not see it as a crucial matter.
I am deeply concerned that neither the Scottish Government nor the three main opposition parties seems to mind what happens about the questions left unresolved by the abandonment of Megrahi's appeal. If the opposition leaders are truly interested in justice for the relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie atrocity, they should pay more attention to the views of Dr Jim Swire, who plainly wishes to see answers to the questions raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
If the Conservatives want to ask the Prime Minister a really challenging question about this affair, they should ask him why the Foreign Secretary repeatedly acted to hinder the progress of Megrahi's second appeal, and why he was so anxious to keep out of the proceedings the papers he said were vital to the security interests of the UK and an unnamed foreign power.
When the Scottish Parliament debates this affair next Wednesday, I for one will be very disappointed if the main opposition parties do not address the matter of how the doubts raised by the SCCRC are to be resolved. It is clear that none of the governments involved wishes to see these questions addressed.
The SCCRC, in effect, said the Court of Appeal should consider whether the circumstantial evidence on which Megrahi was convicted was reliable. We do not know what the court would have ruled. If it had quashed the conviction, there would have had to be an investigation into how unreliable evidence had been brought into the original trial. Was it just an unfortunate accident? Or was it deliberately procured? These are appalling questions. It is leaving them unresolved that brings shame on Scotland.
Dr Christopher Mason, Liberal Democrat Glasgow City Councillor, City Chambers, George Square, Glasgow.
2.
As a Liberal Democrat party member, I may be breaking ranks, but I can only answer in the affirmative the core question about the political or quasi-judicial decision of Kenny MacAskill to release Megrahi; that is, did Mr MacAskill take the right decision and for the right reason (compassion)?
The only criticisms I have of Mr MacAskill are the advance publicity given to his visit to Greenock Prison and his suggestion that Megrahi's cancer is a sentence "imposed by a higher power", a notion repugnant to me as a strict ethical monotheist and, therefore, as a liberal in all things. However, such are side issues in relation to the core question.
As for criticisms from the US, I would suggest that successive regimes there are in no position to challenge the Scottish justice system. The US federally and in 37 of its states continues to practise the barbarity of capital punishment. There is also a gun culture and a lack of even-handedness in the administration of justice. The US regimes have also condoned the use of torture in interrogating terrorist suspects, a procedure backed, in a recent opinion poll, by a significant percentage of US citizens, including a majority of Republican voters.
I would suggest that priority should now be given to answering the many unanswered questions about the mass murder at Lockerbie in 1988, given the view of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in Megrahi's case. And I would support suggestions that decisions on prisoner release should be taken judicially rather than politically or quasi-judicially.
Dr Alexander S Waugh, Banchory, Kincardineshire.
[Letters from Americans, expressing diverse views on Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation, can be read here.
The letters on the subject in The Scotsman (largely supportive of Kenny MacAskill's decision) can be read here.]
Stark double standard
[This is the heading over an article in Online Journal by specialist writer on Middle East affairs, Linda S Heard. It reads in part:]
The repatriation to Libya on compassionate grounds of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi has caused a firestorm in Britain and the US.
President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and leader of Britain’s Conservative Party David Cameron have all expressed their displeasure at the Scottish justice minister’s decision to release the only individual to have been convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. Even FBI Director Robert Mueller couldn’t resist adding his two cents. He has characterized the release as an act that brings “comfort to terrorists” everywhere and “a mockery of the rule of law.”
Complicating matters further are accusations that Al-Megrahi’s release was a condition for Britain being awarded lucrative oil, gas and hotel contracts, which Prime Minister Gordon Brown denies. Yet, the Libyan president’s son Seif Al-Islam says the decision to free this terminally ill individual was always tied to trade, while a leaked letter from Downing Street to the Libyan leader makes clear that Al-Megrahi’s homecoming has been brewing ever since the G8 summit held in Italy early in July.
Many Scots believe that their government was set up by Westminster to be Britain’s patsy and are angry that so much enmity is coming their way from across the Atlantic. They may have a point...
... the Libyan authorities are being heavily criticized for giving the returnee a warm welcome. Western politicians and many families of Lockerbie victims consider this shameful, yet Libya has always protested Al-Megrahi’s innocence while ordinary Libyans view him as a loyal son of the soil who sacrificed his freedom for the good of his country. Al-Megrahi has consistently said there has been a miscarriage of justice and says he will release documentation to the British public to prove it now that his appeal has been quashed. If the appeal was heard “there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that the prosecution case will survive,” said Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died on Pan Am 103.
Those who are incensed that Al-Megrahi gets to spend his last days with his wife and five children might at least contemplate the possibility that there was, indeed, a miscarriage of justice. Firstly, the case against him was circumstantial and relied heavily upon the testimony of Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, who said he recognized Al-Megrahi as the man who bought clothing in his shop, fragments of which were later found in the incendiary suitcase.
Yet, Gauci was allegedly shown photographs of Al-Megrahi and others prior to the line-up when he failed to identify him. He was then instructed to focus on Al-Megrahi’s picture when he insisted that the person who bought his clothes was much older than the man in the photo. He is also said to have been coached by prosecutors prior to giving testimony and is thought to have been offered millions of dollars in bribes to testify at trial.
When Gauci was first called to Amsterdam for the identification parade he initially said that Al-Megrahi was “not exactly the man I saw in the shop . . .” He also claimed that his buyer was over 6 feet tall whereas Al-Megrahi is much shorter at 5 feet eight inches. (...)
Moreover, a timer, a key piece of the prosecution’s material evidence, is believed to be a fake after Ulrich Lumpert, a Swiss engineer, admitted that he lied about its origins. Lumpert also said that the first time he had viewed the timer it had a brown circuit board whereas his former Zurich employer MEBO had only exported green circuit boards to Libya. Yet when the board was produced during the trial Lumpert noticed it was carbonized indicating it had subsequently been tampered with.
Last October, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission announced that “a miscarriage of justice may have occurred” and identified six grounds for an appeal. One of these grounds may be the fact that some 18 hours prior to the New York bound Pan Am flight taking off, there had been a break-in at Heathrow’s restricted baggage area, which security officials described as a “very deliberate act” by professionals. This evidence of baggage tampering was not disclosed to the defense team prior to Al-Megrahi’s trial.
Surely, even those who doggedly insist upon Al-Megrahi’s culpability must accept that there are certainly strong reasons for doubt. And if justice hasn’t been served, this wouldn’t be the first time that British courts got it wrong. In 1991, the so-called Birmingham Six were released on appeal after serving 16 years in prison while the Guildford Four were jailed for 15 years on a false conviction.
Lastly, if Robert Mueller considers Al-Megrahi’s release “a mockery of the rule of law,” what does he say about another 1988 civil aviation tragedy?
On July 3 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air flight 655 while flying within Iranian air space en route to Dubai. On that day, all 290 passengers and crew were killed, including 66 children. Ship’s Capt William C. Rogers III later said he had mistaken the Airbus A300 for an F-14 Tomcat Fighter (as though there is any resemblance), yet there was no Lockerbie-style trial for him. Instead, he became the commanding officer of the United States Navy Tactical Training Group.
The US government issued notes of regret but never admitted wrongdoing or gave Iran an apology. To add insult to injury, then US Vice President George H W Bush told the UN that the Vincennes had acted appropriately and dismissed the tragedy as a wartime incident although Tehran and Washington were not at war. And US Ambassador to Britain Charles H Price II actually sent Capt Rogers a congratulatory message, which read “I join other Americans in congratulating you for having done your duty.”
The US did, however, shell out $61.8 million to victim’s families, which is a far cry from the $1.5 billion that Libya was pressured to pay to the Lockerbie families.
The double standard here is extraordinary. Al-Megrahi, who may or may not be responsible for Lockerbie, served years behind bars, is nearing the end, and may never get the opportunity to clear his name. But Capt Rogers, who is definitely culpable for the death of 290 innocents, whether wittingly or unwittingly, was allowed to pursue his career with honor. Where is the international outrage about that?
The repatriation to Libya on compassionate grounds of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi has caused a firestorm in Britain and the US.
President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and leader of Britain’s Conservative Party David Cameron have all expressed their displeasure at the Scottish justice minister’s decision to release the only individual to have been convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. Even FBI Director Robert Mueller couldn’t resist adding his two cents. He has characterized the release as an act that brings “comfort to terrorists” everywhere and “a mockery of the rule of law.”
Complicating matters further are accusations that Al-Megrahi’s release was a condition for Britain being awarded lucrative oil, gas and hotel contracts, which Prime Minister Gordon Brown denies. Yet, the Libyan president’s son Seif Al-Islam says the decision to free this terminally ill individual was always tied to trade, while a leaked letter from Downing Street to the Libyan leader makes clear that Al-Megrahi’s homecoming has been brewing ever since the G8 summit held in Italy early in July.
Many Scots believe that their government was set up by Westminster to be Britain’s patsy and are angry that so much enmity is coming their way from across the Atlantic. They may have a point...
... the Libyan authorities are being heavily criticized for giving the returnee a warm welcome. Western politicians and many families of Lockerbie victims consider this shameful, yet Libya has always protested Al-Megrahi’s innocence while ordinary Libyans view him as a loyal son of the soil who sacrificed his freedom for the good of his country. Al-Megrahi has consistently said there has been a miscarriage of justice and says he will release documentation to the British public to prove it now that his appeal has been quashed. If the appeal was heard “there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that the prosecution case will survive,” said Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died on Pan Am 103.
Those who are incensed that Al-Megrahi gets to spend his last days with his wife and five children might at least contemplate the possibility that there was, indeed, a miscarriage of justice. Firstly, the case against him was circumstantial and relied heavily upon the testimony of Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, who said he recognized Al-Megrahi as the man who bought clothing in his shop, fragments of which were later found in the incendiary suitcase.
Yet, Gauci was allegedly shown photographs of Al-Megrahi and others prior to the line-up when he failed to identify him. He was then instructed to focus on Al-Megrahi’s picture when he insisted that the person who bought his clothes was much older than the man in the photo. He is also said to have been coached by prosecutors prior to giving testimony and is thought to have been offered millions of dollars in bribes to testify at trial.
When Gauci was first called to Amsterdam for the identification parade he initially said that Al-Megrahi was “not exactly the man I saw in the shop . . .” He also claimed that his buyer was over 6 feet tall whereas Al-Megrahi is much shorter at 5 feet eight inches. (...)
Moreover, a timer, a key piece of the prosecution’s material evidence, is believed to be a fake after Ulrich Lumpert, a Swiss engineer, admitted that he lied about its origins. Lumpert also said that the first time he had viewed the timer it had a brown circuit board whereas his former Zurich employer MEBO had only exported green circuit boards to Libya. Yet when the board was produced during the trial Lumpert noticed it was carbonized indicating it had subsequently been tampered with.
Last October, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission announced that “a miscarriage of justice may have occurred” and identified six grounds for an appeal. One of these grounds may be the fact that some 18 hours prior to the New York bound Pan Am flight taking off, there had been a break-in at Heathrow’s restricted baggage area, which security officials described as a “very deliberate act” by professionals. This evidence of baggage tampering was not disclosed to the defense team prior to Al-Megrahi’s trial.
Surely, even those who doggedly insist upon Al-Megrahi’s culpability must accept that there are certainly strong reasons for doubt. And if justice hasn’t been served, this wouldn’t be the first time that British courts got it wrong. In 1991, the so-called Birmingham Six were released on appeal after serving 16 years in prison while the Guildford Four were jailed for 15 years on a false conviction.
Lastly, if Robert Mueller considers Al-Megrahi’s release “a mockery of the rule of law,” what does he say about another 1988 civil aviation tragedy?
On July 3 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air flight 655 while flying within Iranian air space en route to Dubai. On that day, all 290 passengers and crew were killed, including 66 children. Ship’s Capt William C. Rogers III later said he had mistaken the Airbus A300 for an F-14 Tomcat Fighter (as though there is any resemblance), yet there was no Lockerbie-style trial for him. Instead, he became the commanding officer of the United States Navy Tactical Training Group.
The US government issued notes of regret but never admitted wrongdoing or gave Iran an apology. To add insult to injury, then US Vice President George H W Bush told the UN that the Vincennes had acted appropriately and dismissed the tragedy as a wartime incident although Tehran and Washington were not at war. And US Ambassador to Britain Charles H Price II actually sent Capt Rogers a congratulatory message, which read “I join other Americans in congratulating you for having done your duty.”
The US did, however, shell out $61.8 million to victim’s families, which is a far cry from the $1.5 billion that Libya was pressured to pay to the Lockerbie families.
The double standard here is extraordinary. Al-Megrahi, who may or may not be responsible for Lockerbie, served years behind bars, is nearing the end, and may never get the opportunity to clear his name. But Capt Rogers, who is definitely culpable for the death of 290 innocents, whether wittingly or unwittingly, was allowed to pursue his career with honor. Where is the international outrage about that?
Medical advice on Libyan bomber 'in doubt'
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill was last night under pressure to reveal more details of the medical evidence that led to the release of the Lockerbie bomber, after it emerged that only one doctor was willing to say Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had less than three months to live.
Labour and Conservative politicians have demanded the Scottish Government publish details of the doctor's expertise and qualifications, amid suggestions he or she may not have been a prostate cancer expert.
The parties have also raised questions over whether the doctor was employed by the Libyan government or Megrahi's legal team, which could have influenced the judgment. (...)
Mr MacAskill has said he based his decision to release Megrahi on the opinions of a range of experts.
But this is contradicted by a decisive report sent to Mr MacAskill on 10 August.
While it noted that four prostate cancer specialists – two oncologists and two urologists – were consulted, the summary said: "Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist would be willing to say." (...)
A Scottish Government justice spokeswoman again insisted Mr MacAskill had relied on a range of evidence rather than the opinion of one doctor.
"The medical advice before the justice secretary consisted of a report from the Scottish Prison Service director of health and care, who had access to all Mr al-Megrahi's medical records.
"That report is clear. Taking all the medical advice into account, the director's view is that 'the clinical assessment is that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient'," she said.
"It was on that clear medical advice and a recommendation from the governor and the parole board, that Mr al-Megrahi be released on compassionate grounds, that the justice secretary based his decision."
Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill was last night under pressure to reveal more details of the medical evidence that led to the release of the Lockerbie bomber, after it emerged that only one doctor was willing to say Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had less than three months to live.
Labour and Conservative politicians have demanded the Scottish Government publish details of the doctor's expertise and qualifications, amid suggestions he or she may not have been a prostate cancer expert.
The parties have also raised questions over whether the doctor was employed by the Libyan government or Megrahi's legal team, which could have influenced the judgment. (...)
Mr MacAskill has said he based his decision to release Megrahi on the opinions of a range of experts.
But this is contradicted by a decisive report sent to Mr MacAskill on 10 August.
While it noted that four prostate cancer specialists – two oncologists and two urologists – were consulted, the summary said: "Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist would be willing to say." (...)
A Scottish Government justice spokeswoman again insisted Mr MacAskill had relied on a range of evidence rather than the opinion of one doctor.
"The medical advice before the justice secretary consisted of a report from the Scottish Prison Service director of health and care, who had access to all Mr al-Megrahi's medical records.
"That report is clear. Taking all the medical advice into account, the director's view is that 'the clinical assessment is that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient'," she said.
"It was on that clear medical advice and a recommendation from the governor and the parole board, that Mr al-Megrahi be released on compassionate grounds, that the justice secretary based his decision."
Brown: I played no role in the release of Megrahi
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Gordon Brown finally spoke out about the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing but was condemned for maintaining a "Trappist silence" on whether or not it was the right thing to do.
Political opponents mocked his refusal to comment on Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, branding it a "failure of leadership" and a "masterclass in evasion", that would lead people to suspect the Prime Minister had something to hide.
Mr Brown broke his silence as the Scottish Government said it would publish details of what was said in the meeting in Greenock Prison between the Justice Secretary and the Libyan prisoner.
The notes and "all relevant information" on the applications for prisoner transfer and compassionate release will be made public before a debate in the Scottish Parliament next Wednesday. (...)
Mr Brown broke his silence on Megrahi's release at a joint press conference with his Israeli counterpart Benyamin Netanyahu.
Asked whether he thought it was the right decision to release Megrahi, the PM said his first thoughts were with the families of the Lockerbie victims and then referred to how "angry" and "repulsed" he was at the hero's welcome afforded the Libyan at Tripoli airport.
"When I met Colonel Gaddafi over the summer, I made it absolutely clear to him that we had no role in making the decision about Megrahi's future because it was a quasi-judicial matter, because it was a matter legislated for by the Scottish Parliament and not by us, it was a matter over which we could not interfere and had no control over the final outcome."
Mr Brown stressed: "I want to make it clear, however, that whatever the decision that was made on compassionate grounds by the Scottish Parliament, our resolve to fight terrorism is absolute..."
Whitehall sources told The Herald the PM was determined to stick to not commenting on Mr MacAskill's decision.
Former Labour minister, Brian Wilson, however, described it as "pretty odd". He said the charge of being "the guy who's never around when there's a problem" was so blatantly obvious that "you would have thought there would have been some pre-emptive strategy which went beyond a Trappist silence".
[A further article in the same newspaper by chief UK political correspondent Torcuil Crichton is headed "Evasive Brown leaves himself open to ridicule". An editorial headed "Brown's silence" contains the following paragraphs:
'The nature of Mr Brown's bind is self-evident. If he condemns Kenny MacAskill's decision, he risks damaging relations with Libya and Alex Salmond would be quick to condemn him for interfering in what is a devolved matter. Conversely, if he condones it, he will draw to himself the fire currently directed at the SNP administration at Holyrood and further enrage the Americans. Yesterday's revelations about CIA interrogation techniques under George W Bush suggest the US has little to teach Britain about justice, but there is nothing to be gained by alienating our main ally.
'Mr Brown is right to repeat that this was a quasi-judicial decision that could be made only by the Scottish Justice Secretary. However, he should be more forthcoming about the terms in which he discussed this matter with the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, when the two met in July at the G8 summit in Italy, especially since the latter's insistence on thanking "my friend Brown" for helping secure Megrahi's release. We also need to know what transpired in Corfu when Business Secretary Lord Mandelson bumped into Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, who complicated matters by claiming that whenever he discussed trade deals, the prisoner's release was "always on the negotiating table". Unless the British government is prepared to publish notes from these meetings that confirm the British stance, the suspicion will remain that Megrahi's release and the dropping of his appeal are in some way linked to the decision to release him on compassionate grounds. The Westminster government should also release details of the prisoner transfer agreement made between Britain and Libya following Tony Blair's "deal in the desert". So far, it has refused to do so.
'The British government's coyness in this business contrasts with the stance taken at Holyrood, where Mr MacAskill yesterday undertook to publish "all relevant information" on both the prisoner transfer application that was refused and the prisoner's plea for compassionate release. Presumably, this will include notes of the Justice Secretary's meeting with Megrahi in Greenock Prison. This is welcome and is the least he owes relatives of the bereaved. Ultimately, they should also be party to the detail of the grounds for allowing the second appeal, abandoned last week. It will be no bad thing if the pressure for a public inquiry mounts as a consequence.']
Gordon Brown finally spoke out about the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing but was condemned for maintaining a "Trappist silence" on whether or not it was the right thing to do.
Political opponents mocked his refusal to comment on Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, branding it a "failure of leadership" and a "masterclass in evasion", that would lead people to suspect the Prime Minister had something to hide.
Mr Brown broke his silence as the Scottish Government said it would publish details of what was said in the meeting in Greenock Prison between the Justice Secretary and the Libyan prisoner.
The notes and "all relevant information" on the applications for prisoner transfer and compassionate release will be made public before a debate in the Scottish Parliament next Wednesday. (...)
Mr Brown broke his silence on Megrahi's release at a joint press conference with his Israeli counterpart Benyamin Netanyahu.
Asked whether he thought it was the right decision to release Megrahi, the PM said his first thoughts were with the families of the Lockerbie victims and then referred to how "angry" and "repulsed" he was at the hero's welcome afforded the Libyan at Tripoli airport.
"When I met Colonel Gaddafi over the summer, I made it absolutely clear to him that we had no role in making the decision about Megrahi's future because it was a quasi-judicial matter, because it was a matter legislated for by the Scottish Parliament and not by us, it was a matter over which we could not interfere and had no control over the final outcome."
Mr Brown stressed: "I want to make it clear, however, that whatever the decision that was made on compassionate grounds by the Scottish Parliament, our resolve to fight terrorism is absolute..."
Whitehall sources told The Herald the PM was determined to stick to not commenting on Mr MacAskill's decision.
Former Labour minister, Brian Wilson, however, described it as "pretty odd". He said the charge of being "the guy who's never around when there's a problem" was so blatantly obvious that "you would have thought there would have been some pre-emptive strategy which went beyond a Trappist silence".
[A further article in the same newspaper by chief UK political correspondent Torcuil Crichton is headed "Evasive Brown leaves himself open to ridicule". An editorial headed "Brown's silence" contains the following paragraphs:
'The nature of Mr Brown's bind is self-evident. If he condemns Kenny MacAskill's decision, he risks damaging relations with Libya and Alex Salmond would be quick to condemn him for interfering in what is a devolved matter. Conversely, if he condones it, he will draw to himself the fire currently directed at the SNP administration at Holyrood and further enrage the Americans. Yesterday's revelations about CIA interrogation techniques under George W Bush suggest the US has little to teach Britain about justice, but there is nothing to be gained by alienating our main ally.
'Mr Brown is right to repeat that this was a quasi-judicial decision that could be made only by the Scottish Justice Secretary. However, he should be more forthcoming about the terms in which he discussed this matter with the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, when the two met in July at the G8 summit in Italy, especially since the latter's insistence on thanking "my friend Brown" for helping secure Megrahi's release. We also need to know what transpired in Corfu when Business Secretary Lord Mandelson bumped into Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, who complicated matters by claiming that whenever he discussed trade deals, the prisoner's release was "always on the negotiating table". Unless the British government is prepared to publish notes from these meetings that confirm the British stance, the suspicion will remain that Megrahi's release and the dropping of his appeal are in some way linked to the decision to release him on compassionate grounds. The Westminster government should also release details of the prisoner transfer agreement made between Britain and Libya following Tony Blair's "deal in the desert". So far, it has refused to do so.
'The British government's coyness in this business contrasts with the stance taken at Holyrood, where Mr MacAskill yesterday undertook to publish "all relevant information" on both the prisoner transfer application that was refused and the prisoner's plea for compassionate release. Presumably, this will include notes of the Justice Secretary's meeting with Megrahi in Greenock Prison. This is welcome and is the least he owes relatives of the bereaved. Ultimately, they should also be party to the detail of the grounds for allowing the second appeal, abandoned last week. It will be no bad thing if the pressure for a public inquiry mounts as a consequence.']
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Lawyers back decision to free Lockerbie bomber - Poll
A poll of Scottish lawyers by Scottish Legal News has backed Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing on compassionate grounds.
The decision by the Scottish Government to release terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi - convicted in 2001 for the atrocity which claimed 270 lives in 1988 - has sparked international debate.
However, a survey carried out by Scottish Legal News showed that more than two-thirds of lawyers supported the Justice Secretary's controversial ruling.
We asked: "Was the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, right to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds?"
A total of 424 readers responded to the survey, with two-thirds (67.9 per cent) saying 'Yes', the minister made the right call. Nearly a third of respondents (32.1 per cent) disagreed with the decision.
Scottish Legal News editor, Baktosch Gillan said: "The message from our readers is emphatic. A majority of two-thirds support the decision of justice secretary Kenny MacAskill to free Megrahi.
"I had expected that opinion would be more evenly divided, but plainly the majority of the Scottish lawyers who responded are proud of their distinctive legal system and they believe that if it contains an element of compassion then it ought to be implemented."
One solicitor, who has practised law in both Scotland and New York, spoke of her "pride" in being a member of a Scottish legal system that can release Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
She added: "I think that this shows a legal system based on greater and higher values of natural justice and humanity. If tried and convicted in New York, al-Megrahi would certainly have faced the death penalty for his crimes.
"The most just and compassionate action for the Scottish justice system could take was to let the man go home to die.
"What a wonderful moral action, which can only be a good example to the rest of the world - no matter what political fallout ensues. Good for Scottish justice - a brave and compassionate decision!"
One lawyer wrote: "The justice secretary was correct. Compassion and forgiveness are pillars of the criminal justice system. Without them, rehabilitation of offenders and closure for victims and their families would be impossible."
Another said: "Scotland is a civilised and compassionate country. Regardless of guilt, it is only right that Mr al-Megrahi is allowed to die with his family around him. What possible good would it do to the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster to have him die in prison?
"The reaction from the American victims' families only goes to show that America has a long way to go before their so-called Christian society demonstrates the levels of forgiveness and compassion which the Scottish victims have shown."
[This was sent to me by a reader. It is genuine, but I am unable to provide a link.
Another kind reader has provided this link.]
The decision by the Scottish Government to release terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi - convicted in 2001 for the atrocity which claimed 270 lives in 1988 - has sparked international debate.
However, a survey carried out by Scottish Legal News showed that more than two-thirds of lawyers supported the Justice Secretary's controversial ruling.
We asked: "Was the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, right to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds?"
A total of 424 readers responded to the survey, with two-thirds (67.9 per cent) saying 'Yes', the minister made the right call. Nearly a third of respondents (32.1 per cent) disagreed with the decision.
Scottish Legal News editor, Baktosch Gillan said: "The message from our readers is emphatic. A majority of two-thirds support the decision of justice secretary Kenny MacAskill to free Megrahi.
"I had expected that opinion would be more evenly divided, but plainly the majority of the Scottish lawyers who responded are proud of their distinctive legal system and they believe that if it contains an element of compassion then it ought to be implemented."
One solicitor, who has practised law in both Scotland and New York, spoke of her "pride" in being a member of a Scottish legal system that can release Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
She added: "I think that this shows a legal system based on greater and higher values of natural justice and humanity. If tried and convicted in New York, al-Megrahi would certainly have faced the death penalty for his crimes.
"The most just and compassionate action for the Scottish justice system could take was to let the man go home to die.
"What a wonderful moral action, which can only be a good example to the rest of the world - no matter what political fallout ensues. Good for Scottish justice - a brave and compassionate decision!"
One lawyer wrote: "The justice secretary was correct. Compassion and forgiveness are pillars of the criminal justice system. Without them, rehabilitation of offenders and closure for victims and their families would be impossible."
Another said: "Scotland is a civilised and compassionate country. Regardless of guilt, it is only right that Mr al-Megrahi is allowed to die with his family around him. What possible good would it do to the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster to have him die in prison?
"The reaction from the American victims' families only goes to show that America has a long way to go before their so-called Christian society demonstrates the levels of forgiveness and compassion which the Scottish victims have shown."
[This was sent to me by a reader. It is genuine, but I am unable to provide a link.
Another kind reader has provided this link.]
Scots opinion rallies behind justice secretary
[This is the heading on a SNP (Scottish National Party) news release. It reads in part:]
The Catholic Church yesterday joined the Church of Scotland in supporting Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.
The Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti, said the decision was a sign of strength and would be supported by many Scots.
His move comes as church leaders, civic society, senior former and current politicians and many Scots around the country voiced backing for the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.
Radio listeners and newspapers readers have sprung to the defence of Kenny MacAskill after criticism of his decision.
With talk from the US of a threatened boycott on Scotland and Scottish goods as a protest against the decision to release the terminally-ill Libyan, many Scots are now voicing their belief that Mr MacAskill’s decision was morally correct.
SNP MSP Michael Matheson, deputy convener of the Scottish Parliament's External Relations Committee, said:
“Kenny MacAskill has answered his critics and demonstrated to Parliament that at all times he followed the correct procedures in reaching what is the correct decision.
“With Scotland’s churches, civic society, senior former and current politicians and many Scots around the country agreeing with this decision and the values embodied in it it is clear that support for Mr MacAskill is growing as Scots and others around the world understand the decision and the reasons for it.
“The politicisation of what is a quasi-judicial decision has been deeply disappointing and I welcome the comments and interventions by Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm and Lib Dem MSP John Farquhar Munro. (...)
Archbishop Mario Conti:“I personally, and many others in the Catholic community admired the decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on grounds of compassion which is, after all, one of the principles inscribed on the mace of the Scottish Parliament by which Scotland’s Government should operate. The showing of mercy in any situation is not a sign of weakness. Indeed in this situation, with the pressures and circumstances of the case, it seemed to me a sign of manifest strength. Despite contrary voices I believe it is a decision which will be a source of pride for many Scots and one which will be respected in the international community. I have been impressed by the expressions of understanding and insight from Dr Jim Swire and other relatives who lost loved ones on the Pan Am flight who have acknowledged both the rightness of the gesture of compassion and the doubts as to the saftey of the original conviction."
Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland:"This decision has sent a message to the world about what it is to be Scottish. We are defined as a nation by how we treat those who have chosen to hurt us. Do we choose mercy even when they did not chose mercy? I understand the deep anger and grief that still grips the souls of the victims' families and I respect their views, but to them, I would say justice is not lost in acting in mercy. Instead our deepest humanity is expressed for the better. To choose mercy is the tough choice and today our nation met that challenge."
Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm:“Can I regret the politicisation of what is a quasi-judicial decision, and for my part commend the Justice Secretary for a courageous decision, which is entirely consistent with both the principles of Scots Law and Christian morality, as evidenced by the widespread support of Churches across Scotland. “Does he share my revulsion, however, by what happened when Al-Megrahi returned to Libya, but does he accept that there is nothing that anyone in this Parliament could have done to stop that? And does he also agree that it [Libya reaction] is entirely irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of the original decision?”
Lib-Dem MSP John Farquhar Munro: “I’m sure there are plenty of MSPs with the same thoughts as I have. I’m of the opinion that Mr MacAskill had no other choice but the one he made. It was obvious from the doctors that Megrahi is suffering with cancer and that Megrahi’s health was going down every day and with that the correct thing happened and that MacAskill let Megrahi go with the information he had. I believe that MacAskill did the thing that was right and the ting that people will be looking on for years to come and that every time they raise the question of how well MacAskill did because of the rules and laws of Scotland. The right thing happened and MacAskill made the right and correct decision. With that it doesn’t give me any troubles whatsoever that there are some who are complaining.”
Prime Minister’s spokesman when asked whether the release gave succour to terrorists, said: "I don't think it does. This was a decision taken by the Scottish Justice Secretary in accordance with the laws of Scotland. I don't see that anyone can argue that this gives succour."
The Catholic Church yesterday joined the Church of Scotland in supporting Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.
The Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti, said the decision was a sign of strength and would be supported by many Scots.
His move comes as church leaders, civic society, senior former and current politicians and many Scots around the country voiced backing for the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.
Radio listeners and newspapers readers have sprung to the defence of Kenny MacAskill after criticism of his decision.
With talk from the US of a threatened boycott on Scotland and Scottish goods as a protest against the decision to release the terminally-ill Libyan, many Scots are now voicing their belief that Mr MacAskill’s decision was morally correct.
SNP MSP Michael Matheson, deputy convener of the Scottish Parliament's External Relations Committee, said:
“Kenny MacAskill has answered his critics and demonstrated to Parliament that at all times he followed the correct procedures in reaching what is the correct decision.
“With Scotland’s churches, civic society, senior former and current politicians and many Scots around the country agreeing with this decision and the values embodied in it it is clear that support for Mr MacAskill is growing as Scots and others around the world understand the decision and the reasons for it.
“The politicisation of what is a quasi-judicial decision has been deeply disappointing and I welcome the comments and interventions by Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm and Lib Dem MSP John Farquhar Munro. (...)
Archbishop Mario Conti:“I personally, and many others in the Catholic community admired the decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on grounds of compassion which is, after all, one of the principles inscribed on the mace of the Scottish Parliament by which Scotland’s Government should operate. The showing of mercy in any situation is not a sign of weakness. Indeed in this situation, with the pressures and circumstances of the case, it seemed to me a sign of manifest strength. Despite contrary voices I believe it is a decision which will be a source of pride for many Scots and one which will be respected in the international community. I have been impressed by the expressions of understanding and insight from Dr Jim Swire and other relatives who lost loved ones on the Pan Am flight who have acknowledged both the rightness of the gesture of compassion and the doubts as to the saftey of the original conviction."
Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland:"This decision has sent a message to the world about what it is to be Scottish. We are defined as a nation by how we treat those who have chosen to hurt us. Do we choose mercy even when they did not chose mercy? I understand the deep anger and grief that still grips the souls of the victims' families and I respect their views, but to them, I would say justice is not lost in acting in mercy. Instead our deepest humanity is expressed for the better. To choose mercy is the tough choice and today our nation met that challenge."
Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm:“Can I regret the politicisation of what is a quasi-judicial decision, and for my part commend the Justice Secretary for a courageous decision, which is entirely consistent with both the principles of Scots Law and Christian morality, as evidenced by the widespread support of Churches across Scotland. “Does he share my revulsion, however, by what happened when Al-Megrahi returned to Libya, but does he accept that there is nothing that anyone in this Parliament could have done to stop that? And does he also agree that it [Libya reaction] is entirely irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of the original decision?”
Lib-Dem MSP John Farquhar Munro: “I’m sure there are plenty of MSPs with the same thoughts as I have. I’m of the opinion that Mr MacAskill had no other choice but the one he made. It was obvious from the doctors that Megrahi is suffering with cancer and that Megrahi’s health was going down every day and with that the correct thing happened and that MacAskill let Megrahi go with the information he had. I believe that MacAskill did the thing that was right and the ting that people will be looking on for years to come and that every time they raise the question of how well MacAskill did because of the rules and laws of Scotland. The right thing happened and MacAskill made the right and correct decision. With that it doesn’t give me any troubles whatsoever that there are some who are complaining.”
Prime Minister’s spokesman when asked whether the release gave succour to terrorists, said: "I don't think it does. This was a decision taken by the Scottish Justice Secretary in accordance with the laws of Scotland. I don't see that anyone can argue that this gives succour."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)