[This is the headline over a report on the website of The Tripoli Post, Libya's English language daily newspaper. It reads in part:]
The outgoing chief executive of BP has refused US officials' requests to appear at a hearing next month over the release of the Libyan man convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.
Tony Hayward told Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat, in a letter that he is focusing on ensuring a smooth transition of leadership at the company and will be unable to testify.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is looking into whether the British-based oil company had sought Abdelbaset Al Megrahi's release to help get a $900 million exploration agreement with Libya off the ground.
In the letter, obtained by The Associated Press, Mr Hayward noted that UK and Scottish officials said they found no evidence that BP played a role in Al Megrahi's release.
He said BP has nothing to add to those statements. (...)
Al-Megrahi, a Libyan citizen, unfairly served twelve year of a life sentence as a result of miscarriage of justice when a Scottish make-shift court unjustly accused him of involvement in the Dec 21, 1988, bombing, which killed all 259 people on board, most of them Americans, and 11 people on the ground.
In August of last year, Scotland's government released the cancer-stricken man on compassionate grounds and he returned to Libya.
For reasons unclear yet the US Senate is putting much pressure on Britain and Scotland, and with no respect to this state's sovereignty, as to persecute [sic] their former and current officials who may have any relation with the release of the Libyan man from prison.
Tuesday 31 August 2010
Saturday 28 August 2010
Megrahi motives
[This is the heading over a letter from Tom Minogue published in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]
Like Tam Dalyell (Letters, 27 August), Dr Jim Swire believes Kenny MacAskill's decision was corrupted by self-interest and he is supporting an inexplicable verdict to protect some of his judges/prosecutors from criticism. [Note by RB: I have no recollection, and certainly no record, of Dr Swire having ever made such a crticism of Kenny MacAskill.] He may well be right in this.
Likewise Megrahi's inexplicable decision to abandon the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission appeal may have been the result of a nod and a wink from those dealing with his compassionate release and if so would have been welcomed by those in the justice establishment. If Megrahi had died waiting for his appeal to be heard there would have been an outcry that the Crown Office had procrastinated for years while this appellant's health faded.
And if Megrahi survived long enough to attend his appeal the prospect of Tony Gauci and his brother being called (from wherever they are now) to explain the millions of dollars gifted them by the US government would have been a disaster for Scotland's reputation for independent justice.
So many political factors have dictated events in the Megrahi saga, but for those who believe that MacAskill acted purely on compassionate grounds I would ask them to listen again to his monotone 20-minute statement to the Scottish Parliament.
Invoking the Almighty was pure political theatre pitched at the Bible Belt rather than his constituents in the Central Belt.
Like Tam Dalyell (Letters, 27 August), Dr Jim Swire believes Kenny MacAskill's decision was corrupted by self-interest and he is supporting an inexplicable verdict to protect some of his judges/prosecutors from criticism. [Note by RB: I have no recollection, and certainly no record, of Dr Swire having ever made such a crticism of Kenny MacAskill.] He may well be right in this.
Likewise Megrahi's inexplicable decision to abandon the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission appeal may have been the result of a nod and a wink from those dealing with his compassionate release and if so would have been welcomed by those in the justice establishment. If Megrahi had died waiting for his appeal to be heard there would have been an outcry that the Crown Office had procrastinated for years while this appellant's health faded.
And if Megrahi survived long enough to attend his appeal the prospect of Tony Gauci and his brother being called (from wherever they are now) to explain the millions of dollars gifted them by the US government would have been a disaster for Scotland's reputation for independent justice.
So many political factors have dictated events in the Megrahi saga, but for those who believe that MacAskill acted purely on compassionate grounds I would ask them to listen again to his monotone 20-minute statement to the Scottish Parliament.
Invoking the Almighty was pure political theatre pitched at the Bible Belt rather than his constituents in the Central Belt.
Friday 27 August 2010
Justice For Megrahi committee put Salmond on the spot
[This is the headline over an article just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
The Justice for Megrahi Committee, the group who have garnered an international coalition of signatories to a petition calling for a full investigation of the Pan Am 103 event and its aftermath, have written to the First Minister querying his refusal to sign their petition, accusing him of raising "more questions than answers" in his response to the invitation.
"Albeit that he has declined offer, we accept his decision. However, the message delivered by the Scottish Government’s spokesman in response to the invitation raises more questions than it answers insofar as it comes across as confusing and contradictory," the group said.
The committee, who have gathered signatories to their cause as diverse as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, John Pilger, Professor Noam Chomsky, Kate Adie and Parliamentarians Tam Dalyell and Sir Teddy Taylor, have asked Salmond to respond to six questions raised by the response submitted to them in Salmond's name, in which he appears to contradict his earlier position that he was willing to take part in an inquiry into the Pan Am 103 event, the discredited trial and the debacle surrounding Megrahi's release.
"Mr Salmond continues to maintain his stance that the Scottish Government is satisfied with the safety of Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction, thus setting himself squarely against the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) in their referral of the case to the Court of Appeal," the group said.
"He does, however, state that he would co-operate fully with an inquiry by an independent authority such as the United Nations.
"Further to this, according to the Scottish Government’s spokesman, despite confidence in the safety of the verdict, “there remain concerns on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.” If these “concerns” differ from those of JFM’s, what are they? JFM would very much like the Scottish Government to clarify which “concerns” it is alluding to.
"Mr Salmond also consistently contends, as has been reiterated via the Scottish Government’s spokesman in response to the JFM invitation, that “the questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots Law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would, therefore, need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”
"With the greatest respect, JFM disputes this. The international nature of the event was not such an impediment when it came to trying Messrs al-Megrahi and Fhimah at Zeist in the first instance, was it? What then is the obstruction now, when it comes to opening a Holyrood inquiry into the safety of a verdict reached under Scots Law?"
The Justice for Megrahi committee's membership includes Dr Jim Swire and Professor Robert Black QC, whose guidance on these matters allowed the international trial to be convened in the Netherlands under Scots law.
"JFM and its signatories seek clarification on the questions raised here resultant from the statement delivered by the Scottish Government’s spokesman. We list the questions below for Mr Salmond’s convenience.
"The questions:
-What are the wider concerns over the Lockerbie case as mentioned in the Scottish Government spokesman’s statement?
-Does the Scottish Government have the authority to set up inquiries?
-If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, under whose auspices was the 2003 inquiry into the Scottish Parliament building project, headed by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, set up?
-If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, is, therefore, the judiciary of Scotland sacrosanct and beyond the scrutiny of the people of Scotland, who pay for it?
-Is the First Minister going to lobby Westminster to request that either UN General Assembly or the Security Council set up an inquiry into the Lockerbie case?
-Given that such a considerable quantity of the evidence required for such inquiry falls under Scottish jurisdiction, what precisely is preventing the Scottish Government from opening an inquiry into the evidence already available to it?"
The full letter to Salmond can be read here.
[As regards question 2, I -- in my wonted spirit of helpfulness -- suggest that the First Minister and his advisers start researching their answer by consulting the Inquiries Act 2005 (c12), particularly sections 1, 27, 28 and 32.
The coverage of this story on the Newsnet Scotland website can be accessed here.]
The Justice for Megrahi Committee, the group who have garnered an international coalition of signatories to a petition calling for a full investigation of the Pan Am 103 event and its aftermath, have written to the First Minister querying his refusal to sign their petition, accusing him of raising "more questions than answers" in his response to the invitation.
"Albeit that he has declined offer, we accept his decision. However, the message delivered by the Scottish Government’s spokesman in response to the invitation raises more questions than it answers insofar as it comes across as confusing and contradictory," the group said.
The committee, who have gathered signatories to their cause as diverse as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, John Pilger, Professor Noam Chomsky, Kate Adie and Parliamentarians Tam Dalyell and Sir Teddy Taylor, have asked Salmond to respond to six questions raised by the response submitted to them in Salmond's name, in which he appears to contradict his earlier position that he was willing to take part in an inquiry into the Pan Am 103 event, the discredited trial and the debacle surrounding Megrahi's release.
"Mr Salmond continues to maintain his stance that the Scottish Government is satisfied with the safety of Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction, thus setting himself squarely against the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) in their referral of the case to the Court of Appeal," the group said.
"He does, however, state that he would co-operate fully with an inquiry by an independent authority such as the United Nations.
"Further to this, according to the Scottish Government’s spokesman, despite confidence in the safety of the verdict, “there remain concerns on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.” If these “concerns” differ from those of JFM’s, what are they? JFM would very much like the Scottish Government to clarify which “concerns” it is alluding to.
"Mr Salmond also consistently contends, as has been reiterated via the Scottish Government’s spokesman in response to the JFM invitation, that “the questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots Law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would, therefore, need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”
"With the greatest respect, JFM disputes this. The international nature of the event was not such an impediment when it came to trying Messrs al-Megrahi and Fhimah at Zeist in the first instance, was it? What then is the obstruction now, when it comes to opening a Holyrood inquiry into the safety of a verdict reached under Scots Law?"
The Justice for Megrahi committee's membership includes Dr Jim Swire and Professor Robert Black QC, whose guidance on these matters allowed the international trial to be convened in the Netherlands under Scots law.
"JFM and its signatories seek clarification on the questions raised here resultant from the statement delivered by the Scottish Government’s spokesman. We list the questions below for Mr Salmond’s convenience.
"The questions:
-What are the wider concerns over the Lockerbie case as mentioned in the Scottish Government spokesman’s statement?
-Does the Scottish Government have the authority to set up inquiries?
-If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, under whose auspices was the 2003 inquiry into the Scottish Parliament building project, headed by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, set up?
-If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, is, therefore, the judiciary of Scotland sacrosanct and beyond the scrutiny of the people of Scotland, who pay for it?
-Is the First Minister going to lobby Westminster to request that either UN General Assembly or the Security Council set up an inquiry into the Lockerbie case?
-Given that such a considerable quantity of the evidence required for such inquiry falls under Scottish jurisdiction, what precisely is preventing the Scottish Government from opening an inquiry into the evidence already available to it?"
The full letter to Salmond can be read here.
[As regards question 2, I -- in my wonted spirit of helpfulness -- suggest that the First Minister and his advisers start researching their answer by consulting the Inquiries Act 2005 (c12), particularly sections 1, 27, 28 and 32.
The coverage of this story on the Newsnet Scotland website can be accessed here.]
The right response?
Tony Hayward, the outgoing chief executive of BP, has refused to testify for the second time before a US Senate hearing about BP’s role in the release of the Lockerbie Bomber.
Mr Hayward, who also refused to testify in July shortly after resigning from BP, wrote to US Sen Robert Menendez that he is focused on ensuring a “smooth and successful leadership change” at the company and will be unable to testify. (...)
BP has admitted that Sir Mark Allen, an adviser to the firm, spoke to Jack Straw, the former Justice Secretary, about Britain introducing a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya. Mr Menendez initially planned the hearing for last month, but was forced to postpone it when he could not get Mr Hayward or officials from Britain and Scotland to testify. (...)
Citing public comments from British and Scottish officials saying they found no evidence that BP played a role in al-Megrahi’s release, Mr Hayward in his latest letter said, “BP has nothing to add to these clear, unequivocal statements.”
Mr Menendez has said that although the committee cannot compel foreign nationals to testify at a hearing in the U.S., the committee will look into whether Mr Hayward could be subpoenaed because BP conducts business in the US.
[From a report in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph.
The Washington Post's Spy Talk blog has a post headed "CIA retirees call for escalated probe of Pan Am 103 bomber's release". The Association of Former Intelligence Officers, an organization of CIA and other ex-intelligence officers, is calling for Scotland, Britain and all relevant branches of the US government to cooperate with a US Senate investigation into the circumstances surrounding the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. A number of US intelligence officers were amongst the victims of Pan Am 103. Now, if AFIO were to call for an inquiry into the circumstances of Mr Megrahi's conviction and to call for the US and other governments to make available all documents and evidence pertinent to that issue, that really would be a news story.]
Mr Hayward, who also refused to testify in July shortly after resigning from BP, wrote to US Sen Robert Menendez that he is focused on ensuring a “smooth and successful leadership change” at the company and will be unable to testify. (...)
BP has admitted that Sir Mark Allen, an adviser to the firm, spoke to Jack Straw, the former Justice Secretary, about Britain introducing a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya. Mr Menendez initially planned the hearing for last month, but was forced to postpone it when he could not get Mr Hayward or officials from Britain and Scotland to testify. (...)
Citing public comments from British and Scottish officials saying they found no evidence that BP played a role in al-Megrahi’s release, Mr Hayward in his latest letter said, “BP has nothing to add to these clear, unequivocal statements.”
Mr Menendez has said that although the committee cannot compel foreign nationals to testify at a hearing in the U.S., the committee will look into whether Mr Hayward could be subpoenaed because BP conducts business in the US.
[From a report in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph.
The Washington Post's Spy Talk blog has a post headed "CIA retirees call for escalated probe of Pan Am 103 bomber's release". The Association of Former Intelligence Officers, an organization of CIA and other ex-intelligence officers, is calling for Scotland, Britain and all relevant branches of the US government to cooperate with a US Senate investigation into the circumstances surrounding the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. A number of US intelligence officers were amongst the victims of Pan Am 103. Now, if AFIO were to call for an inquiry into the circumstances of Mr Megrahi's conviction and to call for the US and other governments to make available all documents and evidence pertinent to that issue, that really would be a news story.]
Wednesday 25 August 2010
Shock! FBI think they got the right man!
[What follow are excerpts from an article in today's edition of The Christian Science Monitor.]
But to Richard Marquise, the lead FBI investigator into the bombing, the public doubts expressed about Megrahi, who was convicted by a tribunal of three Scottish judges in 2001, are puzzling and frustrating. In his 31 years at the FBI, Mr. Marquise said he's rarely seen a "stronger circumstantial case" than the one against Megrahi, who was also caught repeatedly lying to investigators and reporters. "There's nobody else that I'm aware of anywhere in the world that has such evidence pointing to their guilt," he says. (...)
Marquise says that "there were other people that we strongly believed were involved in terms of the planning process and ordering process.... Megrahi was the guy who was assigned to get it done. We think at least six were probably involved if you only had to make an intelligence case, but in terms of making a criminal case, we didn't have strong enough evidence." (...)
But many remain unconvinced -- though, as Marquise and others point out, there's no evidence to support any of a myriad of alternative theories about his guilt. One popular alternative theory, advanced most recently by The Herald newspaper of Scotland on Friday, is that Mohammed Abu Talb, an Egyptian convicted of carrying out other attacks in Europe in the early 1980s on behalf of a Palestinian group, carried out the bombing.
The Herald writes that the "Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) is understood to have uncovered new evidence that strengthens the case against Talb" without actually explaining how this is "understood" or what additional evidence, if any, exists to tie him to the murders. The article also asserts that Mr. Talb was "arrested in connection with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103" in 1989.
Marquise says that last assertion is false and that Talb's arrest in 1989 dealt with a different terrorism case. While Megrahi was proven to have traveled to Malta on a false passport (which he had originally lied about), and to [have] been there on the date that the explosive was placed on the plane, Talb was in Sweden at the time.
The key piece of evidence against Megrahi was a fragment of the timer used for the bomb at Lockerbie, which was of an unusual design. "There were maybe as many as 25 of these timers ever made -- 20 really with a couple of circuit boards left over," says Marquise. "All 20 were hand-delivered to Libyan intelligence."
Another theory floating about is that the British government squashed possibly exculpatory evidence about Megrahi at the time of his trial and has been hiding it ever since. The Guardian newspaper quoted a Scottish human rights lawyer last week as saying that there is a "secret intelligence report" that "is believed to cast serious doubts on prosecution claims that Megrahi used a specific Swiss timer for the bomb."
Again, it isn't clear who believes this or how they could possibly know such the contents of a "secret" document.
"I don’t know if some of these people are reading too many of these spy novels or what," says William Chornyak, another former FBI investigator. "But a lot of the people making these suppositions simply weren't there. It's easy to say, 'I'm going to assume there's some secret document' ... that proves Megrahi is innocent. But where is the document?"
Mr. Chonyak says he's "absolutely" convinced that Megrahi's conviction was accurate. "The evidence is pretty specific, the guy even admitted using a phony passport, and he was caught lying. If a guy is going to lie in one instance, and you have the documentation that proves he lied, he’s going to continue to lie."
"I feel bad for the families," says Marquise. "They got partial justice."
[Readers are invited to compare the above with Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result and The SCCRC decision.
Caustic Logic's commentary on The Christian Science Monitor article can be read here on The Lockerbie Divide blog.]
But to Richard Marquise, the lead FBI investigator into the bombing, the public doubts expressed about Megrahi, who was convicted by a tribunal of three Scottish judges in 2001, are puzzling and frustrating. In his 31 years at the FBI, Mr. Marquise said he's rarely seen a "stronger circumstantial case" than the one against Megrahi, who was also caught repeatedly lying to investigators and reporters. "There's nobody else that I'm aware of anywhere in the world that has such evidence pointing to their guilt," he says. (...)
Marquise says that "there were other people that we strongly believed were involved in terms of the planning process and ordering process.... Megrahi was the guy who was assigned to get it done. We think at least six were probably involved if you only had to make an intelligence case, but in terms of making a criminal case, we didn't have strong enough evidence." (...)
But many remain unconvinced -- though, as Marquise and others point out, there's no evidence to support any of a myriad of alternative theories about his guilt. One popular alternative theory, advanced most recently by The Herald newspaper of Scotland on Friday, is that Mohammed Abu Talb, an Egyptian convicted of carrying out other attacks in Europe in the early 1980s on behalf of a Palestinian group, carried out the bombing.
The Herald writes that the "Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) is understood to have uncovered new evidence that strengthens the case against Talb" without actually explaining how this is "understood" or what additional evidence, if any, exists to tie him to the murders. The article also asserts that Mr. Talb was "arrested in connection with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103" in 1989.
Marquise says that last assertion is false and that Talb's arrest in 1989 dealt with a different terrorism case. While Megrahi was proven to have traveled to Malta on a false passport (which he had originally lied about), and to [have] been there on the date that the explosive was placed on the plane, Talb was in Sweden at the time.
The key piece of evidence against Megrahi was a fragment of the timer used for the bomb at Lockerbie, which was of an unusual design. "There were maybe as many as 25 of these timers ever made -- 20 really with a couple of circuit boards left over," says Marquise. "All 20 were hand-delivered to Libyan intelligence."
Another theory floating about is that the British government squashed possibly exculpatory evidence about Megrahi at the time of his trial and has been hiding it ever since. The Guardian newspaper quoted a Scottish human rights lawyer last week as saying that there is a "secret intelligence report" that "is believed to cast serious doubts on prosecution claims that Megrahi used a specific Swiss timer for the bomb."
Again, it isn't clear who believes this or how they could possibly know such the contents of a "secret" document.
"I don’t know if some of these people are reading too many of these spy novels or what," says William Chornyak, another former FBI investigator. "But a lot of the people making these suppositions simply weren't there. It's easy to say, 'I'm going to assume there's some secret document' ... that proves Megrahi is innocent. But where is the document?"
Mr. Chonyak says he's "absolutely" convinced that Megrahi's conviction was accurate. "The evidence is pretty specific, the guy even admitted using a phony passport, and he was caught lying. If a guy is going to lie in one instance, and you have the documentation that proves he lied, he’s going to continue to lie."
"I feel bad for the families," says Marquise. "They got partial justice."
[Readers are invited to compare the above with Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result and The SCCRC decision.
Caustic Logic's commentary on The Christian Science Monitor article can be read here on The Lockerbie Divide blog.]
Tuesday 24 August 2010
"... you know for certain that it wasn’t Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi ..."
Of course, having made a discovery at the fringe, you find yourself having to follow their progress in subsequent years. Ever since David Benson first moved and astonished us with his uncannily accurate impression of Kenneth Williams but also personalised it by telling us how important Williams had been to him, I have seen him again and again at Edinburgh, but never to quite the same effect. Until yesterday, when he brought a quietly devastating authority and sense of outrage to Lockerbie: Unfinished Business, a documentary recreation of one tireless man’s campaign to find out who was responsible for the terrorist outrage that fateful December night that claimed the life of his young daughter. And by the end of this show, you know for certain that it wasn’t Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, convicted of the crime but released last year to return to Libya to die of the cancer that he is suffering from. Benson’s performance is the best I expect to see in Edinburgh this year, and perhaps all year.
[From an article by Mark Shenton on the website of The Stage.]
[From an article by Mark Shenton on the website of The Stage.]
Salmond snubs Megrahi probe bid
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
First Minister Alex Salmond has turned down an invitation to support a campaign for an international inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing and the subsequent conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Salmond received the request from the Justice for Megrahi campaign following comments that he had “nothing to hide” from such an inquiry into the atrocity.
The group has petitioned the UN general assembly to hold an investigation into the Lockerbie case and has drawn a number of high-profile backers including former journalist Kate Adie, writer and campaigner John Pilger, human rights commentator Professor Noam Chomsky and Private Eye editor Ian Hislop.
The First Minister has said he would co-operate fully with an inquiry by an independent authority such as the UN, however, the Scottish Government said it would be inappropriate for Mr Salmond to lend his support to the Justice for Megrahi campaign.
A spokesman said: “On the broader questions of inquiry, the Scottish Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Megrahi. Nevertheless, there remain concerns over some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.
“The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would therefore need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”
Meanwhile, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is understood to have uncovered new evidence that strengthens the case against original suspect Mohammed Abu Talb, who was allegedly funded by Iran to blow up the plane in revenge for the American cruiser USS Vincennes shooting an Iran Air flight out of the sky on July 3, 1988, killing 290 people.
The Egyptian-born militant served as a prosecution witness at the Megrahi trial. Talb has now been freed from prison in Sweden where he served sentences linked to terror attacks in Copenhagen and Amsterdam.
Professor Bob Black, QC, member of the Justice for Megrahi Committee, said he was “disappointed but not surprised” by Mr Salmond’s rejection, claiming it would have been a “major step forward” for the campaign.
[What follows is the text of the letter sent -- more in hope than in expectation -- to the First Minister by Justice for Megrahi.]
We, the Justice for Megrahi Committee and all signatories to the committee’s activities, wish to convey to you our most sincere gratitude for your recent outspoken comments in the broadcast media in support of an independent United Nations inquiry into circumstances surrounding what has become commonly referred to as the Lockerbie case.
You will, on the back of prior correspondence we have sent to you, be fully cognisant of the fact that we lobbied the General Assembly of the UN in September of last year to precisely the same end. In addition to this, we have made approaches to other bodies, most notably the Government of Malta, the Senate of the United States of America and the Scottish Government requesting support for the establishment of an independent public inquiry encompassing: the Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103; the police investigation of the tragedy; the subsequent Kamp van Zeist trial; the acquittal of Mr Fhimah and conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi; the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s referral of Mr Al-Megrahi’s case to the Court of Appeal; and finally, the circumstances surrounding the dropping of Mr Al-Megrahi’s second appeal and his compassionate release. Unfortunately, all our efforts to reach the goal of establishing an inquiry under the auspices of the UN have fallen on deaf ears thus far.
However, with the support which you are now clearly giving to this cause, in your capacity as the elected leader of the Scottish people, we are becoming increasingly optimistic of success.
You have quite correctly stated your reservations in the past with regard to any given nation state alone setting up an inquiry of any worth on the grounds that they do not individually possess the power of subpoena over other nation states to produce evidence that does not fall within the jurisdiction of the state conducing the inquiry. The obvious choice then is of course to resort to the UN. Regrettably, the General Assembly of the UN is in exactly the same position as individual states are with respect to the international power of subpoena. The only body with such a power is in fact the Security Council of the UN, and this body has ceased to deal with any and all matters relating to the Lockerbie incident (see Security Council binding resolution of 12th September 2003, which states, in operative para 3, that it “hereby removes this item from the list of matters of which the Council is seized”). Therefore, on the assumption that the Security Council may be reluctant to revoke its resolution and that the General Assembly has so far expressed no interest in opening an inquiry, we are at a loss to know how matters could be turned around in New York.
Nevertheless, someone of your experience, political acumen and standing as First Minister of Scotland will assuredly manage to make a deeper impact than we have. In that regard, we (JFM committee and signatories) will stand four square behind you in all your endeavours.
Should your attempts prove unsuccessful, at least you will have peace of mind in the knowledge that Scotland, unlike any other nation involved in this, is in a position to open its own inquiry without having to concern itself too greatly on the issue of international subpoena powers given that:
· The event occurred over and on Scottish territory.
· The case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
· The trial was conducted under Scots Law.
· Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
· Mr Al-Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
· The SCCRC referred the second appeal to the Scottish Court of Appeal.
· Mr Al-Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
Therefore, much if not all the documentation, and many of the witnesses required to testify before such an inquiry, already lies within the jurisdiction of Scots Law. Thus, no difficulty whatsoever ought to be posed if the Scottish Government itself ultimately decides to open an inquiry into matters relating to the Lockerbie tragedy.
Not only do we wish to thank you for your most encouraging public comments and offer you our full support behind any course of action you may take to set up an inquiry, but we wish, moreover, to extend to you a warm invitation to add your name to the list of signatories who have over the last year supported the JFM inquiry campaign. By joining this group, you will be consulted as to strategy and kept up-to-date on all its activities. We are an egalitarian organisation. Whilst some signatories may choose a passive role, others have played an active part in formulating and forwarding our aims throughout. It is an individual choice. Justice for Megrahi is simply grateful to have the support of all of its signatories. Since it is clear that you so evidently identify with our aims, you are most welcome to join us.
We are confident that in the points we have made above we speak not only for a large portion of the bereaved of the Lockerbie tragedy, but also for many of the ordinary citizens of Scotland and elsewhere who would like to see a more satisfactory resolution to this issue. Furthermore, it is important to mention that for the inhabitants of the town of Lockerbie to be constantly reminded that their home is synonymous with this appalling event must be intolerable, and an open public inquiry covering events from December 1988 to the present day might contribute in some small way towards returning the town to a degree of normality.
We look forward to your response to our invitation and thank you for your time and attention.
First Minister Alex Salmond has turned down an invitation to support a campaign for an international inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing and the subsequent conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Salmond received the request from the Justice for Megrahi campaign following comments that he had “nothing to hide” from such an inquiry into the atrocity.
The group has petitioned the UN general assembly to hold an investigation into the Lockerbie case and has drawn a number of high-profile backers including former journalist Kate Adie, writer and campaigner John Pilger, human rights commentator Professor Noam Chomsky and Private Eye editor Ian Hislop.
The First Minister has said he would co-operate fully with an inquiry by an independent authority such as the UN, however, the Scottish Government said it would be inappropriate for Mr Salmond to lend his support to the Justice for Megrahi campaign.
A spokesman said: “On the broader questions of inquiry, the Scottish Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Megrahi. Nevertheless, there remain concerns over some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.
“The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would therefore need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”
Meanwhile, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is understood to have uncovered new evidence that strengthens the case against original suspect Mohammed Abu Talb, who was allegedly funded by Iran to blow up the plane in revenge for the American cruiser USS Vincennes shooting an Iran Air flight out of the sky on July 3, 1988, killing 290 people.
The Egyptian-born militant served as a prosecution witness at the Megrahi trial. Talb has now been freed from prison in Sweden where he served sentences linked to terror attacks in Copenhagen and Amsterdam.
Professor Bob Black, QC, member of the Justice for Megrahi Committee, said he was “disappointed but not surprised” by Mr Salmond’s rejection, claiming it would have been a “major step forward” for the campaign.
[What follows is the text of the letter sent -- more in hope than in expectation -- to the First Minister by Justice for Megrahi.]
We, the Justice for Megrahi Committee and all signatories to the committee’s activities, wish to convey to you our most sincere gratitude for your recent outspoken comments in the broadcast media in support of an independent United Nations inquiry into circumstances surrounding what has become commonly referred to as the Lockerbie case.
You will, on the back of prior correspondence we have sent to you, be fully cognisant of the fact that we lobbied the General Assembly of the UN in September of last year to precisely the same end. In addition to this, we have made approaches to other bodies, most notably the Government of Malta, the Senate of the United States of America and the Scottish Government requesting support for the establishment of an independent public inquiry encompassing: the Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103; the police investigation of the tragedy; the subsequent Kamp van Zeist trial; the acquittal of Mr Fhimah and conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi; the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s referral of Mr Al-Megrahi’s case to the Court of Appeal; and finally, the circumstances surrounding the dropping of Mr Al-Megrahi’s second appeal and his compassionate release. Unfortunately, all our efforts to reach the goal of establishing an inquiry under the auspices of the UN have fallen on deaf ears thus far.
However, with the support which you are now clearly giving to this cause, in your capacity as the elected leader of the Scottish people, we are becoming increasingly optimistic of success.
You have quite correctly stated your reservations in the past with regard to any given nation state alone setting up an inquiry of any worth on the grounds that they do not individually possess the power of subpoena over other nation states to produce evidence that does not fall within the jurisdiction of the state conducing the inquiry. The obvious choice then is of course to resort to the UN. Regrettably, the General Assembly of the UN is in exactly the same position as individual states are with respect to the international power of subpoena. The only body with such a power is in fact the Security Council of the UN, and this body has ceased to deal with any and all matters relating to the Lockerbie incident (see Security Council binding resolution of 12th September 2003, which states, in operative para 3, that it “hereby removes this item from the list of matters of which the Council is seized”). Therefore, on the assumption that the Security Council may be reluctant to revoke its resolution and that the General Assembly has so far expressed no interest in opening an inquiry, we are at a loss to know how matters could be turned around in New York.
Nevertheless, someone of your experience, political acumen and standing as First Minister of Scotland will assuredly manage to make a deeper impact than we have. In that regard, we (JFM committee and signatories) will stand four square behind you in all your endeavours.
Should your attempts prove unsuccessful, at least you will have peace of mind in the knowledge that Scotland, unlike any other nation involved in this, is in a position to open its own inquiry without having to concern itself too greatly on the issue of international subpoena powers given that:
· The event occurred over and on Scottish territory.
· The case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
· The trial was conducted under Scots Law.
· Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
· Mr Al-Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
· The SCCRC referred the second appeal to the Scottish Court of Appeal.
· Mr Al-Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
Therefore, much if not all the documentation, and many of the witnesses required to testify before such an inquiry, already lies within the jurisdiction of Scots Law. Thus, no difficulty whatsoever ought to be posed if the Scottish Government itself ultimately decides to open an inquiry into matters relating to the Lockerbie tragedy.
Not only do we wish to thank you for your most encouraging public comments and offer you our full support behind any course of action you may take to set up an inquiry, but we wish, moreover, to extend to you a warm invitation to add your name to the list of signatories who have over the last year supported the JFM inquiry campaign. By joining this group, you will be consulted as to strategy and kept up-to-date on all its activities. We are an egalitarian organisation. Whilst some signatories may choose a passive role, others have played an active part in formulating and forwarding our aims throughout. It is an individual choice. Justice for Megrahi is simply grateful to have the support of all of its signatories. Since it is clear that you so evidently identify with our aims, you are most welcome to join us.
We are confident that in the points we have made above we speak not only for a large portion of the bereaved of the Lockerbie tragedy, but also for many of the ordinary citizens of Scotland and elsewhere who would like to see a more satisfactory resolution to this issue. Furthermore, it is important to mention that for the inhabitants of the town of Lockerbie to be constantly reminded that their home is synonymous with this appalling event must be intolerable, and an open public inquiry covering events from December 1988 to the present day might contribute in some small way towards returning the town to a degree of normality.
We look forward to your response to our invitation and thank you for your time and attention.
Wishing someone’s death is ghoulish
[This is the headline over an article by specialist writer on Middle East affairs, Linda Heard, recently published on the Arab News website. It reads in part:]
It seems to me that people in the highest echelons of the US government have nothing better to do than sit around hoping that the so-called “Lockerbie bomber” Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi will either keel over and die or spend his dying days behind bars.
Leading the revenge brigade is President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who would surely be better employed fixing the economy or working toward getting out of Afghanistan.
Such high level preoccupation with the fate of one lingering cancer sufferer is not only petty but somehow vulgar. It’s the kind of thing one might expect from a crazed, egotistical dictator rather than the leaders of the free world and especially those who profess to be Christians when at the core of that religion is forgiveness. (...)
Equally nauseating is the way that America’s trans-Atlantic self-ascribed “junior partner” Britain is dancing to the White House’s tune by threatening Libya not to celebrate the first anniversary of Al-Megrahi’s homecoming. It really isn’t Britain’s business to tell another sovereign nation how it should behave. In truth, nobody in Libya believes Al-Megrahi committed the crime and I don’t blame them. The evidence against him was so flimsy as to be almost nonexistent and he has always vehemently denied any culpability. Moreover, there is a wealth of international legal opinion that believes his conviction by a panel of three Scottish judges is unsafe.
To most Libyans, Al-Megrahi is a patriot who willingly sacrificed his personal liberty to allow his country to re-join the international community. As far as they are concerned he is an innocent man who deserves their respect and thanks. Libya has long paid its dues. It was forced into taking responsibility for Lockerbie to free itself from UN sanctions, US trade sanctions and to gain access to funds frozen in American banks. It also sought its removal from the list of terrorist sponsoring states.
It went the extra mile toward acceptance by paying families of Lockerbie victims $10 million each and dismantling its advanced nuclear program so that it could be officially declared free of WMD. Yet, Libya still hasn’t been fully embraced into the fold and won’t be as long as Washington continues to bleat about the past when it has committed crimes against Libya that tend to be forgotten.
On April 14th, 1986, President Ronald Reagan ordered a strike on Libya that killed President Muammar Qaddafi’s 15-month-old adopted daughter Hanna along with 45 officials and 15 civilians. American bombs also injured two of the Libyan leader’s sons. That attack was loudly condemned in the UN General Assembly as “a violation of the UN Charter and international law.” Obama and Clinton might wish to reflect on that before they adopt their next holier than thou positions.
British Prime Minister David Cameron has already made it crystal clear that he does not approve of Al-Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds when he should be supporting the Scottish decision that implemented in strict accordance with that country’s compassionate laws. If the doctor who believed that the Libyan had no more than three months to live got it wrong, so be it. Predicting how long an ill person might live is an inexact science yet the US media is spending an inordinate amount of column inches bashing Scotland’s justice minister and the doctor’s report which led him to take his decision.
My American friends should understand that justice in Scotland is a far cry from the hang ‘em high mentality prevalent in some US states or the lurid death row in Texas that was dubbed by the Texas Observer as “the most active human abattoir in North America.” (...)
If the White House and the Senate are seriously seeking justice instead of regurgitating the reasons behind Al-Megrahi’s release, they should institute a new enquiry into Lockerbie, which is exactly what Al-Megrahi — and many of the British Lockerbie victims’ families — wanted during all those years in his cell. Ah! But there isn’t a hope in hell that they would ever consider that when the truth and details of the way it was covered up could prove so embarrassing. If there was anything sinister behind the Libyan’s release as Americans claim, keeping inconvenient truth under wraps could well be it.
It seems to me that people in the highest echelons of the US government have nothing better to do than sit around hoping that the so-called “Lockerbie bomber” Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi will either keel over and die or spend his dying days behind bars.
Leading the revenge brigade is President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who would surely be better employed fixing the economy or working toward getting out of Afghanistan.
Such high level preoccupation with the fate of one lingering cancer sufferer is not only petty but somehow vulgar. It’s the kind of thing one might expect from a crazed, egotistical dictator rather than the leaders of the free world and especially those who profess to be Christians when at the core of that religion is forgiveness. (...)
Equally nauseating is the way that America’s trans-Atlantic self-ascribed “junior partner” Britain is dancing to the White House’s tune by threatening Libya not to celebrate the first anniversary of Al-Megrahi’s homecoming. It really isn’t Britain’s business to tell another sovereign nation how it should behave. In truth, nobody in Libya believes Al-Megrahi committed the crime and I don’t blame them. The evidence against him was so flimsy as to be almost nonexistent and he has always vehemently denied any culpability. Moreover, there is a wealth of international legal opinion that believes his conviction by a panel of three Scottish judges is unsafe.
To most Libyans, Al-Megrahi is a patriot who willingly sacrificed his personal liberty to allow his country to re-join the international community. As far as they are concerned he is an innocent man who deserves their respect and thanks. Libya has long paid its dues. It was forced into taking responsibility for Lockerbie to free itself from UN sanctions, US trade sanctions and to gain access to funds frozen in American banks. It also sought its removal from the list of terrorist sponsoring states.
It went the extra mile toward acceptance by paying families of Lockerbie victims $10 million each and dismantling its advanced nuclear program so that it could be officially declared free of WMD. Yet, Libya still hasn’t been fully embraced into the fold and won’t be as long as Washington continues to bleat about the past when it has committed crimes against Libya that tend to be forgotten.
On April 14th, 1986, President Ronald Reagan ordered a strike on Libya that killed President Muammar Qaddafi’s 15-month-old adopted daughter Hanna along with 45 officials and 15 civilians. American bombs also injured two of the Libyan leader’s sons. That attack was loudly condemned in the UN General Assembly as “a violation of the UN Charter and international law.” Obama and Clinton might wish to reflect on that before they adopt their next holier than thou positions.
British Prime Minister David Cameron has already made it crystal clear that he does not approve of Al-Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds when he should be supporting the Scottish decision that implemented in strict accordance with that country’s compassionate laws. If the doctor who believed that the Libyan had no more than three months to live got it wrong, so be it. Predicting how long an ill person might live is an inexact science yet the US media is spending an inordinate amount of column inches bashing Scotland’s justice minister and the doctor’s report which led him to take his decision.
My American friends should understand that justice in Scotland is a far cry from the hang ‘em high mentality prevalent in some US states or the lurid death row in Texas that was dubbed by the Texas Observer as “the most active human abattoir in North America.” (...)
If the White House and the Senate are seriously seeking justice instead of regurgitating the reasons behind Al-Megrahi’s release, they should institute a new enquiry into Lockerbie, which is exactly what Al-Megrahi — and many of the British Lockerbie victims’ families — wanted during all those years in his cell. Ah! But there isn’t a hope in hell that they would ever consider that when the truth and details of the way it was covered up could prove so embarrassing. If there was anything sinister behind the Libyan’s release as Americans claim, keeping inconvenient truth under wraps could well be it.
Monday 23 August 2010
The vengeance bandwagon
Now Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has jumped on the vengeance bandwagon. She maintains that the families of Lockerbie victims have been denied justice because a year ago the Scottish justice minister released the only person to have been convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Libyan Abdul Baset Al Megrahi.
Released on compassionate grounds in keeping with Scottish law, his mistake was he refused to die on cue. Instead of expiring within the proscribed three-months, he is lingering on thanks to new and innovative treatment. His longevity is offensive to Clinton, who blames Scotland for not keeping him behind bars until his last breath.
Apart from the fact that a slew of legal experts have deemed Al Megrahi's conviction as potentially unsafe, such bloodlust coming from a cultured woman politician is unseemly at best and, at worst, vulgar or ghoulish.
I'm reminded of Genghis Khan, who put the head of one of his enemies on a pole as a victory trophy and paraded it through village after village or, more recently, the US military that ensured that the corpses of Saddam's sons made it to our screens.
Clinton is now calling for Al Megrahi to serve out his sentence while the British government has warned Libya not to celebrate the one-year anniversary of his homecoming, although every Libyan believes in his innocence and he is considered a hero for sacrificing his freedom to enable his country to rejoin the international community. Whether he survives for three months or three years is neither here nor there in the great scheme of things.
[From an article on the Gulf News website by Linda S Heard, a specialist writer on Middle East affairs.]
Released on compassionate grounds in keeping with Scottish law, his mistake was he refused to die on cue. Instead of expiring within the proscribed three-months, he is lingering on thanks to new and innovative treatment. His longevity is offensive to Clinton, who blames Scotland for not keeping him behind bars until his last breath.
Apart from the fact that a slew of legal experts have deemed Al Megrahi's conviction as potentially unsafe, such bloodlust coming from a cultured woman politician is unseemly at best and, at worst, vulgar or ghoulish.
I'm reminded of Genghis Khan, who put the head of one of his enemies on a pole as a victory trophy and paraded it through village after village or, more recently, the US military that ensured that the corpses of Saddam's sons made it to our screens.
Clinton is now calling for Al Megrahi to serve out his sentence while the British government has warned Libya not to celebrate the one-year anniversary of his homecoming, although every Libyan believes in his innocence and he is considered a hero for sacrificing his freedom to enable his country to rejoin the international community. Whether he survives for three months or three years is neither here nor there in the great scheme of things.
[From an article on the Gulf News website by Linda S Heard, a specialist writer on Middle East affairs.]
Kirk official backs Scottish Government decision to release Megrahi
[This is the headline over a report published today on the Ekklesia website. It reads in part:]
The Scottish government was right to release the Libyan man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing on compassionate grounds, an official of the Church of Scotland says.
"The principle behind the release of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi a year ago was right, compassion, and my views haven't changed since I welcomed his release on 20 August last year," the Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Presbyterian denomination's church and society council, has told ENInews.
The spiritual leader of Roman Catholics in Scotland [Cardinal Keith O'Brien] has taken a similar stance, criticising the furore in the United States over the decision. (...)
The Catholic leader also backed the Scottish government's decision not to give evidence to American senators investigating Megrahi's release.
The similar opinions of a leading Church of Scotland figure reflect an overwhelming preference for mercy over vengeance among churches in Scotland, a commentator told Ekklesia.
The Scottish government was right to release the Libyan man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing on compassionate grounds, an official of the Church of Scotland says.
"The principle behind the release of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi a year ago was right, compassion, and my views haven't changed since I welcomed his release on 20 August last year," the Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Presbyterian denomination's church and society council, has told ENInews.
The spiritual leader of Roman Catholics in Scotland [Cardinal Keith O'Brien] has taken a similar stance, criticising the furore in the United States over the decision. (...)
The Catholic leader also backed the Scottish government's decision not to give evidence to American senators investigating Megrahi's release.
The similar opinions of a leading Church of Scotland figure reflect an overwhelming preference for mercy over vengeance among churches in Scotland, a commentator told Ekklesia.
For Sen Menendez read Joe McCarthy
[This is the heading over a letter from John Edwards in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
So United States Senator Robert Menendez believes there is a “cloud of suspicion” hanging over the medical reports that led to the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi (“Scots back Salmond on US inquiry decision”, August 20). Just how far is Menendez going in his attempts to sully Scotland’s legal system, and his intereference in Scottish sovereignty?
And the US government wants Mr Megrahi returned to prison, because after a year in which he has no doubt been receiving the very best medical attention, he is still alive.
The American vengeance machine rolls on. This whole affair increasingly has echoes of the McCarthyism era in the United States in the 1950s, when free thinking liberals were put on trial for “un-American” activities.
The difference now is that it is not individuals being accused, but the Scottish nation and our government.
Now we learn that the Central Intelligence Agency had evidence that could have changed the course of the Camp Zeist trial, but was not presented. Why?
The stench of hypocrisy grows stronger by the day.
[A letter from James S MacDonald in The Scotsman reads as follows:]
With regards to your reports and letters over the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, for the first time in my life, I plan to vote SNP at the next election. The reason being I was pleased with our First Minister for standing up to that vindictive race of people who live across the Atlantic.
I don't recall an inquiry when the Americans shot down an Iranian airliner full of innocent people. Nor do I hear them showing remorse for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by their troops.
Perhaps the reason that Megrahi has survived longer than the prognosis is that the Libyan medical system is superior to ours.
So United States Senator Robert Menendez believes there is a “cloud of suspicion” hanging over the medical reports that led to the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi (“Scots back Salmond on US inquiry decision”, August 20). Just how far is Menendez going in his attempts to sully Scotland’s legal system, and his intereference in Scottish sovereignty?
And the US government wants Mr Megrahi returned to prison, because after a year in which he has no doubt been receiving the very best medical attention, he is still alive.
The American vengeance machine rolls on. This whole affair increasingly has echoes of the McCarthyism era in the United States in the 1950s, when free thinking liberals were put on trial for “un-American” activities.
The difference now is that it is not individuals being accused, but the Scottish nation and our government.
Now we learn that the Central Intelligence Agency had evidence that could have changed the course of the Camp Zeist trial, but was not presented. Why?
The stench of hypocrisy grows stronger by the day.
[A letter from James S MacDonald in The Scotsman reads as follows:]
With regards to your reports and letters over the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, for the first time in my life, I plan to vote SNP at the next election. The reason being I was pleased with our First Minister for standing up to that vindictive race of people who live across the Atlantic.
I don't recall an inquiry when the Americans shot down an Iranian airliner full of innocent people. Nor do I hear them showing remorse for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by their troops.
Perhaps the reason that Megrahi has survived longer than the prognosis is that the Libyan medical system is superior to ours.
Jail killed me a million times
Breaking his silence on the first anniversary of his release, the 58-year-old cancer sufferer said he was disgusted by those who effectively wanted him dead.
'They want to quicken my death. Is it up to me?' Abdelbaset Al Megrahi Megrahi told journalists in his home city of Tripoli.
'They killed me in prison a million times, denied as I was from seeing my children and family. So what more do they want from me?' (...)
Megrahi denies having anything to do with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 in which 270 died.
He began his second year of freedom talking to friends in Scotland and watching British TV.
Megrahi sat up in bed in his home in front of a large plasma screen, surrounded by close family.
Despite having difficulty speaking, he managed a few words to telephone callers, but mainly exchanged greetings via email. Meanwhile, VIP friends including members of Colonel Gaddafi's family visited his two-storey villa, bringing gifts to mark the first anniversary of his release. (...)
Megrahi has not been seen in public since December but those who arrived at his house in Mercedes and BMW limousines reported that he was 'comfortable and surrounded by loved ones'.
'Brother Abdelbaset has been sat up in bed and keeping his mind active,' said one.
'He has friends in Scotland following his many years there and was talking with them.
'He misses certain people in Scotland, and was asking about the obvious things - the weather, that kind of thing. He wanted to know how Glasgow Rangers, his favourite football team, were doing.'
Among those visiting him was Colonel Gaddafi's son, Saif, whose charitable foundation is bankrolling his cancer treatment.
Megrahi, who can now only walk with the aid of a stick, arrived home in Libya on August 20 last year. He is living with his wife, 48-year-old Aisha, and the couple's four sons and daughter.
Both Britain and the U.S. have started investing millions into Libya since Megrahi's release, with the North African country in turn pouring just as much into the UK.
[From a report in today's edition of the Daily Mail.]
'They want to quicken my death. Is it up to me?' Abdelbaset Al Megrahi Megrahi told journalists in his home city of Tripoli.
'They killed me in prison a million times, denied as I was from seeing my children and family. So what more do they want from me?' (...)
Megrahi denies having anything to do with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 in which 270 died.
He began his second year of freedom talking to friends in Scotland and watching British TV.
Megrahi sat up in bed in his home in front of a large plasma screen, surrounded by close family.
Despite having difficulty speaking, he managed a few words to telephone callers, but mainly exchanged greetings via email. Meanwhile, VIP friends including members of Colonel Gaddafi's family visited his two-storey villa, bringing gifts to mark the first anniversary of his release. (...)
Megrahi has not been seen in public since December but those who arrived at his house in Mercedes and BMW limousines reported that he was 'comfortable and surrounded by loved ones'.
'Brother Abdelbaset has been sat up in bed and keeping his mind active,' said one.
'He has friends in Scotland following his many years there and was talking with them.
'He misses certain people in Scotland, and was asking about the obvious things - the weather, that kind of thing. He wanted to know how Glasgow Rangers, his favourite football team, were doing.'
Among those visiting him was Colonel Gaddafi's son, Saif, whose charitable foundation is bankrolling his cancer treatment.
Megrahi, who can now only walk with the aid of a stick, arrived home in Libya on August 20 last year. He is living with his wife, 48-year-old Aisha, and the couple's four sons and daughter.
Both Britain and the U.S. have started investing millions into Libya since Megrahi's release, with the North African country in turn pouring just as much into the UK.
[From a report in today's edition of the Daily Mail.]
Sunday 22 August 2010
Miscarriage of justice
This is the headline over an article in the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times by Justice for Megrahi committee member Robert Forrester, based on the Address to the People and Government of Scotland. It can be read here.
Is it not sad that no Scottish Sunday newspaper has done the same? All credit, however, to Newsnet Scotland and to The Herald for their earlier coverage.
Is it not sad that no Scottish Sunday newspaper has done the same? All credit, however, to Newsnet Scotland and to The Herald for their earlier coverage.
Megrahi's conviction "entirely unsustainable"
The White House has told Scottish Ministers that they should return the Lockerbie bomber to jail in Scotland, amid fresh calls for a full public inquiry into his conviction and subsequent release.
John Brennan, counter-terrorism adviser to President Barack Obama, said Washington had expressed "strong conviction" to officials in Edinburgh over what he described as the "unfortunate and inappropriate and wrong decision" to free Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. (...)
But campaigners who believe in Megrahi's innocence are now arguing that the backlash over his freeing should not obscure more fundamental questions surrounding his conviction.
It came as it emerged that the Egyptian-born terrorist Mohammed Abu Talb - the man many suspect as the real figure behind the bomb - was released from jail in Sweden.
Michael Mansfield QC, one of the country's best-known defence lawyers, said a full judicial inquiry was required to settle the doubts over the case. Mansfield said he had no doubt that the evidence given to secure Megrahi's conviction was "entirely unsustainable".
[From a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday.
The same newspaper runs an opinion piece by Kenny Farquharson headlined "Scotland itself is in the dock" arguing that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice should go to Washington to testify on the compassionate release decision before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As is so often the case with Scotsman publications these days, the readers' comments are much more interesting than the article.]
John Brennan, counter-terrorism adviser to President Barack Obama, said Washington had expressed "strong conviction" to officials in Edinburgh over what he described as the "unfortunate and inappropriate and wrong decision" to free Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. (...)
But campaigners who believe in Megrahi's innocence are now arguing that the backlash over his freeing should not obscure more fundamental questions surrounding his conviction.
It came as it emerged that the Egyptian-born terrorist Mohammed Abu Talb - the man many suspect as the real figure behind the bomb - was released from jail in Sweden.
Michael Mansfield QC, one of the country's best-known defence lawyers, said a full judicial inquiry was required to settle the doubts over the case. Mansfield said he had no doubt that the evidence given to secure Megrahi's conviction was "entirely unsustainable".
[From a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday.
The same newspaper runs an opinion piece by Kenny Farquharson headlined "Scotland itself is in the dock" arguing that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice should go to Washington to testify on the compassionate release decision before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As is so often the case with Scotsman publications these days, the readers' comments are much more interesting than the article.]
Saturday 21 August 2010
Address to the People and Government of Scotland
This is the title of an open letter issued by Justice for Megrahi calling upon the Scottish Government to set up an independent inquiry into:
• The Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103.
• The police investigation of the tragedy.
• The subsequent Kamp van Zeist trial.
• The acquittal of Lamin Fhimah and conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
• The SCCRC’s referral of Mr al-Megrahi's case to the Court of Appeal.
• The dropping of this second appeal and the compassionate release of Mr al-Megrahi.
The full text of the address can be read here on the Newsnet Scotland website.
The list of signatories is as follows:
Ms Kate Adie (Former Chief News Correspondent for BBC News).
Mr John Ashton (Co-author of Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie).
Mr David Benson (Actor and author of the play Lockerbie: Unfinished Business).
Mrs Jean Berkley (Mother of Alistair Berkley, who was killed on flight 103).
Mr Peter Biddulph (Lockerbie tragedy researcher).
Professor Robert Black QC (Commonly referred to as the architect of the Kamp van Zeist Trial).
Professor Noam Chomsky (Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and human rights commentator of international repute).
Mr Tam Dalyell (Member of Parliament: 1962 – 2005, Father of the House: 2001 – 2005).
Mr Ian Ferguson (Co-author of Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie).
Mr Robert Forrester (‘Justice for Megrahi’ committee member).
Ms Christine Grahame (Member of the Scottish Parliament and justice campaigner).
Mr Ian Hislop (Editor of Private Eye: one of the UK’s most highly regarded journals of political comment).
Father Pat Keegans (Lockerbie Parish Priest at the time of the Pan Am 103 incident).
Mr Adam Larson (Editor, writer and proprietor of The Lockerbie Divide).
Mr Iain McKie (Retired Police Superintendent and justice campaigner).
Ms Heather Mills (Reporter for Private Eye specialising in matters relating to Pan Am flight 103).
Mr Charles Norrie (Brother of Tony Norrie, who died aboard UT-772 over Niger on 19th September 1989).
Mr Denis Phipps (Aviation security expert).
Mr John Pilger (Author and campaigning human rights journalist of world renown).
Mr Steven Raeburn (Editor of The Firm, one of Scotland’s foremost legal journals).
Mr James Robertson (Writer and author of the recently published And the Land Lay Still).
Doctor Jim Swire (Justice campaigner, Dr Swire’s daughter, Flora, was killed in the Pan Am 103 incident).
Sir Teddy Taylor (Former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and Member of Parliament from 1964 to 2005).
His Grace, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Mpilo Tutu (Defender of human rights worldwide, Nobel Peace Prize winner and headed South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission).
[The writer A L Kennedy is the latest person to add her name to the list of signatories.]
• The Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103.
• The police investigation of the tragedy.
• The subsequent Kamp van Zeist trial.
• The acquittal of Lamin Fhimah and conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
• The SCCRC’s referral of Mr al-Megrahi's case to the Court of Appeal.
• The dropping of this second appeal and the compassionate release of Mr al-Megrahi.
The full text of the address can be read here on the Newsnet Scotland website.
The list of signatories is as follows:
Ms Kate Adie (Former Chief News Correspondent for BBC News).
Mr John Ashton (Co-author of Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie).
Mr David Benson (Actor and author of the play Lockerbie: Unfinished Business).
Mrs Jean Berkley (Mother of Alistair Berkley, who was killed on flight 103).
Mr Peter Biddulph (Lockerbie tragedy researcher).
Professor Robert Black QC (Commonly referred to as the architect of the Kamp van Zeist Trial).
Professor Noam Chomsky (Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and human rights commentator of international repute).
Mr Tam Dalyell (Member of Parliament: 1962 – 2005, Father of the House: 2001 – 2005).
Mr Ian Ferguson (Co-author of Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie).
Mr Robert Forrester (‘Justice for Megrahi’ committee member).
Ms Christine Grahame (Member of the Scottish Parliament and justice campaigner).
Mr Ian Hislop (Editor of Private Eye: one of the UK’s most highly regarded journals of political comment).
Father Pat Keegans (Lockerbie Parish Priest at the time of the Pan Am 103 incident).
Mr Adam Larson (Editor, writer and proprietor of The Lockerbie Divide).
Mr Iain McKie (Retired Police Superintendent and justice campaigner).
Ms Heather Mills (Reporter for Private Eye specialising in matters relating to Pan Am flight 103).
Mr Charles Norrie (Brother of Tony Norrie, who died aboard UT-772 over Niger on 19th September 1989).
Mr Denis Phipps (Aviation security expert).
Mr John Pilger (Author and campaigning human rights journalist of world renown).
Mr Steven Raeburn (Editor of The Firm, one of Scotland’s foremost legal journals).
Mr James Robertson (Writer and author of the recently published And the Land Lay Still).
Doctor Jim Swire (Justice campaigner, Dr Swire’s daughter, Flora, was killed in the Pan Am 103 incident).
Sir Teddy Taylor (Former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and Member of Parliament from 1964 to 2005).
His Grace, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Mpilo Tutu (Defender of human rights worldwide, Nobel Peace Prize winner and headed South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission).
[The writer A L Kennedy is the latest person to add her name to the list of signatories.]
Megrahi’s release was the correct decision made on humane, compassionate grounds
This is the heading over four letters published today in The Herald. They all support the release and some draw attention to the grave concerns that exist about the original conviction.
The Scotsman publishes three letters under the heading "Megrahi decision will not topple the SNP" of which two support the decision.
For a representative press account of the US call for Abdelbaset Megrahi to be returned to a Scottish prison, see the Daily Telegraph's "Lockerbie bombing: US calls for Megrahi to be returned to jail".
A good account of the US call and the Scottish Government's response can be read in the Financial Times article "Scots take firm stand over Megrahi".
The Scotsman publishes three letters under the heading "Megrahi decision will not topple the SNP" of which two support the decision.
For a representative press account of the US call for Abdelbaset Megrahi to be returned to a Scottish prison, see the Daily Telegraph's "Lockerbie bombing: US calls for Megrahi to be returned to jail".
A good account of the US call and the Scottish Government's response can be read in the Financial Times article "Scots take firm stand over Megrahi".
Why was terrorist Talb cleared over Lockerbie?
[This is the headline over an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
A convicted killer who many believe is the real Lockerbie bomber has been freed from prison in Sweden, prompting calls for a new investigation into Palestinian links to the atrocity.
Mohammed Abu Talb, who was serving a life sentence for other terror attacks in Copenhagen and Amsterdam using explosive devices, was the original suspect for the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 until 1990, when attention switched to Libya.
The Egyptian-born militant then served as a prosecution witness at the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, when he denied defence claims that he was the killer of the 270 people at Lockerbie in 1988.
However, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) is understood to have uncovered new evidence that strengthens the case against Talb, who was allegedly funded by Iran to blow up the plane in revenge for the American cruiser USS Vincennes shooting an Iran Air flight out of the sky on July 3, 1988, killing 290 people.
On the first anniversary of Megrahi’s release yesterday, Swedish authorities confirmed publicly for the first time that Talb had been released from Malmo prison after serving 20 years.
Because his whereabouts is now unknown, and he is widely thought to have returned to the Middle East, campaigners who believe Megrahi has been unjustly treated are concerned that a key chance to interview Talb has been lost.
The Herald has previously revealed that Talb could be tried if Megrahi were to be formally cleared. An appeal against Megrahi’s conviction could still be mounted even after the death of the Libyan, who is terminally ill with prostate cancer.
Eddie MacKechnie, Megrahi’s solicitor from 2001-2006, said it was now time to refocus on what really happened, rather than obsessing about Megrahi’s early release. “There was more evidence at the time to implicate Talb and his associates than Megrahi,” he said. “I know that many police officers at the time were concerned that the investigation shifted to Libya when there was no evidence of Libyan involvement.
“The relatives deserve to know whether there has been a cover-up of any kind. We need to have a full and independent inquiry into what happened, and it needs to look at the Palestinian connection.”
Professor Robert Black, QC, the architect of the Lockerbie trial, said: “I support Mr MacKechnie 100%. Clearly the Palestinian connection deserves to be looked at and a full inquiry needs to be held.”
A leading CIA figure also called for the Palestinian connection to be reinvestigated. Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer assigned to the Middle East, told The Herald that an appeal or public inquiry was now needed. “I talked to the SCCRC and they were very clearly focussed on the Palestinians and the Iranian connection,” he said.
“There is no doubt that Abu Talb was an asset controlled by the Iranians and questions need to be asked about how he ended up as a prosecution witness. He was definitely not a reliable witness and what we need now is what the SCCRC report says, what intelligence there was, and what the connections were.”
The SCCRC report refers to the recovery of official records from various organisations in Italy. These are thought to relate to Talb, who travelled between Cyprus, Rome, Malta, and Frankfurt in the run-up to the bombing.
Evidence not heard at the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands has revealed that the CIA thought Talb was the man responsible, and that police found clothes, including a blue babygro similar to one found at Lockerbie, when they raided his flat in Germany.
Police also found a calendar with the date “21 December” circled. In addition, Talb’s wife was recorded in a wiretapped telephone call warning another unidentified Palestinian to “get rid of the clothes immediately”.
In May 1989, Talb was arrested in connection with the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. At Camp Zeist, defence counsel alleged the Syrian-backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, and the lesser-known Palestinian Popular Struggle Front, were responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. They said Talb was linked to both terrorist groups.
In his testimony, Talb told the court that he ended “all activities relating to Palestine at the end of 1982”. He was jailed along with three other men for the bombings in Denmark and the Netherlands, which killed one man and injured many others, but his life sentence was later commuted to 20 years.
[The release of Abu Talb from prison in Sweden was first reported on 18 October 2009 by Marcello Mega in an article in The Mail on Sunday.]
A convicted killer who many believe is the real Lockerbie bomber has been freed from prison in Sweden, prompting calls for a new investigation into Palestinian links to the atrocity.
Mohammed Abu Talb, who was serving a life sentence for other terror attacks in Copenhagen and Amsterdam using explosive devices, was the original suspect for the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 until 1990, when attention switched to Libya.
The Egyptian-born militant then served as a prosecution witness at the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, when he denied defence claims that he was the killer of the 270 people at Lockerbie in 1988.
However, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) is understood to have uncovered new evidence that strengthens the case against Talb, who was allegedly funded by Iran to blow up the plane in revenge for the American cruiser USS Vincennes shooting an Iran Air flight out of the sky on July 3, 1988, killing 290 people.
On the first anniversary of Megrahi’s release yesterday, Swedish authorities confirmed publicly for the first time that Talb had been released from Malmo prison after serving 20 years.
Because his whereabouts is now unknown, and he is widely thought to have returned to the Middle East, campaigners who believe Megrahi has been unjustly treated are concerned that a key chance to interview Talb has been lost.
The Herald has previously revealed that Talb could be tried if Megrahi were to be formally cleared. An appeal against Megrahi’s conviction could still be mounted even after the death of the Libyan, who is terminally ill with prostate cancer.
Eddie MacKechnie, Megrahi’s solicitor from 2001-2006, said it was now time to refocus on what really happened, rather than obsessing about Megrahi’s early release. “There was more evidence at the time to implicate Talb and his associates than Megrahi,” he said. “I know that many police officers at the time were concerned that the investigation shifted to Libya when there was no evidence of Libyan involvement.
“The relatives deserve to know whether there has been a cover-up of any kind. We need to have a full and independent inquiry into what happened, and it needs to look at the Palestinian connection.”
Professor Robert Black, QC, the architect of the Lockerbie trial, said: “I support Mr MacKechnie 100%. Clearly the Palestinian connection deserves to be looked at and a full inquiry needs to be held.”
A leading CIA figure also called for the Palestinian connection to be reinvestigated. Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer assigned to the Middle East, told The Herald that an appeal or public inquiry was now needed. “I talked to the SCCRC and they were very clearly focussed on the Palestinians and the Iranian connection,” he said.
“There is no doubt that Abu Talb was an asset controlled by the Iranians and questions need to be asked about how he ended up as a prosecution witness. He was definitely not a reliable witness and what we need now is what the SCCRC report says, what intelligence there was, and what the connections were.”
The SCCRC report refers to the recovery of official records from various organisations in Italy. These are thought to relate to Talb, who travelled between Cyprus, Rome, Malta, and Frankfurt in the run-up to the bombing.
Evidence not heard at the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands has revealed that the CIA thought Talb was the man responsible, and that police found clothes, including a blue babygro similar to one found at Lockerbie, when they raided his flat in Germany.
Police also found a calendar with the date “21 December” circled. In addition, Talb’s wife was recorded in a wiretapped telephone call warning another unidentified Palestinian to “get rid of the clothes immediately”.
In May 1989, Talb was arrested in connection with the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. At Camp Zeist, defence counsel alleged the Syrian-backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, and the lesser-known Palestinian Popular Struggle Front, were responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. They said Talb was linked to both terrorist groups.
In his testimony, Talb told the court that he ended “all activities relating to Palestine at the end of 1982”. He was jailed along with three other men for the bombings in Denmark and the Netherlands, which killed one man and injured many others, but his life sentence was later commuted to 20 years.
[The release of Abu Talb from prison in Sweden was first reported on 18 October 2009 by Marcello Mega in an article in The Mail on Sunday.]
Visiting time ...
This is the heading given by Martin Rowson to his cartoon in today's edition of The Guardian. It can be viewed here. The readers' comments that follow it are worth reading.
Friday 20 August 2010
Salmond: 'nothing to hide' on Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report on the Channel 4 News website. It reads in part:]
First Minister Alex Salmond told Channel 4 News that Scotland had "nothing to hide" in the 22-year period since the Lockerbie bombing in 1988, when a US plane blew up over the Scottish town, killing 270 people.
He also defended the decision, taken one year ago, to release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. (...)
Mr Salmond said that he had received a letter from four US senators today which raised the issue again of commercial interests motivating al-Megrahi's release. (...)
Mr Salmond said: "I had a letter today which, despite all the evidence to the contrary, despite everyone knowing the Scottish government's vigorous public and private opposition to the prisoner transfer agreement with Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi and all of that stuff, claims of deals with BP and the rest of it...to get a letter from people who suggest that we were somehow involved in that is simply incredible." (...)
The US senators want to hold their own inquiry amid concerns that al-Megrahi's release was tied to a BP oil deal with Libya - a suggestion that has been strongly denied by all parties involved.
There have also been renewed calls for an inquiry into the 2001 conviction itself, with pressure group Justice for Megrahi claiming he may have been the victim of a "spectacular miscarriage of justice."
Mr Salmond said that, if there were to be any international inquiry into the al-Megrahi case by an independent authority such as the United Nations, his country and his government would co-operate fully.
"If there was to be an international inquiry into this case, then of course the Scottish government would fully co-operate. We have nothing to fear and nothing to hide in the way we have conducted this case under Scottish jurisdiction over the last 20 years," he said.
He also backed the original decision of Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, based on the medical report from Dr Andrew Fraser, to release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
"Any doctor can only judge the patient in front of him," he said. "Al-Megrahi is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and he will die of that condition...Most people will know from their own experience of people who have contracted cancer where they have exceeded their life expectancy prognosis, and lived for longer."
First Minister Alex Salmond told Channel 4 News that Scotland had "nothing to hide" in the 22-year period since the Lockerbie bombing in 1988, when a US plane blew up over the Scottish town, killing 270 people.
He also defended the decision, taken one year ago, to release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. (...)
Mr Salmond said that he had received a letter from four US senators today which raised the issue again of commercial interests motivating al-Megrahi's release. (...)
Mr Salmond said: "I had a letter today which, despite all the evidence to the contrary, despite everyone knowing the Scottish government's vigorous public and private opposition to the prisoner transfer agreement with Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi and all of that stuff, claims of deals with BP and the rest of it...to get a letter from people who suggest that we were somehow involved in that is simply incredible." (...)
The US senators want to hold their own inquiry amid concerns that al-Megrahi's release was tied to a BP oil deal with Libya - a suggestion that has been strongly denied by all parties involved.
There have also been renewed calls for an inquiry into the 2001 conviction itself, with pressure group Justice for Megrahi claiming he may have been the victim of a "spectacular miscarriage of justice."
Mr Salmond said that, if there were to be any international inquiry into the al-Megrahi case by an independent authority such as the United Nations, his country and his government would co-operate fully.
"If there was to be an international inquiry into this case, then of course the Scottish government would fully co-operate. We have nothing to fear and nothing to hide in the way we have conducted this case under Scottish jurisdiction over the last 20 years," he said.
He also backed the original decision of Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, based on the medical report from Dr Andrew Fraser, to release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
"Any doctor can only judge the patient in front of him," he said. "Al-Megrahi is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and he will die of that condition...Most people will know from their own experience of people who have contracted cancer where they have exceeded their life expectancy prognosis, and lived for longer."
They're still at it!
A group of US senators says a "cloud of suspicion" still hangs over the release a year ago of the man responsible for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
Senator Robert Menendez called on Britain and Scotland to answer a number of "outstanding questions" over the case of Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi. (...)
Mr Menendez said that one year on, there was "anger and frustration" in the US that Megrahi was "still very much alive and very much free".
The BBC's Matthew Price, in New York, says the senators want "more information on the medical opinions that led to the conclusion that Megrahi had just three months to live and details on communications between BP and the British government".
Their move follows an earlier decision by the Scottish government not to send officials to a hearing in Washington.
[From a report on the BBC News website. A fuller report by The Press Association news agency can be read here.
Justice for Megrahi at the end of July invited the four senators to lend their support to a full inquiry into the Lockerbie case -- the circumstances in which Abdelbaset Megrahi was convicted as well as the circumstances in which he was released. Answer came there none.
The Scottish Government has up to now responded to these grandstanding clowns with impeccable -- if somewhat strained -- courtesy. The gloves should now come off.
A press release from the Scottish National Party headed "Questions for US Senate over Libya deal" provides details of major US oil companies' lobbying of the US Senate in relation to the treatment of Libya. Christine Grahame MSP is qoted as saying:
"I do not doubt the Senators care and concern for the families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing and I share their desire to get to the truth over the bombing but would urge them to join me in backing a full international inquiry into the atrocity. Their hypocrisy in making allegations against the Scottish Government when they themselves have acted in favour of US oil and Libyan Government lobbying is deeply distasteful."]
Senator Robert Menendez called on Britain and Scotland to answer a number of "outstanding questions" over the case of Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi. (...)
Mr Menendez said that one year on, there was "anger and frustration" in the US that Megrahi was "still very much alive and very much free".
The BBC's Matthew Price, in New York, says the senators want "more information on the medical opinions that led to the conclusion that Megrahi had just three months to live and details on communications between BP and the British government".
Their move follows an earlier decision by the Scottish government not to send officials to a hearing in Washington.
[From a report on the BBC News website. A fuller report by The Press Association news agency can be read here.
Justice for Megrahi at the end of July invited the four senators to lend their support to a full inquiry into the Lockerbie case -- the circumstances in which Abdelbaset Megrahi was convicted as well as the circumstances in which he was released. Answer came there none.
The Scottish Government has up to now responded to these grandstanding clowns with impeccable -- if somewhat strained -- courtesy. The gloves should now come off.
A press release from the Scottish National Party headed "Questions for US Senate over Libya deal" provides details of major US oil companies' lobbying of the US Senate in relation to the treatment of Libya. Christine Grahame MSP is qoted as saying:
"I do not doubt the Senators care and concern for the families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing and I share their desire to get to the truth over the bombing but would urge them to join me in backing a full international inquiry into the atrocity. Their hypocrisy in making allegations against the Scottish Government when they themselves have acted in favour of US oil and Libyan Government lobbying is deeply distasteful."]
Five questions about the Lockerbie bomber's release
[This is the headline over an article just published on the website of Time magazine. The last three questions are as follows:]
Did Scottish officials persuade Al-Megrahi to drop his legal appeal before going home?
With no explanation, Al-Megrahi dropped his appeal against his conviction shortly before he was freed. Some relatives of Lockerbie victims suspect Scottish officials might have persuaded Al-Megrahi to end his appeal — possibly in exchange for a smoother release — perhaps to avoid raising potentially embarrassing questions about the original trial, held in Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001 and 2002. "Most of us [relatives of Lockerbie victims] here feel that there is something extremely murky, which the US and British governments don't want to come out," John Mosey, a British pastor whose 19-year-old daughter died aboard the Pan Am plane, tells Time. Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter was killed in the Lockerbie attack, says Scotland's Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill did something "very unwise. He went to see Al-Megrahi in prison ... then Al-Megrahi dropped his appeal, and then MacAskill decided to send him home." Swire, who has fought a long campaign to reveal the truth behind the Lockerbie attack, says that suggests possible persuasion. But, so far, there's no proof of any.
Could Al-Megrahi have been innocent?
US Senators are not aiming for a retrial, but they might focus on the controversies surrounding Al-Megrahi's imprisonment. Swire, Mosey, and former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's envoy to the Lockerbie trial, Austrian law professor Hans Köchler, are among those who have long argued that the trial leading to Al-Megrahi's conviction was deeply flawed. In 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, a publicly funded body that investigates possible wrongful convictions, issued an 800-page report listing several grounds for an appeal by Al-Megrahi, including inconsistencies in the testimony of the key prosecution witness and the existence of CIA documents about the Swiss-made timer for the bomb, which defense lawyers had not seen. So far, the full report has not been released publicly.
How is Al-Megrahi still alive?
This is hardly something on which the US Senate will focus, but at least one survivor of the Lockerbie victims is curious as to how Libya's doctors have kept Al-Megrahi alive in Tripoli. Swire, a British medical doctor, says he studied survival rates for cancer patients with conditions similar to Al-Megrahi's and concluded that only about 10% of them could live this long. "He was regarded as hopeless," he says. Al-Megrahi's survival suggests that Libya might have used start-of-the-art medicine on him. "If there is some new technology which has been offered to him it would be good to know," he says. "It is very, very encouraging in terms of medicine." Although surely not so encouraging for those who, predicting his quick demise, sent him home one year ago.
Did Scottish officials persuade Al-Megrahi to drop his legal appeal before going home?
With no explanation, Al-Megrahi dropped his appeal against his conviction shortly before he was freed. Some relatives of Lockerbie victims suspect Scottish officials might have persuaded Al-Megrahi to end his appeal — possibly in exchange for a smoother release — perhaps to avoid raising potentially embarrassing questions about the original trial, held in Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001 and 2002. "Most of us [relatives of Lockerbie victims] here feel that there is something extremely murky, which the US and British governments don't want to come out," John Mosey, a British pastor whose 19-year-old daughter died aboard the Pan Am plane, tells Time. Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter was killed in the Lockerbie attack, says Scotland's Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill did something "very unwise. He went to see Al-Megrahi in prison ... then Al-Megrahi dropped his appeal, and then MacAskill decided to send him home." Swire, who has fought a long campaign to reveal the truth behind the Lockerbie attack, says that suggests possible persuasion. But, so far, there's no proof of any.
Could Al-Megrahi have been innocent?
US Senators are not aiming for a retrial, but they might focus on the controversies surrounding Al-Megrahi's imprisonment. Swire, Mosey, and former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's envoy to the Lockerbie trial, Austrian law professor Hans Köchler, are among those who have long argued that the trial leading to Al-Megrahi's conviction was deeply flawed. In 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, a publicly funded body that investigates possible wrongful convictions, issued an 800-page report listing several grounds for an appeal by Al-Megrahi, including inconsistencies in the testimony of the key prosecution witness and the existence of CIA documents about the Swiss-made timer for the bomb, which defense lawyers had not seen. So far, the full report has not been released publicly.
How is Al-Megrahi still alive?
This is hardly something on which the US Senate will focus, but at least one survivor of the Lockerbie victims is curious as to how Libya's doctors have kept Al-Megrahi alive in Tripoli. Swire, a British medical doctor, says he studied survival rates for cancer patients with conditions similar to Al-Megrahi's and concluded that only about 10% of them could live this long. "He was regarded as hopeless," he says. Al-Megrahi's survival suggests that Libya might have used start-of-the-art medicine on him. "If there is some new technology which has been offered to him it would be good to know," he says. "It is very, very encouraging in terms of medicine." Although surely not so encouraging for those who, predicting his quick demise, sent him home one year ago.
'Lockerbie: Unfinished Business' shortlisted for Amnesty Freedom of Expression award
Amnesty International today added Roadkill and Lockerbie: Unfinished Business to the shortlist for its Freedom of Expression Award at the Edinburgh Fringe. The award, given to an outstanding play carrying a human rights message, will be presented on Thursday 26 August. (...)
Lockerbie: Unfinished Business, written & performed by David Benson and directed by Hannah Eidinov, is also based on a true story, this time of Jim Swire, father and justice campaigner. Performed at the Gilded Balloon Teviot, the play follows his quest for the truth after the death of his daughter in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
Freedom of Expression Award judge Stephanie Knight said of Lockerbie: Unfinished Business:
“David Benson gives a well-crafted, commanding performance which has powerful moments of intensity as the audience awaits each development and discovery of Jim Swire’s. It is a thoroughly researched piece that underscores the integrity of a father and justice campaigner whose intelligent reasoning leads to the conclusion that justice is yet to be achieved.”
[From a report on the Amnesty International website.
A stellar review of the play can be read here on the Edinburgh Guide website.]
Lockerbie: Unfinished Business, written & performed by David Benson and directed by Hannah Eidinov, is also based on a true story, this time of Jim Swire, father and justice campaigner. Performed at the Gilded Balloon Teviot, the play follows his quest for the truth after the death of his daughter in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
Freedom of Expression Award judge Stephanie Knight said of Lockerbie: Unfinished Business:
“David Benson gives a well-crafted, commanding performance which has powerful moments of intensity as the audience awaits each development and discovery of Jim Swire’s. It is a thoroughly researched piece that underscores the integrity of a father and justice campaigner whose intelligent reasoning leads to the conclusion that justice is yet to be achieved.”
[From a report on the Amnesty International website.
A stellar review of the play can be read here on the Edinburgh Guide website.]
Scottish MP takes Air Malta’s side in Lockerbie bomb case
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of the Maltese newspaper The Times. It refers to the SNP's Christine Grahame who is, of course, a MSP not a MP. The article reads in part:]
A Scottish television documentary alleging the Lockerbie bomb was loaded in an unaccompanied luggage in Malta was “biased” and “deeply misleading”, Scottish MP Christine Grahame insists.
Ms Grahame, a Scottish National Party representative in the Scottish Parliament, wrote to STV’s chief executive officer Rob Woodward expressing concern at the allegations repeated in the documentary broadcast earlier this month.
She said Air Malta had won a significant out-of-court settlement against Granada TV in 1993 when the same “unfounded allegations” about the airline’s involvement in the Lockerbie story had been made.
The documentary claimed the bomb was loaded in Malta on an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, something that has always been denied by the airline and the government.
The unaccompanied luggage then purportedly made its way to Heathrow where it eventually found its way onto Pan Am flight 103, which exploded over the Scottish village of Lockerbie killing 270 people in December 1988.
“There were a number of misleading statements made in the film but I think the most worrying from STV’s perspective will be the unfounded allegation that the baggage alleged to have carried the bomb was transported, unaccompanied, on an Air Malta flight,” Ms Grahame said.
She insisted Air Malta was able to prove that all 55 bags loaded onto the flight to Frankfurt were ascribed to passengers.
“To this day, not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced showing the bomb was on the Air Malta flight,” Ms Grahame said, insisting she was extremely disappointed with the way the STV documentary recounted the events surrounding the atrocity in “a one-sided and biased manner”.
Air Malta yesterday stood by its initial reaction last week, insisting it was following developments closely. An airline spokesman said the company had nothing to add when asked whether it had instructed its lawyers to initiate legal action against STV. (...)
Concerns over the Scottish documentary were also raised by the father of one of the victims, Jim Swire, who asked the broadcaster to apologise and correct the wrong impression given about Malta.
“I wrote to STV because, being a seeker of truth myself, I do not like to see lies promulgated in public. It simply isn’t true that the Lockerbie bomb was carried by Air Malta. Indeed, it is not true that the bomb started its awful journey from Malta at all,” Dr Swire said.
Dr Swire and other Lockerbie investigators developed a theory that the bomb was most probably introduced on the fatal flight through a break-in that occurred the night before the bombing at Heathrow airport allowing access for an untraced person to the baggage loading area for Pan Am and the facility allocated in those days to Iran Air.
“Why would a state terrorist choose to risk two changes of aircraft and set his timer so that the final plane only cleared Heathrow by 38 minutes when his digital timer would have allowed him to set it to go off over the mid-Atlantic? What a crazy plot,” the embittered father said of the prosecution’s theory that pinned the blame on Mr al-Megrahi, who, at the time, was a secret service agent for the Libyan government stationed in Malta with Libyan Arab Airlines.
“How much simpler to break into Heathrow and leave a case with the explosive device for the Iranians to put into a Pan Am container at the next available opportunity,” Dr Swire said, insisting Iran had the strongest motive to retaliate after an Iran Air Airbus was shot down six months earlier by a US warship in the Persian Gulf , killing all 290 passengers. According to the US government, the crew mistakenly identified the Iranian airliner as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter.
“I did not want the viewers in Scotland to believe a fallacy of that magnitude, now re-broadcast by STV,” Dr Swire said of his Air Malta defence. (...)
Malta has always denied the bomb was loaded at Luqa airport.
A Scottish television documentary alleging the Lockerbie bomb was loaded in an unaccompanied luggage in Malta was “biased” and “deeply misleading”, Scottish MP Christine Grahame insists.
Ms Grahame, a Scottish National Party representative in the Scottish Parliament, wrote to STV’s chief executive officer Rob Woodward expressing concern at the allegations repeated in the documentary broadcast earlier this month.
She said Air Malta had won a significant out-of-court settlement against Granada TV in 1993 when the same “unfounded allegations” about the airline’s involvement in the Lockerbie story had been made.
The documentary claimed the bomb was loaded in Malta on an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, something that has always been denied by the airline and the government.
The unaccompanied luggage then purportedly made its way to Heathrow where it eventually found its way onto Pan Am flight 103, which exploded over the Scottish village of Lockerbie killing 270 people in December 1988.
“There were a number of misleading statements made in the film but I think the most worrying from STV’s perspective will be the unfounded allegation that the baggage alleged to have carried the bomb was transported, unaccompanied, on an Air Malta flight,” Ms Grahame said.
She insisted Air Malta was able to prove that all 55 bags loaded onto the flight to Frankfurt were ascribed to passengers.
“To this day, not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced showing the bomb was on the Air Malta flight,” Ms Grahame said, insisting she was extremely disappointed with the way the STV documentary recounted the events surrounding the atrocity in “a one-sided and biased manner”.
Air Malta yesterday stood by its initial reaction last week, insisting it was following developments closely. An airline spokesman said the company had nothing to add when asked whether it had instructed its lawyers to initiate legal action against STV. (...)
Concerns over the Scottish documentary were also raised by the father of one of the victims, Jim Swire, who asked the broadcaster to apologise and correct the wrong impression given about Malta.
“I wrote to STV because, being a seeker of truth myself, I do not like to see lies promulgated in public. It simply isn’t true that the Lockerbie bomb was carried by Air Malta. Indeed, it is not true that the bomb started its awful journey from Malta at all,” Dr Swire said.
Dr Swire and other Lockerbie investigators developed a theory that the bomb was most probably introduced on the fatal flight through a break-in that occurred the night before the bombing at Heathrow airport allowing access for an untraced person to the baggage loading area for Pan Am and the facility allocated in those days to Iran Air.
“Why would a state terrorist choose to risk two changes of aircraft and set his timer so that the final plane only cleared Heathrow by 38 minutes when his digital timer would have allowed him to set it to go off over the mid-Atlantic? What a crazy plot,” the embittered father said of the prosecution’s theory that pinned the blame on Mr al-Megrahi, who, at the time, was a secret service agent for the Libyan government stationed in Malta with Libyan Arab Airlines.
“How much simpler to break into Heathrow and leave a case with the explosive device for the Iranians to put into a Pan Am container at the next available opportunity,” Dr Swire said, insisting Iran had the strongest motive to retaliate after an Iran Air Airbus was shot down six months earlier by a US warship in the Persian Gulf , killing all 290 passengers. According to the US government, the crew mistakenly identified the Iranian airliner as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter.
“I did not want the viewers in Scotland to believe a fallacy of that magnitude, now re-broadcast by STV,” Dr Swire said of his Air Malta defence. (...)
Malta has always denied the bomb was loaded at Luqa airport.
UK Lockerbie families call US senators to Scotland
[This is the headline over a news agency report from The Associated Press. It reads in part:]
Some families of the British victims of the Lockerbie bombing have challenged four US senators to speak to them about their take on the 1988 terror attack.
Although the American relatives of those who died in the attack have largely focused on the controversy surrounding the release of former Libyan agent Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of playing any role in the atrocity, many here in the UK harbor lingering doubts about his guilt — and want the US to know it.
"The senators should not be asking why Mr. al-Megrahi was released, but why he was convicted in the first place," said Rev. John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, was among those who perished in the attack. "This is not about one man, but about the 270 people who died."
Lawyers for al-Megrahi have long argued that the attack was actually the result of an Iranian-financed Palestinian plot, and that authorities in Britain and the United States tampered with evidence, disregarded witness statements and steered investigators toward the conclusion that Libya, not Iran, was to blame.
Libya accepted responsibility and pay compensation for the Lockerbie bombing, the argument goes, as a quick and easy way to shake off its pariah status.
The theory remains a matter of debate in Scotland. Retired Detective Chief Superintendent Stuart Henderson, who helped link al-Megrahi to the bombing, recently told Scottish television that the idea that anyone would attempt to frame al-Megrahi was ridiculous. (...)
Mosey said that US officials needed to change their focus.
"Instead of hounding the doctors and Scottish politicians in the case, I would like them to come over to speak to us, the UK families of Flight 103," he said. "We are not in uniform agreement, but I think they need to hear our voices.
"We have not learned the truth about Lockerbie."
Still, it does have some traction and Mosey and others have called for a public inquiry into the case.
Some families of the British victims of the Lockerbie bombing have challenged four US senators to speak to them about their take on the 1988 terror attack.
Although the American relatives of those who died in the attack have largely focused on the controversy surrounding the release of former Libyan agent Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of playing any role in the atrocity, many here in the UK harbor lingering doubts about his guilt — and want the US to know it.
"The senators should not be asking why Mr. al-Megrahi was released, but why he was convicted in the first place," said Rev. John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, was among those who perished in the attack. "This is not about one man, but about the 270 people who died."
Lawyers for al-Megrahi have long argued that the attack was actually the result of an Iranian-financed Palestinian plot, and that authorities in Britain and the United States tampered with evidence, disregarded witness statements and steered investigators toward the conclusion that Libya, not Iran, was to blame.
Libya accepted responsibility and pay compensation for the Lockerbie bombing, the argument goes, as a quick and easy way to shake off its pariah status.
The theory remains a matter of debate in Scotland. Retired Detective Chief Superintendent Stuart Henderson, who helped link al-Megrahi to the bombing, recently told Scottish television that the idea that anyone would attempt to frame al-Megrahi was ridiculous. (...)
Mosey said that US officials needed to change their focus.
"Instead of hounding the doctors and Scottish politicians in the case, I would like them to come over to speak to us, the UK families of Flight 103," he said. "We are not in uniform agreement, but I think they need to hear our voices.
"We have not learned the truth about Lockerbie."
Still, it does have some traction and Mosey and others have called for a public inquiry into the case.
Call for public inquiry into bombing
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Dignitaries and campaigners including Desmond Tutu have called for the Scottish Government to launch a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.
In an open letter, some 24 signatories including relatives of the victims, such as Dr Jim Swire and Jean Berkley, today call for a full and open inquiry.
The letter questions recent moves by the Scottish Government “to abrogate its responsibility and pass the buck to London” in relation to calls for a public inquiry.
First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill have said that Scotland has neither the power nor the resources to hold an investigation.
The letter states: “When it came to granting compassionate release to Mr Megrahi, the Scottish Government was adamant that the matter fell under Scottish jurisdiction and would brook no interference in the nation’s affairs.
“When it comes to the establishment of an inquiry, why does Edinburgh appear so keen to abrogate its responsibility and pass the buck?
“One cannot have one’s cake and eat it. The excuse frequently offered is that a Scottish inquiry would not possess the requisite power of subpoena when it comes to requiring evidence to be produced.
“This same argument not only applies to Westminster but to the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation also. In fact, the only body with the powers that Mr Salmond is looking for is the Security Council of the UN.
“In other words, given this, and the fact that the General Assembly appears to be reluctant to take the bull by the horns, it is down to individual nation states.
“The Scottish Government should not be allowed to shirk its duties and responsibilities to the bereaved and its electorate by expecting other, foreign, authorities to pick up the gauntlet.”
The letter, sent to ministers to coincide with the anniversary of Megrahi’s release, makes the point that Holyrood should be fully able to assess the details of what happened because the case was investigated by Scottish police, the trial was conducted under Scots law, and Megrahi was held in a Scottish prison and released on compassionate grounds by a Scottish minister.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “On the broader questions of inquiry, the Scottish Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr Megrahi. [Note by RB: Another instance of the SCCRC's conclusion that, on six grounds, the conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice, being blithely swept under the carpet.] Nevertheless, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the atrocity.
“The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would therefore need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”
Scots back Salmond on US inquiry decision
Almost three-quarters of Scots believe First Minister Alex Salmond was correct to snub requests to appear before a US inquiry.
The SNP-commissioned YouGov poll of 1212 people showed 72% agreed they were right not to attend and said the Scottish Government is accountable to itself, not US politicians.
A total of 14% think lobbying by BP played a part in Megrahi’s release, while 54% agreed with the Scottish Government that he was released “solely in line with Scots law”.
And 76% said it was proper that the decision on whether to release Megrahi was made by the Scottish Justice Secretary, not a minister in the UK Government.
Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “This poll demonstrates overwhelmingly that the people of Scotland believe that the Justice Secretary took the decision for the right reasons, that it was right for the Scottish Government and no one else to take the decision, and that it was right not to answer to a US Senate hearing on the issue.”
[The Scotsman publishes a long series of articles on the anniversary of Megrahi's release. The main one is tendentiously headlined "Freeing Megrahi 'will cost SNP the election'". It contains links to the other pieces and can be read here.]
Dignitaries and campaigners including Desmond Tutu have called for the Scottish Government to launch a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.
In an open letter, some 24 signatories including relatives of the victims, such as Dr Jim Swire and Jean Berkley, today call for a full and open inquiry.
The letter questions recent moves by the Scottish Government “to abrogate its responsibility and pass the buck to London” in relation to calls for a public inquiry.
First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill have said that Scotland has neither the power nor the resources to hold an investigation.
The letter states: “When it came to granting compassionate release to Mr Megrahi, the Scottish Government was adamant that the matter fell under Scottish jurisdiction and would brook no interference in the nation’s affairs.
“When it comes to the establishment of an inquiry, why does Edinburgh appear so keen to abrogate its responsibility and pass the buck?
“One cannot have one’s cake and eat it. The excuse frequently offered is that a Scottish inquiry would not possess the requisite power of subpoena when it comes to requiring evidence to be produced.
“This same argument not only applies to Westminster but to the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation also. In fact, the only body with the powers that Mr Salmond is looking for is the Security Council of the UN.
“In other words, given this, and the fact that the General Assembly appears to be reluctant to take the bull by the horns, it is down to individual nation states.
“The Scottish Government should not be allowed to shirk its duties and responsibilities to the bereaved and its electorate by expecting other, foreign, authorities to pick up the gauntlet.”
The letter, sent to ministers to coincide with the anniversary of Megrahi’s release, makes the point that Holyrood should be fully able to assess the details of what happened because the case was investigated by Scottish police, the trial was conducted under Scots law, and Megrahi was held in a Scottish prison and released on compassionate grounds by a Scottish minister.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “On the broader questions of inquiry, the Scottish Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr Megrahi. [Note by RB: Another instance of the SCCRC's conclusion that, on six grounds, the conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice, being blithely swept under the carpet.] Nevertheless, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the atrocity.
“The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would therefore need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”
Scots back Salmond on US inquiry decision
Almost three-quarters of Scots believe First Minister Alex Salmond was correct to snub requests to appear before a US inquiry.
The SNP-commissioned YouGov poll of 1212 people showed 72% agreed they were right not to attend and said the Scottish Government is accountable to itself, not US politicians.
A total of 14% think lobbying by BP played a part in Megrahi’s release, while 54% agreed with the Scottish Government that he was released “solely in line with Scots law”.
And 76% said it was proper that the decision on whether to release Megrahi was made by the Scottish Justice Secretary, not a minister in the UK Government.
Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “This poll demonstrates overwhelmingly that the people of Scotland believe that the Justice Secretary took the decision for the right reasons, that it was right for the Scottish Government and no one else to take the decision, and that it was right not to answer to a US Senate hearing on the issue.”
[The Scotsman publishes a long series of articles on the anniversary of Megrahi's release. The main one is tendentiously headlined "Freeing Megrahi 'will cost SNP the election'". It contains links to the other pieces and can be read here.]
Thursday 19 August 2010
Lockerbie bombing 'should be investigated by independent inquiry'
[This is the headline over a report just published on The Guardian website. It reads in part:]
A senior human rights lawyer has called for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing as controversy intensifies over the convicted bomber's early release on medical grounds.
Professor Alan Miller, the head of the Scottish human rights commission, said there were still significant doubts about the guilt of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi after an independent investigation uncovered new evidence that undermined the conviction.
Miller told The Guardian that the UK government should release a secret intelligence report that the Scottish criminal cases review commission said could – on its own – have been enough to have freed Megrahi on appeal. It was withheld at his trial.
The document is believed to cast serious doubts on prosecution claims that Megrahi used a specific Swiss timer for the bomb. The release of the document was banned in 2008 by David Miliband, the then foreign secretary, leading to a lengthy legal battle by Megrahi's lawyers which ended when the Libyan abandoned his appeal because of his terminal cancer. (...)
Miller said the row over Megrahi's medical status was an "undignified and unhelpful distraction" from the more important issue of addressing unresolved questions about his guilt.
It has emerged that Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Noam Chomsky are among the signatories of a petition calling for an inquiry into the case.
[The list of signatories can be seen here. Kate Adie has just written to Justice for Megrahi asking that her name be added to the list.
Unsurprisingly, the Tory-supporting Telegraph website is running an editorial headed "Lockerbie bomber: MacAskill should resign". The Tories have minimal electoral support in Scotland.]
A senior human rights lawyer has called for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing as controversy intensifies over the convicted bomber's early release on medical grounds.
Professor Alan Miller, the head of the Scottish human rights commission, said there were still significant doubts about the guilt of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi after an independent investigation uncovered new evidence that undermined the conviction.
Miller told The Guardian that the UK government should release a secret intelligence report that the Scottish criminal cases review commission said could – on its own – have been enough to have freed Megrahi on appeal. It was withheld at his trial.
The document is believed to cast serious doubts on prosecution claims that Megrahi used a specific Swiss timer for the bomb. The release of the document was banned in 2008 by David Miliband, the then foreign secretary, leading to a lengthy legal battle by Megrahi's lawyers which ended when the Libyan abandoned his appeal because of his terminal cancer. (...)
Miller said the row over Megrahi's medical status was an "undignified and unhelpful distraction" from the more important issue of addressing unresolved questions about his guilt.
It has emerged that Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Noam Chomsky are among the signatories of a petition calling for an inquiry into the case.
[The list of signatories can be seen here. Kate Adie has just written to Justice for Megrahi asking that her name be added to the list.
Unsurprisingly, the Tory-supporting Telegraph website is running an editorial headed "Lockerbie bomber: MacAskill should resign". The Tories have minimal electoral support in Scotland.]
Media comment on the eve of the anniversary
The Middle East Online website runs an article headed "A year later, freed Lockerbie bomber lives in seclusion". It contains quotes from a Libyan doctor and from Shukri Ghanem (head of Libya's state-owned National Oil Corporation and a former Prime Minister).
The website of The Sydney Morning Herald contains an Agence France Presse news agency report headlined "Doctor defends Lockerbie bomber decision". It reads in part:
'The decision to free Megrahi was taken by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.
'"As an external adviser, I was involved in discussions leading up to the point where Mr Megrahi was considered for release on medical grounds," [Dr Grahame] Howard said in a statement.
'"The background medical portion of that application is a fair reflection of the specialist advice available at the time.
'"The final assessment of prognosis was made by Dr Andrew Fraser taking into account the deterioration in his clinical condition."'
A more detailed report of the statement by consultant oncologist Dr Grahame Howard now appears on The Scotsman website.
A Reuters news agency report headed "A year on, Lockerbie bomber casts a long shadow" contains the following:
'Retired British doctor Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the bombing, said he was delighted that Megrahi was alive.
'"We should be rejoicing about the fact that this guy has survived a year," Swire, who believes that Megrahi was framed, told Reuters.
'"I'm satisfied that this man was not responsible in any way for the murder of my daughter," he said.
'Swire urged the Libyan authorities to reveal what treatment Megrahi has been receiving in the hope that it might help other prostate cancer sufferers.
'He has also called on Libya to use its oil wealth to fund a research agency for cancer treatment.'
The Guardian website features an article by Middle East editor Ian Black headlined "Lockerbie bomber: Britain warns Libya over celebrating anniversary". It quotes a Foreign Office spokesman as saying:
"The celebrations that greeted Megrahi's return to Libya a year ago were insensitive and deeply distressing to the [Lockerbie bombing] victims' families. Any repetition of these celebrations this year would be completely unacceptable. Megrahi remains a convicted terrorist responsible for the worst act of terrorism in British history."
The article also states:
'Megrahi has not been seen in public since last September. But he has been reported to be undergoing new treatment, likely to be chemotherapy, which may further prolong his life expectancy.
'Ashour Shamis, editor of the Akhbar Libya website, said: "They are looking after him very well. He has 24-hour care in his home and wherever he goes he has doctors with him. I have been told by someone reliable that a medical source in Tripoli says Megrahi could live for up to seven years."'
The Newsnet Scotland website contains an article headlined "Labour in complete disarray over Megrahi release". The headline says it all (and is completely justified by the text that follows).
A review by Joyce McMillan of Lockerbie: Unfinished Business on the Edinburgh Festivals website contains the following:
'There is nothing fancy about Benson's show: it's delivered in the style of a brusque, forensic lecture, with projected images, about the state of the evidence.
'But Swire's grief and anger over his daughter's death is not suppressed in this version of the story - the character Benson creates is far too intelligent a man not to recognise that his long campaign is in part a way of coping with the crushing agony of Flora's loss, and the show uses some desperately poignant real-life recordings of Flora as a child, over images of her short life.
'The heart of the show, though, lies in Swire's rage at the abject failure of British - and Scottish - justice even to try to expose the truth about the bombings. In meticulous detail, Benson's script stacks up the detail which suggests that the story of Libyan involvement in the bombing was fabricated, that the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was a shocking miscarriage of justice - Swire actually fainted when he heard the guilty verdict - and that the men who probably did murder his daughter have never been brought to justice.
'And although the play occasionally loses pace and dramatic edge, and could perhaps be five minutes shorter, there is no denying its stunning final impact, which combines a respectful, subtle and profoundly moving performance with a mighty and unanswerable indictment of cover-up and injustice, in a show that every thinking citizen of this country should see, and act upon.'
The website of The Sydney Morning Herald contains an Agence France Presse news agency report headlined "Doctor defends Lockerbie bomber decision". It reads in part:
'The decision to free Megrahi was taken by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.
'"As an external adviser, I was involved in discussions leading up to the point where Mr Megrahi was considered for release on medical grounds," [Dr Grahame] Howard said in a statement.
'"The background medical portion of that application is a fair reflection of the specialist advice available at the time.
'"The final assessment of prognosis was made by Dr Andrew Fraser taking into account the deterioration in his clinical condition."'
A more detailed report of the statement by consultant oncologist Dr Grahame Howard now appears on The Scotsman website.
A Reuters news agency report headed "A year on, Lockerbie bomber casts a long shadow" contains the following:
'Retired British doctor Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the bombing, said he was delighted that Megrahi was alive.
'"We should be rejoicing about the fact that this guy has survived a year," Swire, who believes that Megrahi was framed, told Reuters.
'"I'm satisfied that this man was not responsible in any way for the murder of my daughter," he said.
'Swire urged the Libyan authorities to reveal what treatment Megrahi has been receiving in the hope that it might help other prostate cancer sufferers.
'He has also called on Libya to use its oil wealth to fund a research agency for cancer treatment.'
The Guardian website features an article by Middle East editor Ian Black headlined "Lockerbie bomber: Britain warns Libya over celebrating anniversary". It quotes a Foreign Office spokesman as saying:
"The celebrations that greeted Megrahi's return to Libya a year ago were insensitive and deeply distressing to the [Lockerbie bombing] victims' families. Any repetition of these celebrations this year would be completely unacceptable. Megrahi remains a convicted terrorist responsible for the worst act of terrorism in British history."
The article also states:
'Megrahi has not been seen in public since last September. But he has been reported to be undergoing new treatment, likely to be chemotherapy, which may further prolong his life expectancy.
'Ashour Shamis, editor of the Akhbar Libya website, said: "They are looking after him very well. He has 24-hour care in his home and wherever he goes he has doctors with him. I have been told by someone reliable that a medical source in Tripoli says Megrahi could live for up to seven years."'
The Newsnet Scotland website contains an article headlined "Labour in complete disarray over Megrahi release". The headline says it all (and is completely justified by the text that follows).
A review by Joyce McMillan of Lockerbie: Unfinished Business on the Edinburgh Festivals website contains the following:
'There is nothing fancy about Benson's show: it's delivered in the style of a brusque, forensic lecture, with projected images, about the state of the evidence.
'But Swire's grief and anger over his daughter's death is not suppressed in this version of the story - the character Benson creates is far too intelligent a man not to recognise that his long campaign is in part a way of coping with the crushing agony of Flora's loss, and the show uses some desperately poignant real-life recordings of Flora as a child, over images of her short life.
'The heart of the show, though, lies in Swire's rage at the abject failure of British - and Scottish - justice even to try to expose the truth about the bombings. In meticulous detail, Benson's script stacks up the detail which suggests that the story of Libyan involvement in the bombing was fabricated, that the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was a shocking miscarriage of justice - Swire actually fainted when he heard the guilty verdict - and that the men who probably did murder his daughter have never been brought to justice.
'And although the play occasionally loses pace and dramatic edge, and could perhaps be five minutes shorter, there is no denying its stunning final impact, which combines a respectful, subtle and profoundly moving performance with a mighty and unanswerable indictment of cover-up and injustice, in a show that every thinking citizen of this country should see, and act upon.'
Would Scottish Government be ‘not concerned’ if there were whistleblowers in the SCCRC?
[This is the heading over a letter from Thomas McLaughlin in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Just when you waved goodbye to that busted flush, New Labour, as the nadir in political show, along comes a bunch of electioneering US senators. First came their impertinent summons to ministers answerable to parliaments other than the United States Congress over the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Now they incite UK citizens to break the law by disclosing confidential patient information. More extraordinary than this bid by US lawmakers to make law-breakers out of Scottish doctors and nurses is the response of the Scottish Government (“Nothing to fear over US call for Megrahi ‘informers’”, The Herald, August 16). So, ministers are “not concerned” about the call for whistleblowers?
They will not worry, then, if I now appeal for whistleblowers to leak papers from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). Then we can all inspect Brian Quail’s “monstrous pachyderm in the living room – the manifestly unjust nature of the original verdict” (Letters, August 17).
Come along now, potential SCCRC whistleblowers. You have the green light from a “not concerned” Scottish Government. Join the ranks of the University of East Anglia “climategate” beans-spiller and Julian Assange of Wikileaks who dished the dirt on Afghanistan. The redemption of your country’s honour depends on you.
[A letter from Neil Robertson in today's edition of The Scotsman reads in part:]
George Foulkes's enthusiasm for full disclosure in the Lockerbie bombing case does, I hope, extend to making publicly available all the evidence reviewed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission - along with all intelligence reports withheld by the US and UK.
As a senior member of the parliamentary committee charged with oversight of the security services, his voice would certainly add weight to that of Jim Swire and the Lockerbie relatives.
His call for publication of "the full medical evidence" in respect of the decision by the Scottish justice secretary (Kenny MacAskill) to release Mr Megrahi risks being seen, however, as more contentious - and indeed partisan.
It was not the SNP government in Scotland, after all, that was trying hard to negotiate a Libyan prisoner transfer deal in the Libyan desert but George's old friend, Tony Blair.
Just when you waved goodbye to that busted flush, New Labour, as the nadir in political show, along comes a bunch of electioneering US senators. First came their impertinent summons to ministers answerable to parliaments other than the United States Congress over the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Now they incite UK citizens to break the law by disclosing confidential patient information. More extraordinary than this bid by US lawmakers to make law-breakers out of Scottish doctors and nurses is the response of the Scottish Government (“Nothing to fear over US call for Megrahi ‘informers’”, The Herald, August 16). So, ministers are “not concerned” about the call for whistleblowers?
They will not worry, then, if I now appeal for whistleblowers to leak papers from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). Then we can all inspect Brian Quail’s “monstrous pachyderm in the living room – the manifestly unjust nature of the original verdict” (Letters, August 17).
Come along now, potential SCCRC whistleblowers. You have the green light from a “not concerned” Scottish Government. Join the ranks of the University of East Anglia “climategate” beans-spiller and Julian Assange of Wikileaks who dished the dirt on Afghanistan. The redemption of your country’s honour depends on you.
[A letter from Neil Robertson in today's edition of The Scotsman reads in part:]
George Foulkes's enthusiasm for full disclosure in the Lockerbie bombing case does, I hope, extend to making publicly available all the evidence reviewed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission - along with all intelligence reports withheld by the US and UK.
As a senior member of the parliamentary committee charged with oversight of the security services, his voice would certainly add weight to that of Jim Swire and the Lockerbie relatives.
His call for publication of "the full medical evidence" in respect of the decision by the Scottish justice secretary (Kenny MacAskill) to release Mr Megrahi risks being seen, however, as more contentious - and indeed partisan.
It was not the SNP government in Scotland, after all, that was trying hard to negotiate a Libyan prisoner transfer deal in the Libyan desert but George's old friend, Tony Blair.
Abbott: releasing Megrahi was right
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Diane Abbott has backed the Scottish Government’s decision to release the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing – in sharp contrast to another high-profile Labour leadership contender.
Ms Abbott, the only woman in the race to succeed Gordon Brown, said she had “every confidence” that the move by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was the right one.
She made her comments on the eve of a 10-day visit to Scotland, and ahead of the first anniversary tomorrow of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds.
David Miliband, one of her rivals for the Labour leadership, last month condemned the decision to release Mr Megrahi, saying it was “clearly wrong, because it was done on the basis he had less than three months to live”.
But Ms Abbott argued that such predictions were not exact and that many cancer patients lived longer than expected.
In an exclusive interview with The Herald, she said: “It is not for me to second-guess the Scottish Government but I have every confidence that they made the best decision, the right decision, under Scottish law in relation to the evidence that they had before them.
“We all know of cancer patients who have lived longer than was expected, or lived for less time.
“He has got terminal cancer. He will die. The fact that he has lived a little bit longer than people thought ... he did go home and see his family.” (...)
Ms Abbott said: “I am not going to criticise the Scottish Government or Scottish ministers, and I felt very strongly that they should not go before a senate committee. British ministers are not accountable to American senators.” (...)
A spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said: “Diane Abbott’s position is both welcome and consistent, in contrast to the ridiculous about-turn by David Miliband. Last October, he told the House of Commons the UK Government did not want Megrahi to die in a Scottish prison.”
[Regrettably, Diane Abbott is very much an outsider in the UK Labour leadership race.]
Diane Abbott has backed the Scottish Government’s decision to release the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing – in sharp contrast to another high-profile Labour leadership contender.
Ms Abbott, the only woman in the race to succeed Gordon Brown, said she had “every confidence” that the move by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was the right one.
She made her comments on the eve of a 10-day visit to Scotland, and ahead of the first anniversary tomorrow of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds.
David Miliband, one of her rivals for the Labour leadership, last month condemned the decision to release Mr Megrahi, saying it was “clearly wrong, because it was done on the basis he had less than three months to live”.
But Ms Abbott argued that such predictions were not exact and that many cancer patients lived longer than expected.
In an exclusive interview with The Herald, she said: “It is not for me to second-guess the Scottish Government but I have every confidence that they made the best decision, the right decision, under Scottish law in relation to the evidence that they had before them.
“We all know of cancer patients who have lived longer than was expected, or lived for less time.
“He has got terminal cancer. He will die. The fact that he has lived a little bit longer than people thought ... he did go home and see his family.” (...)
Ms Abbott said: “I am not going to criticise the Scottish Government or Scottish ministers, and I felt very strongly that they should not go before a senate committee. British ministers are not accountable to American senators.” (...)
A spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said: “Diane Abbott’s position is both welcome and consistent, in contrast to the ridiculous about-turn by David Miliband. Last October, he told the House of Commons the UK Government did not want Megrahi to die in a Scottish prison.”
[Regrettably, Diane Abbott is very much an outsider in the UK Labour leadership race.]
Year since bomber freed, Lockerbie tries to move on
[This is the headline over an Agence France Presse news agency report. It reads in part:]
The quiet Scottish town of Lockerbie is determined to play down Friday's one-year anniversary of the freeing of the Libyan man convicted of blowing up an airliner over its skies.
The Scottish government released Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi from jail on compassionate grounds on August 20, 2009, allowing him to return to Libya to die from terminal prostate cancer.
A year on, Megrahi is still alive, a fact fuelling anger in the United States -- where most of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 were from -- at Scotland's decision to free him.
On December 21, 1988, Sherwood Crescent in Lockerbie was nearly wiped out when the wings of the jumbo jet fell from the sky and burst into a fireball.
Now rabbits nibble at the grass covering what was once a huge crater.
Eleven of the street's residents died, along with 259 passengers and crew on the jet travelling from London to New York when it was blown up. (...)
Across Lockerbie, people want to move on -- but that does not mean forgetting what happened 22 years ago.
One man who, like many in the town, was wary of giving his name said Megrahi should have ended his life behind bars in Scotland. (...)
But the lawmaker who represents Lockerbie in the Scottish Parliament, Elaine Murray, said most people in the town want to forget about the furore.
"People in Lockerbie are still affected by the tragedy but like most communities which are affected by disaster, people move on and do their best to put it behind them," said Murray, of the centre-left Labour Party.
"Mostly residents of Lockerbie want to move on and would prefer that the town was known for more than where Pan Am 103 came down."
For others, though, there are more questions to be answered before this can happen.
Father Patrick Keegans was the town's priest at the time of the bombing and lived in the only house on Sherwood Crescent not gutted by the fireball.
Despite his graphic memories, he believes there is "severe doubt" about the safety of Megrahi's conviction in 2001 by Scottish judges in a special court in the Netherlands.
"My strongest memory was the crash happening -- the noise of the jet engine seeming to hit the top of my roof, the sound of the explosion," Keegans, 64, recalled.
"I couldn't believe what I was looking at when I opened the front door. The whole street was just burning."
Keegans, now on the committee of a campaign group called Justice For Megrahi, said people's memories of the attack would not be laid to rest until there was a full review of the case.
"There's never, never going to be any peace in people's minds and hearts until this whole thing is resolved," he said.
"As I said at the time, this won't stand up to any scrutiny and that's proving to be the case. Constantly Lockerbie is coming up -- you would think this would have gone away after 20 years.
"Until the full truth is known, people can't lay this to rest because the truth allows us to deal with things and then reconstruct our lives".
The quiet Scottish town of Lockerbie is determined to play down Friday's one-year anniversary of the freeing of the Libyan man convicted of blowing up an airliner over its skies.
The Scottish government released Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi from jail on compassionate grounds on August 20, 2009, allowing him to return to Libya to die from terminal prostate cancer.
A year on, Megrahi is still alive, a fact fuelling anger in the United States -- where most of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 were from -- at Scotland's decision to free him.
On December 21, 1988, Sherwood Crescent in Lockerbie was nearly wiped out when the wings of the jumbo jet fell from the sky and burst into a fireball.
Now rabbits nibble at the grass covering what was once a huge crater.
Eleven of the street's residents died, along with 259 passengers and crew on the jet travelling from London to New York when it was blown up. (...)
Across Lockerbie, people want to move on -- but that does not mean forgetting what happened 22 years ago.
One man who, like many in the town, was wary of giving his name said Megrahi should have ended his life behind bars in Scotland. (...)
But the lawmaker who represents Lockerbie in the Scottish Parliament, Elaine Murray, said most people in the town want to forget about the furore.
"People in Lockerbie are still affected by the tragedy but like most communities which are affected by disaster, people move on and do their best to put it behind them," said Murray, of the centre-left Labour Party.
"Mostly residents of Lockerbie want to move on and would prefer that the town was known for more than where Pan Am 103 came down."
For others, though, there are more questions to be answered before this can happen.
Father Patrick Keegans was the town's priest at the time of the bombing and lived in the only house on Sherwood Crescent not gutted by the fireball.
Despite his graphic memories, he believes there is "severe doubt" about the safety of Megrahi's conviction in 2001 by Scottish judges in a special court in the Netherlands.
"My strongest memory was the crash happening -- the noise of the jet engine seeming to hit the top of my roof, the sound of the explosion," Keegans, 64, recalled.
"I couldn't believe what I was looking at when I opened the front door. The whole street was just burning."
Keegans, now on the committee of a campaign group called Justice For Megrahi, said people's memories of the attack would not be laid to rest until there was a full review of the case.
"There's never, never going to be any peace in people's minds and hearts until this whole thing is resolved," he said.
"As I said at the time, this won't stand up to any scrutiny and that's proving to be the case. Constantly Lockerbie is coming up -- you would think this would have gone away after 20 years.
"Until the full truth is known, people can't lay this to rest because the truth allows us to deal with things and then reconstruct our lives".
Wednesday 18 August 2010
Salmond defends the early release of Megrahi
The head of Scotland's government said Wednesday that he stands by his country's decision a year ago to release a man convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing from prison on compassionate grounds despite new questions about his prognosis.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said in an interview with The Associated Press that "everything we've done on the Lockerbie case over the last 20 years...has been done following the precepts of Scottish jurisdiction and Scots law." (...)
He said his government clearly stated, in announcing its decision to release al-Megrahi, that "this is an estimate, that Mr Megrahi may live shorter than three months, he may live longer than three months."
"Everybody knows from their own experience of friends and family that it's extraordinarily difficult to be precise over the exact term of life of somebody with a terminal illness," Salmond said. "Our doctors made a reasonable estimate at the time, and our ministers followed that medical advice."
He spoke to the AP in Oslo, Norway, where he was attending bilateral meetings on economic and energy ties between Scotland and the oil-rich Nordic country.
Scotland will not seek the return of al-Megrahi, Salmond said, noting that, in past instances, prisoners released on compassionate grounds were not returned to prison even if they lived longer than expected.
Last week, four Democratic US senators — Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, of New York, and Bob Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey — sent a letter to Salmond asking that al-Megrahi's full medical records be disclosed. (...)
"Clearly, we've made the point that the Scottish government...is not answerable to the United States Senate, nor is the American government answerable to the Scottish Parliament," Salmond said. "But we've tried to co-operate to answer all of the questions."
He said he'd responded to the letter, but that there was no more information to share since Scotland has "already published, and did last year, all relevant information because we have nothing to fear from the scrutiny and from the examination of anybody, domestically or internationally."
"The point I've made is that there's only one medical report" that informed Scotland's decision, he said.
That report — by Scottish Prison Service's medical chief, Andrew Fraser — shows Fraser was advised by four specialists at the time of al-Megrahi's release. The report describes the three-month prognosis for al-Megrahi as "reasonable," but confirms that none of those consulted ruled out that al-Megrahi might live longer.
Salmond categorically denied allegations that any outside influence — such as claims that oil giant BP pressured Scotland to free al-Megrahi so it could win access to Libyan oil reserves — affected Scotland's decision.
[From a report by The Associated Press news agency on the website of The Canadian Press.]
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said in an interview with The Associated Press that "everything we've done on the Lockerbie case over the last 20 years...has been done following the precepts of Scottish jurisdiction and Scots law." (...)
He said his government clearly stated, in announcing its decision to release al-Megrahi, that "this is an estimate, that Mr Megrahi may live shorter than three months, he may live longer than three months."
"Everybody knows from their own experience of friends and family that it's extraordinarily difficult to be precise over the exact term of life of somebody with a terminal illness," Salmond said. "Our doctors made a reasonable estimate at the time, and our ministers followed that medical advice."
He spoke to the AP in Oslo, Norway, where he was attending bilateral meetings on economic and energy ties between Scotland and the oil-rich Nordic country.
Scotland will not seek the return of al-Megrahi, Salmond said, noting that, in past instances, prisoners released on compassionate grounds were not returned to prison even if they lived longer than expected.
Last week, four Democratic US senators — Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, of New York, and Bob Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey — sent a letter to Salmond asking that al-Megrahi's full medical records be disclosed. (...)
"Clearly, we've made the point that the Scottish government...is not answerable to the United States Senate, nor is the American government answerable to the Scottish Parliament," Salmond said. "But we've tried to co-operate to answer all of the questions."
He said he'd responded to the letter, but that there was no more information to share since Scotland has "already published, and did last year, all relevant information because we have nothing to fear from the scrutiny and from the examination of anybody, domestically or internationally."
"The point I've made is that there's only one medical report" that informed Scotland's decision, he said.
That report — by Scottish Prison Service's medical chief, Andrew Fraser — shows Fraser was advised by four specialists at the time of al-Megrahi's release. The report describes the three-month prognosis for al-Megrahi as "reasonable," but confirms that none of those consulted ruled out that al-Megrahi might live longer.
Salmond categorically denied allegations that any outside influence — such as claims that oil giant BP pressured Scotland to free al-Megrahi so it could win access to Libyan oil reserves — affected Scotland's decision.
[From a report by The Associated Press news agency on the website of The Canadian Press.]
The correct decision
[This is the headline over an article which has just appeared on the website of the Scottish Review by Kenneth Roy, the editor. It reads in part:]
Friday would be a good day to be out of the country. The first anniversary of the release from Greenock prison of the man commonly described as the Lockerbie bomber will provoke an extreme reaction from the popular press and from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. The attack dogs are in place. They will soon be given the nod to do their rabid worst.
The most depressing aspect of the Lockerbie affair, as we approach this latest milestone, is the refusal of those opposed to Megrahi's liberation to contemplate the likelihood that a colossal miscarriage of justice took place. The flaky foundations of the prosecution case, the lack of credibility of the chief prosecution witness, the suggestion – never denied – that he was in the pay of the CIA, the judgement of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that there were compelling grounds for a second appeal, the existence of important new evidence which has never been divulged – all these matters have been squarely presented by those closest to the case, including one of the victims, the heroic Jim Swire.
But it has made very little if any difference. When Friday dawns, Megrahi will still be 'the bomber' rather than 'the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing' and there will be a shrill renewal of a deeply unpleasant question: why is this man not dead?
For believers in God, there ought to be a simple answer: God has so far decreed otherwise. Since many of those who insist on putting the question are indeed believers, some fervently so, we can only conclude that they consider this case beyond God; that it is too important to be left to God; that Megrahi's continued survival should be no business of God's. Beyond God – who knows? Beyond reason – certainly. In the Lockerbie case, rationality was abandoned long ago. (...)
[T]he essence of the case adjudicated by Mr MacAskill – the nub of it – has never been pointed out, except once in this magazine. It is extremely strange that it has been so overlooked. No doubt many with an interest in the case, in the media and elsewhere, regard it as an inconvenience. Perhaps for the Scottish government to acknowledge it would be too embarrassing since it reflects so badly on an important aspect of social policy. But, given the continuing obsession with Megrahi's health, its complete absence from the discussion still feels odd.
Here it is, then.
The question facing Mr MacAskill was not whether there was a reasonable expectation that Megrahi would be dead within a few months but whether there was a reasonable expectation that Megrahi would be dead within a few months if he remained in prison. When, many months ago, I first stated this as my reading of the situation, no one challenged it. Indeed there was an informal acknowledgement from quite a high source that this was indeed the question facing the justice secretary.
This issue was never raised again. So far as I know, it has never been used as part of a wider justification of Mr MacAskill's action. Yet is it not quite important? Anyone familiar with the inside of a Scottish prison will know how important. The typical Scottish prison (I have not visited Greenock, but I know Barlinnie and Saughton) is a disgusting institution harmful to the health and well-being of inmates. It is well-documented that Megrahi himself, as well as being physically sick, was mentally in a very poor state.
His chances of survival beyond three months in such an environment were not considered high. Indeed the idea of anyone with terminal cancer languishing in such a place is repellent. But it is reasonable to assume that once released, and returned home to his family and familiar surroundings, his life expectancy would improve to some extent. Anyone who denies the possibility of such an improvement must know very little of the workings of the human psyche; or is simply being disingenuous.
I don't expect any of this will moderate the political and media frenzy which is about to overwhelm us. I feel sorry for Kenny MacAskill, a decent man who did the decent thing, and has been paying a heavy price ever since. His decision was a humane one. It remains the correct one.
Friday would be a good day to be out of the country. The first anniversary of the release from Greenock prison of the man commonly described as the Lockerbie bomber will provoke an extreme reaction from the popular press and from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. The attack dogs are in place. They will soon be given the nod to do their rabid worst.
The most depressing aspect of the Lockerbie affair, as we approach this latest milestone, is the refusal of those opposed to Megrahi's liberation to contemplate the likelihood that a colossal miscarriage of justice took place. The flaky foundations of the prosecution case, the lack of credibility of the chief prosecution witness, the suggestion – never denied – that he was in the pay of the CIA, the judgement of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that there were compelling grounds for a second appeal, the existence of important new evidence which has never been divulged – all these matters have been squarely presented by those closest to the case, including one of the victims, the heroic Jim Swire.
But it has made very little if any difference. When Friday dawns, Megrahi will still be 'the bomber' rather than 'the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing' and there will be a shrill renewal of a deeply unpleasant question: why is this man not dead?
For believers in God, there ought to be a simple answer: God has so far decreed otherwise. Since many of those who insist on putting the question are indeed believers, some fervently so, we can only conclude that they consider this case beyond God; that it is too important to be left to God; that Megrahi's continued survival should be no business of God's. Beyond God – who knows? Beyond reason – certainly. In the Lockerbie case, rationality was abandoned long ago. (...)
[T]he essence of the case adjudicated by Mr MacAskill – the nub of it – has never been pointed out, except once in this magazine. It is extremely strange that it has been so overlooked. No doubt many with an interest in the case, in the media and elsewhere, regard it as an inconvenience. Perhaps for the Scottish government to acknowledge it would be too embarrassing since it reflects so badly on an important aspect of social policy. But, given the continuing obsession with Megrahi's health, its complete absence from the discussion still feels odd.
Here it is, then.
The question facing Mr MacAskill was not whether there was a reasonable expectation that Megrahi would be dead within a few months but whether there was a reasonable expectation that Megrahi would be dead within a few months if he remained in prison. When, many months ago, I first stated this as my reading of the situation, no one challenged it. Indeed there was an informal acknowledgement from quite a high source that this was indeed the question facing the justice secretary.
This issue was never raised again. So far as I know, it has never been used as part of a wider justification of Mr MacAskill's action. Yet is it not quite important? Anyone familiar with the inside of a Scottish prison will know how important. The typical Scottish prison (I have not visited Greenock, but I know Barlinnie and Saughton) is a disgusting institution harmful to the health and well-being of inmates. It is well-documented that Megrahi himself, as well as being physically sick, was mentally in a very poor state.
His chances of survival beyond three months in such an environment were not considered high. Indeed the idea of anyone with terminal cancer languishing in such a place is repellent. But it is reasonable to assume that once released, and returned home to his family and familiar surroundings, his life expectancy would improve to some extent. Anyone who denies the possibility of such an improvement must know very little of the workings of the human psyche; or is simply being disingenuous.
I don't expect any of this will moderate the political and media frenzy which is about to overwhelm us. I feel sorry for Kenny MacAskill, a decent man who did the decent thing, and has been paying a heavy price ever since. His decision was a humane one. It remains the correct one.
Legal action possible following “biased” STV Lockerbie bombing film
[This is the heading over a press release just issued by the SNP's Christine Grahame MSP. It reads as follows:]
STV may face legal action following the screening of a controversial documentary covering the Lockerbie bombing after the film was described as deeply misleading by an MSP. Christine Grahame has written to STV’s Chief Executive Rob Woodward pointing out that unfounded allegations repeated in the film had previously resulted in legal action from Air Malta. In 1993 the airline won a significant out of court settlement against Granada TV who also claimed the bag containing the bomb had been transported, unaccompanied, on one of their flights. Ms Grahame said:
“I was extremely disappointed when I saw the STV documentary and the one-sided and biased manner in which they recounted the events surrounding the atrocity.
“There remains very serious doubts over the safety of the conviction, but the STV film apparently chose to focus on the controversial and highly disputed claims of the senior investigators.
“There were a number if misleading statements made in the film, but I think the most worrying from STV's perspective will be the unfounded allegation that the case alleged to have carried the bomb, was transported, unaccompanied, on an Air Malta flight.
“When Air Malta sued Granada TV for making the same unfounded allegation the airline was able to prove that all 55 bags that were loaded onto the flight to Frankfurt were ascribed to passengers. Granada TV were forced to settle out of court and pay costs to Air Malta and to this day not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced showing the bomb was on the Air Malta flight.
“I now understand that Air Malta are considering whether to take similar legal action against STV for repeating this unfounded allegation.
“Once again the gaping holes in the case raise serious questions over the safety of the conviction and have exposed the superficiality of the recent STV film.
“In October at a fringe meeting at the SNP Conference in Perth I am planning to hold a screening of another documentary covering the case which raises serious questions over how the police and FBI investigation was handled. The film ... has already won international awards and reveals some shocking new details which cast further doubt over the safety of Mr Megrahi’s conviction. So far no British broadcaster, including STV, has been brave enough to show it.”
STV may face legal action following the screening of a controversial documentary covering the Lockerbie bombing after the film was described as deeply misleading by an MSP. Christine Grahame has written to STV’s Chief Executive Rob Woodward pointing out that unfounded allegations repeated in the film had previously resulted in legal action from Air Malta. In 1993 the airline won a significant out of court settlement against Granada TV who also claimed the bag containing the bomb had been transported, unaccompanied, on one of their flights. Ms Grahame said:
“I was extremely disappointed when I saw the STV documentary and the one-sided and biased manner in which they recounted the events surrounding the atrocity.
“There remains very serious doubts over the safety of the conviction, but the STV film apparently chose to focus on the controversial and highly disputed claims of the senior investigators.
“There were a number if misleading statements made in the film, but I think the most worrying from STV's perspective will be the unfounded allegation that the case alleged to have carried the bomb, was transported, unaccompanied, on an Air Malta flight.
“When Air Malta sued Granada TV for making the same unfounded allegation the airline was able to prove that all 55 bags that were loaded onto the flight to Frankfurt were ascribed to passengers. Granada TV were forced to settle out of court and pay costs to Air Malta and to this day not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced showing the bomb was on the Air Malta flight.
“I now understand that Air Malta are considering whether to take similar legal action against STV for repeating this unfounded allegation.
“Once again the gaping holes in the case raise serious questions over the safety of the conviction and have exposed the superficiality of the recent STV film.
“In October at a fringe meeting at the SNP Conference in Perth I am planning to hold a screening of another documentary covering the case which raises serious questions over how the police and FBI investigation was handled. The film ... has already won international awards and reveals some shocking new details which cast further doubt over the safety of Mr Megrahi’s conviction. So far no British broadcaster, including STV, has been brave enough to show it.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)