‘So I take it as read that much of the mock outrage emanating from the right is as feigned as it is misplaced.’

This would be the Right which includes Obama, would it? I was wondering when the reaction would begin.

‘Don’t give credence to Tory proclamations of moral rectitude in dealings with the Arab world until David Cameron commits to releasing full details of Mark Thatcher’s involvement in British Aerospace’s al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia in the 1980s.’

That’s just whataboutary.

That Brown and his chums had a paw in this I don’t doubt, but at least your admitting this is about profit and not ‘compassion’.

It is all so dirty, I don’t see any side looking good in this.

“Mock – outrage”? I’d say the outrage looks pretty real, wouldn’t you?

Were those who support the release of Megrahi also against the extradition of Pinochet to Spain when he was sick?

Dave,

When you can write insightful, sensible and compelling articles like this, what’s with the decidedly sub-par entries last week?

Anyway, regarding the OP, you are right.

I would only add: the New Labour government has simply completed the circle. I too am convinced that Lockerbie was in fact carried out by a Syrian terrorist cell, but that it was more conducive to American and to a lesser extent British interests to blame Gadaffi’s Libya, because at that period Gadaffi was being painted by the Americans as public enemy number 1.

When, post 9/11, Gadaffi was invited in from the cold, it appeared that he offered up al Megrahi as a way of sealing the deal and rehabilitating himself with the West.

I suspect that New Labour knew then that al Megrahi was probably not guilty of the Lockerbie atrocity. Yet he was a convenient sacrificial lamb in the Gadaffi rehabilitation component of the early “war on terror”. Hence I believe they wilfully put a man they probably suspected to be innocent in jail, for political expediency.

Fast forward to 2009, and they’ve released the same man – for political expediency, as you point out. It’s all rather neat, isn’t it?

“Were those who support the release of Megrahi also against the extradition of Pinochet to Spain when he was sick?”

Almost certainly not.

(You normally have a point on these threads, could you spell this one out for us…?)

You may well be right.

Its sad that the world comes down to the fact that the word of the law was applied and yet we are so used to kickbacks, back scratching, political wrangling, corruption, that we always look for the ulterior motive.

There probably was something going on – but wouldn’t it be nice to be proven wrong for once and hear that it was just the law and procedure.

‘(You normally have a point on these threads, could you spell this one out for us…?)’

My point being that I don’t remember much ‘compassion’ being wasted on a fascist who committed mass murder of his own people, but for some reason ‘compassion’ is in order for someone who killed (mainly) Americans.

At least Osler’s article is about Megrahi’s possible innocence, a distinct improvement over the other thread, which is essentially bile spat at ‘the Great Satan’ and a ‘subgroup of humanity’ composed of genetic freaks.

Agree with Nick – this is a murky business and I doubt if anyone is going to come out of this well. As a Scot, what sticks in my craw is the self-congratulatory nature of McAskill’s reiteration of ‘Scottish’; as the Guardian said , this was ‘unfitting’ and leaves a bad taste.

What also leaves a bad taste are the ‘fuck ‘em’ gibes directed at Americans on this site – great way to win an argument, eh.

Al Megrahi was, rightly or wrongly, convicted for the bombing and served time in prison for it. Shortening his time in prison by a couple of months to let him die at home seems to me to be very different from denying the opportunity for Pinochet to be tried and punished for his crimes at all.

Oh, and Pinochet was not just weeks away from death – he lived for another eight years after he was released by Britain.

What’s your theory about how Brown, Mandelson and co persuaded the Scots to go along with this cunning plan?

@10+11

Indeed. And although I don’t really want to get into the game of ranking attrocities, it would seem that Pinochet’s 16 year rule in which over 3,000 were murdered, 80,000 incarcerated without trial and 30,000 tortured stands out as being plausibly more heinous that the Lockerbie bombing (which is NOT to say the latter is justified, just that there appear plausible and worthwhile asymetries between the two cases which would entitle people to come to different conclusions regarding both)

Your hero is Paul Foot, the author of this gem:

“Lenin, the Bolshevik leader, is usually painted as a tyrant. In fact he was the opposite.”

Why is liberal in the title of this site again?

Of course, Foot also refused to admit he was wrong on misplaced claims of innocence such as James Hanratty.

In sum, we are faced with a straightforward case of New Labour setting aside any other consideration than what works for major UK companies, building its foreign policy in that light alone, and then passing the buck north of the border.

That might be true, but considering that New Labour’s foreign policy usually consists of ‘Don’t Piss Off the Yanks’, they must really want a deal with Libya to encourage Megrahi’s release knowing how it go down in the US.

“In sum, we are faced with a straightforward case of New Labour setting aside any other consideration than what works for major UK companies, building its foreign policy in that light alone, and then passing the buck north of the border. That – this once – its actions were consonant with the correct course is simply felicitous coincidence.”

I very strongly suspect that you are correct: New Labour is acting in the interests of British business, and somewhat ironically, there is some overlap with “compassionate” grounds for release for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi…

For me, the most depressing aspect of this is that where once I might have required some form of reliable evidence (i.e. not the self-interested dribbling of Colonel Gaddafi) in order to form such an opinion, and to thus take a stance against a nominally left-of-centre government (guffaw), now I adopt such thinking almost without thinking.

(The naïveté of youth…)

The government has sold out so many times already, it’s no longer surprising. (Though no less infuriating.)

Lockerbie itself was revenge for the USS Vincennes shooting down an Iranian commercial flight, which the US government refused to condemn and only resolved eight years after the event (and after the Lockerbie conviction)

It did strike me, though, that the same year that Americans were complaining about hell on earth being unleashed because two thousand people were killed on 9/11, over a million died in Bangladesh due to flooding and thousands due to war or starvation in DRC.

Apparently an atrocity is a thousand times worse if it affects an American or Israeli.

Of course, Foot also refused to admit he was wrong on misplaced claims of innocence such as James Hanratty.

Loving the weaselly use of “such as”, there. And Foot was 100% correct on Hanratty, despite the fact that he was probably guilty [*]: the police did, unequivocally, cover up evidence that should have led the original jury to acquit him (notably Valerie Storie’s original statement and first line-up choice).

[*] no, that’s not a contradiction. Similarly, OJ was almost certainly guilty; the police lied at his trial; hence his acquittal was the only possible outcome.

Johnbax @ 12,

Yes, that is the difficult bit. It was open to Kenny MacAskill to use the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, which probably was designed to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, however his release was actually on compassionate grounds.

‘Apparently an atrocity is a thousand times worse if it affects an American or Israeli.’

I was wondering when we’d get around to Israel.

“I was wondering when we’d get around to Israel.”

Well, the IDF did shoot down a Libyan plane in the 70′s, and at least three of the relatives of Lockerbie victims being interviewed have been Jewish, so it’s not a total non-sequiteur. One woman interviewed on R4 said “I’m Jewish; would you ask me to show compassion to Hitler for what he did?”

James @14: You are Oliver Kamm and I claim my £5.

I was wondering when someone would post about Megrahi on liberal conspiracy.

To put things in context I am a Scottish lawyer, and was a teenager when the incident happened. My sisters were staying with relatives in lockerbie at the time of the disaster. I was there a couple of days after and watched bodies being removed from a house that had been demolished a few doors away from my relatives’ home. one sister is still being treated for a mental illness derived from the tragedy.

When the decision to hold the trial under Scots law was taken the relevant legislation allowing for compassionate release was in place. In agreeing to hold the case under Scots law, agreement was that all of Scots law would apply: to the trial; the procedure of the trial; the appeal process; and to the incarceration of any convicted. While the US helped with the investigation, it was not their law that applied. And I am concerned at the intervention of Mr Mueller, head of the FBI, whose claim of familiarity with the case appears somewhat suspect when he appears not to know that the case was heard before 3 judges and not a jury.

I do not know the rights and wrongs of the case. mr MacAskill agreed with the decision in the original trial (although many disagree) and his decision was based on the premise of megrahi’s guilt. In all other cases on compassionate release the justice secretary would take the views of the prisoner governor, the social work service, the parole service, the police, and (where medical conditions are relevant) the medical evidence. he applied normal Scottish procedures, consulted the normal people – and given that a de facto rule has grown up that someone with a terminal illness and medical evidence indicating they are unlikely to survive for 3 months – would have had to give clear justifications why the normal rule did not apply. His decision was not unreasonable. People may legitimately disagree on that decision, but MacAskill applied the usual rules. There is a very good post about this by a Scottish QC, Jonathan Mitchell at http://www.jonathanmitchell.info/2009/08/24/megrahis-release-kenny-macaskill-was-right/

There was though for me one problem with the handling of the case. MacAskill met Megrahi while the application for compassionate release was before him. This would never have happened in an application by any other prisoner on those grounds, and while MacAskill argued he was bound to meet him he had no legal obligation to do so under the prisoner transfer application – and to meet Megrahi when the compassionate application was before him was I think a mistake.

I wrote about this before and after the decision at http://loveandgarbage.livejournal.com/315121.html and http://loveandgarbage.livejournal.com/315455.html.

The meeting was a huge mistake and allows observers to query the decision (particularly when megrahi who had protested his innocence for years – dropped his appeal, thereby admitting guilt technically, and then resumed protesting his innocence when released – which has led Jim Sillars to suggest a deal of some sort was done: http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Jim-Sillars-A-mockery-.5579662.jp )

In holding this meeting Mr MacAskill’s conduct in the process was questionable and I think some serious questions still need to be answered I list some at http://loveandgarbage.livejournal.com/315986.html which were not properly addressed during the laughable parliamentary scrutiny yesterday.

However, MacAskill’s decision to release on compassionate grounds is understandable, in accordance with Scots law, and previous precedents. The idea that the SNp government was doing a favour for new Labour (as some suggest) is laughable – and that the prisoner transfer agreement influenced an application for compassionate release (which was an inherent part of the system at the time the trial took place) speculation. However, if a prisoner in terminal condition was not given legal advice to consnider to apply for compassionate release his lawyers would be negligent – be the prisoner a robber, or a murderer.

Why not his relatives visit him at a secure location outside of the prison?

All this stuff about the government “persuading” the Scots to take this decision makes me laugh. The SNP hate Labour; they’d probably have kept him in if the PM had asked them to release him, just to spite Labour.

Having said that, I agree with the SNP on this. Reluctantly – and it wasn’t my first instinct – I think he should’ve been released. It’s the law in Scotland, and it should be applied. Whether it’s a bad law or not is a different question – although I think it’s a good law. It shows mercy and compassion even to those who don’t deserve it, when it’s clear they no longer pose a threat to the population. I would’ve thought justice tempered by mercy and compassion was an attractive ideal for most liberals, especially those who are worried about a state with too much power.

I don’t really disagree with the substance of your post. A number of commentators have tried to highlight the Edinburgh-London ‘split’ – whereas I think you are essentially correct to argue that London welcomed his decision for the reasons you mention. Couple of quibbles though. Where others have sought to highlight an essentially non-existent Edinburgh-London division, you’re exaggerating the extent to which they have acted in concert here.

For example, the SNP objected to Blair’s negotiated prisoner transfer deal with Libya. This was, and is, dismissed as nationalist posturing and while as a non-nationalist I would like to agree, I cannot because their position was essentially correct: Blair was agreeing a deal about the transfer of prisoners – or prisoner – that he had as British PM no legal jurisdiction over. This was the case prior to devolution as well as after and the SNP were quite right to object to it on these grounds.

MacAskill didn’t therefore release Megrahi under the terms of this agreement but under those set by precedents in Scots Law, as you mention. While I have no doubt he was well aware of the British government’s position, in the final stages of negotiation, he was apparently enraged that Brown declined his invitation to discussion on this matter with the Americans. He would have understood perfectly well that Brown was – as we can all see he is now – doing this in order to distance himself from the decision if he found it politically convenient to do so.

He would have understood this – and would have predicted the shit-storm that has erupted ever since – yet he went ahead anyway, which is why – although essentially agreeing with the broad framework of your position – you are wrong to dismiss this decision as simply a piece of realpolitik. It was this, I think, but the circumstances surrounding it allow for the imputation of a little principle too. Or to put it another way, Brown is a coward whereas MacAskill – whether he made the decision for the right reasons or not – emerges from this with more credibility because he has displayed genuine courage.

But this isn’t the substance of my disagreement with you on this. It’s more simply this: why is motive held up by you here as some kind of over-riding leftist principle? It is not, as you suggest, that people insist that Megrahi was innocent necessarily – but rather that there was a general impression that his conviction was unsafe. Given that the liberal position is that it is better that the guilty go free rather than the innocent be punished and that the decision to release Megrahi represented a politician for once resisting populist demands for retribution and that his release was entirely in conformity with the protocols of Scots Law – I don’t see why doubts about the motives behind this should be anyone’s overriding concern. One could add that while I think you are essentially correct, I would be a little more circumspect because we have no direct evidence that the decision was made for the reasons that we both believe are true.

Finally…

The left needs to consider the real reason why Megrahi was returned to Tripoli. What it especially needs to grasp – and I don’t think it has done yet – is that what happened is absolutely and explicitly not any kind of climbdown, or even as much as a tacit admission that he was framed.

Since you link her above, one assumes Hak Mao forms part of the left you are referring to here. I wouldn’t want to speak for someone who can do this for herself but I think you’ll find that she at least doesn’t need to grasp any of the points you mention as she understands them perfectly well already.

Shatterface,

The parallel with Pinochet is not an apt one.

Al-Megrahi was convicted but may well be innocent. His release prevents the miscarriage of justice from coming to light. Pinochet was probably guilty but his release prevented his criminality from being established and, more importantly, prevented the erosion of the principle of sovereign immunity.

You can argue that it would have been better for Al-Megrahi to have been kept in jail to pursue his appeal but I think it better that he should be released – as Scottish law seems to allow even if he was guilty and the safety (or otherwise) of his conviction should be established by an inquiry.

It is possible to hold this view whilst also holding the view that, if the UK had signed up to the idea of arresting and prosecuting former heads of state for their crimes then they should have complied with their decision. At the very least, since the question was one of extradition rather than trial, the British government should have allowed the Spanish to decide whether Pinochet was fit to stand trial.

The UK just had its worst current account deficit in history, if you take the time to look at the actual numbers behind the state of our finances you will see that we are a broke nation. We are without natural resources, either in the ground or in the populace, because our piss-poor ‘progressive’ state education system is plummeting down world rankings in a flurry of grade hyper-inflation. Given that colonialism is no longer an option we had better do the best we can and suck up to Gadaffi and any other tyrant with oilfields to rent to get our hands on it before our GDP falls below Moldavia.