Well, as was heavily, heavily trailed, Kenny MacAskill has made his final decision on the fate of the Lockerbie bomber and, in his 'quasi-judicial role', is expected to let the Lockerbie bomber go free on compassionate release.
There has been so much said on this matter already that it's almost not worth saying anything else on it. It even comes as a sort of blessed relief that the story will now finally begin to leave the news cycle so I can't imagine how Megrahi himself will take it, particularly if he's innocent.
Not that that matters, this decision should not be interpreted as a suggestion that Al-Megrahi is innocent, it is strictly based on his illness, a move similar to that of the release of Ronnie Biggs.
I remain convinced it is the right decision to take and adamant that would-be Justice Secretaries from other parties in the same position would have taken the same view but of course there's no way of knowing for sure.
What is certain is that Kenny MacAskill was focussed throughout. The media, Westminster, the victims of the atrocity, US Senators and even the Secretary of State had their say, generally pleading with the Justice Secretary to keep Megrahi behind bars, but the decision was clearly Kenny's own and the rather ludicrous quantity of news on the matter seemingly didn't rush his decision.
The headlines all around the world are being released this evening and Scotland and the SNP are the centre of the attention but they can both hold their heads high over this whole affair I reckon, except for some of the more hysterical parts of the media that is.
The suggestion that the SNP have mishandled the affair seems totally misplaced, particularly as the most glaring cock-up over the past few weeks was Peter Mandelson's decision to holiday with Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi's son at such a sensitive time. The charge of a backroom deal on the back of this is unavoidable though probably inaccurate.
Glen Campbell's tiresome contribution that Al-Megrahi has served 2 weeks for every victim that died in the atrocity is loaded with political poison. The prisoner's guilt or innocence is not the issue and the use of such emotive language can only really have one aim.
Even the generally sensible Brian Taylor took an odd view of the situation, questioning what is in it for "us" in letting Al-Megrahi go, seemingly unable to comprehend what a selfless, compassionate act actually is.
At the end of the day, the thought of a dying man who is now no threat to anyone seeing out his last days behind bars was too cruel a scenario for Kenny MacAskill to entertain.
Those who died as a result of the Lockerbie attack suffered a horrible end but that is not the template on which we should base our humanity and that is why the correct decision will be announced tomorrow at 1pm.
38 comments:
Yeah!
Shame about all those folk who died and whose families won't have the opportunity to have justice on their behalf.
So what 'deal' was done for this decision then?
I reckon that's a very cynical view about deals.
Kenny had a decision to make and he made it as best he could.
As for justice for the families of the victims, applying vengeance based on the mindset of those who commit terror should not be the template for humanity that we set down.
The man is dying. There are no positives to be gained from keeping him incarcerated in these last few weeks and months.
I disagree in relation to the handling by Mr MacAskill - http://loveandgarbage.livejournal.com/315121.html No other Justice Sceretary would have met Mr Megrahi in prison, because any meeting could not add to the information releavnt to the decision but could only leave you open to suspicion of secret deals, and it is in that one act Mr MacAskill opened himself up to criticism and showed himself unfit to be justice minister.
And given that mr Megrahi has dropped his appeal he must be treated as having admitted his guilt.
For my part I would have released him on parole on compassionate grounds. He could then have continued his appeal and we might finally find out what really happened.
Jeff, I think you're wrong saying we should be in Afghanistan just because terrorists have threatened to cut off fingers of those who vote. This isn't the first time the Taliban have threatened such attrocities, but we shouldn't be there.
I won't labour on about my reasons, some are already well documented, but we should leave Afghanistan to sort themselves out. They have, for generations, existed on other countries' monies which has been directly put into the pockets of a corrupt government.
Unfortunately the only way Afghanis will have any form of peace is by working it out for themselves and not for others to do it all for them.
“World watches...”
“headlines all around the world”
“Scotland and the SNP are the centre of the attention”
Why is any of that relevant?
'Why is any of that relevant?'
A question that could be more appropriately applied to some of the headlines on your own blog, SU. As indeed could the words 'the SNP are the centre of attention'!
In fact, wasn't one of your headlines a few months ago "Goodbye, Mr MacAskill"? Given your renown for shrewd and totally objective (dare I say 'fair and balanced') political analysis, it's little short of astonishing Kenny MacAskill is still in place to even make this decision.
You couldn't be more wrong Jeff. Either the guy is innocent and his conviction shouldn't have stood or in the eyes of the law he is guilty of killing hundreds of people. As he is guilty of the latter in the eyes of Scottish law there is absolutely no way he should be freed on compassionate grounds. Most of the victims of the bombing didn't get to go home to die, they fell to their horrific deaths from 30,000 feet.
I don't know much about the law Scott, on that score you have a massive advantage over me but releasing a man who has terminal cancer out on parole seems perverse, a sick joke indeed.
I believe there are still powers that can recall Megrahi back to jail if need be but you (and many others) seem to be forgetting that he'll be dead in a matter of weeks.
He's not got off scot-free to go play in the park.
For MacAskill meeting Megrahi, I can agree that it was a mistake but see it as irrelevant unless you are suggesting it formed part of the Justice Secretary's decision which I just can't imagine it possibly could have.
Subrosa, well spotted with that post. It's meant to be coming out tomorrow but I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I do agree it is up to the Afghanis to determine their own fate but they don't yet have the infrastructure or culture to do and that's where we are stepping in to assist.
I'm perhaps the least gung-ho, GI Joe-type person going but I still think, just on balance, that we need to stick around.
but hey, the post is out tomorrow. And it was more about Douglas Alexander anyway...
SU,
it's relevant because it's happening.
it's not relevant in terms of the decision but the fact remains Scotland is making the headlines and consequently it's worth taking stock and wondering what sort of light we are being cast in.
This is a big step in the Scottish Parliament's journey into an established institution so it's important we get these big decisions right and do them justice.
And I think we have.
Furthermore, although this wasn't a political decision by Kenny MacAskill. The political fallout of the rammifications are valid considerations.
I take it you disagree?
James:
Your dislike of my blog is understandable, but isn't a factor in this discussion.
In another blog post, Jeff referred to “the SNP showing they can take the tough decisions in the face of hostile opinions from the most powerful country” and said that this “could go a long way to boosting their independence credentials”. He described the situation as a “fortuitous opportunity to boost the SNP's profile home and abroad”.
I wonder if you think Kenny MacAskill is smart enough to draw similar conclusions?
Crossed posts.
“it's not relevant in terms of the decision”
It shouldn’t be; whether it was or not is a different issue. Having observed how calculating the SNP administration is in terms of trying to boost its own popularity, that many people are highly suspicious shouldn’t be any great surprise.
SU,
I really don't know what you're implying.
Kenny didn't magic this situation out of thin air. He received it in his intray and dealt with it as best he could.
yes I've discussed some of the political fallout that will arise as a result of the decision that is taken but to suggest the SNP are deliberately going against US wishes simply to boost their own popularity rather than base the decision squarely on the facts is a very big leap indeed.
Yes there are some fortuitous political corollaries to what will be announced tomorrow but I'm sure there are plenty of benefits to doing what America and seemingly the entire British media wanted in letting Megrahi stay incarcerated until cancer finally claimed him.
I would hope though that you'd be above baseless insinuation SU, particularly on this issue involving a dying man and 270 victims of a terrorist attack.
Why is simply stating what you think so difficult? Would you have let Megrahi go or kept him in jail?
At the end of the day, that's all this comes down to.
I’m not implying anything beyond that which I actually wrote. But your celebration of what you call “fortuitous political corollaries” (not to mention the extent to which the cybernat army has sought political capital by claiming that Scots have “integrity that sets us apart as a nation”, that the SNP has shown “backbone” in standing up to the “usual rabble of Scotland haters”, etc) certainly gives pause for thought.
“Would you have let Megrahi go or kept him in jail?”
Why do you imagine me to have the information necessary to make that judgement?
oh get a 'backbone' yersel AM2, your snivelling is spoiling a decent thread and very important subject,...
I really don't understand why Macaskill, as a politician, isn't just keeping him in jail - I don't see any political downside in doing so and the Govt and Crown are (apparently and in my view correctly) absolutely convinced of Megrahi's guilt and the safety of his conviction.
Having said that, and assuming that Megrahi's illness is as advanced as reports indicate, then this is probably the correct decision legally. As the stats indicate, 75% of compassionate leave applications are granted and it is VERY unusual for someone to be allowed to die whilst serving a sentence. The current case is sui generis, which shouldn't be forgotten.
Let's just hope we haven't been hoodwinked here in Ernest Saunders fashion.....Macaskill will really start getting it in the neck if Megrahi's still alive in 3 months.
CC
"deals"
Robert Black has an interesting comment piece in the Scotsman where he raises the prospect of the Scottish Government commissioning and independent enquiry into the lockerbie case, despite protestations from the SG that they don't have the powers / remit to do this effectively....
http://tinyurl.com/kne4ca
He argues that it could look at the Scottish criminal justice system and all its aspects: investigation, prosecution and adjudication.
The UK Government has made it clear that they will block any independent inquiry.
It makes Salmond'semergency statement early on in the Parliament all the more pertinent when we see the shenanigans that Labour have foisted on the Scottish Justice System.
"Macaskill will really start getting it in the neck if Megrahi's still alive in 3 months."
Not really, he can only base his decision on the three medical reports that he's received.
Kenny and the SG seem to have been the only ones acting with any due process and in a circumspect manner in this whole issue.
I suspect we'll look back on Richard Baker & Tavish Scott's outbursts with the disdain they deserve, party political point scoring in a matter of life & death.
How revolting
"Your dislike of my blog is understandable, but isn't a factor in this discussion."
It would be if I made it one, matey! The definition of 'relevance to the discussion' is not that 'AM2 has so decreed'. But as it happens you've made an unwarranted assumption - I've said many times that I wish you updated your blog more often and wrote longer posts. You simply don't give us enough material these days. Everyone needs a muse - you'd be lost without Alex Salmond, us Cybernats would be lost without you.
"Why do you imagine me to have the information necessary to make that judgement?"
Such unwarranted modesty, SU! We all know you've got every piece of information in the known universe stored in your Doomsday Database.
Jeff, you argument that some of the diplomatic/political advantages accruing to the SNP/SG may be merely 'fortuitous' is plausible, but what about this one in your earlier post:
"...I reckon Hillary Clinton's interventions will, if anything, make it more likely rather than less likely that MacAskill will order Megrahi's release back to Libya. With Iraq and more recently Gary MacKinnon showing we are in the thrall of America's global might, I think a bit of a poke in the eye for the Americans might go a long way in showing we can take decisions for our own without guidance from the West."
it is reasonable to assume that macaskill has abetter idea than most what really happened at lockerbie. whether he divulges it is another matter.
i am sure his face to face in confidence at the prison was illuminating. one can reasonably assume that megrahi would tell the truth at this time. no leak has come out. so whatever was said has been confidential. and first hand.
i do not expect any pressure from wastemonster against macaskill as he could try and order an independent enquiry which would scare more than a few people.
a word with a particular bloke in a swedish jail who seemed to know rather a lot about timers would produce an interesting version of events as well.
Stuart, I'm going to cling to the "if anything" to bail me out there ;). Given that the Americans only really got involved once it was clear what the decision was going to be it's highly improbable that their intervention made any difference. Indeed, as per the Times editorial today, there's a suggestion that the US are secretly content with this conclusion but are loudly and ineffectually protesting to save face with many Americans. If they really wanted to turn the decision around, shouldn't they be using backchannels?
Cassius, fair comment. I agree if in 3 months time Megrahi is still alive then there will be a political price to pay, particularly if a tabloid gets a shot of the man drinking tea on some luxurious balcony. But the human body can be a remarkable thing and let's not forget, Megrahi wasn't supposed to see past Christmas 08. It's an unavoidably gruesome waiting game I'm afraid. But, for me, leaving someone to die of cancer in jail is monstrous, whatever they may have done in the life they're about to leave.
SU, I'm surprised and indeed a little saddened that you can't muster up an opinion on whether a cancer-stricken man with months to live should or should not be released from jail when he's been convicted of a heinous crime. What extra info do you need? It's ok to have an opinion you know. Go on, set yourself free dear boy...
Jeff:
Have you seen the medical reports? I certainly haven’t. Hence no judgement on that.
Stuart has you nailed, as I think you may realise. You said that you think “Hillary Clinton's interventions will, if anything, make it more likely rather than less likely that MacAskill will order Megrahi's release back to Libya”.
In other words, you think it possible that MacAskill could be swayed by extrajudicial (read: political) considerations. You even suggested a possible motive. You said that he might want to be seen to give America “a bit of a poke in the eye”. You further suggested that his motive for that might be nationalistic: to show that we can “take decisions for our own without guidance from the West”.
All I said last night was that some people will suspect likewise. To lambast me for that and call it “baseless insinuation”, when you yourself are one of those people, strikes me as more than a little peculiar.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2009/08/20080736
“The announcement will be streamed live on this page from 1pm. (8am US Eastern Standard Time)”
The Guardian says that the announcement was specifically timed to coincide with “news bulletins on the eastern seaboard of the US, home to many of the disaster victims”.
Jeff: Assuming that Megrahi is indeed to be released, the chosen timing will maximise the public awareness here of the negative reaction from the USA. What do you think the SNP administration’s possible motive for that might be?
What evidence is there that MacAskill has been swayed by political considerations?
If Hilary Clinton intervenes, why is this MacAskill's doing?
Like any other politician, he deals with things as they arise, and if Clinton phones he politely takes the call.
Whether some political advantage accrues to the SNP from that, it is hardly MacAskill's doing, is it?
I think he has played it straight. He has made his decision on the right grounds , after appropriate consideration. I see no untoward delay either. He hade to wait for the appeal to be dropped.
Now I understand Unionists think a Scottish FM has no business meeting a US President or a Scottish Justice Secretary has no business taking a phone call from Hilary Clinton.
I also understand that they think the right way to deal with this would be to phone up London and ask them what to do.
But that's devolution for you;Tan Dalyell saw it coming.
I don't think stuart has me nailed at all. Of course Kenny 'could' be swayed by Clinton's intervention, that was the point of it. But, as i suggest with the 'if anything', i really don't think he was. As for pokes in the eye and showing the US we can make our own minds up, they're my views and I'm sure I'm not alone in the perverse joy that comes with seeing America not get their way for once. At the end of the day, that's all a sideshow and the issue comes down to whether the man should be granted compassionate release or not. I think he should, of course, though I accept if Megrahi is still alive come Christmas then it will look like a bad decision. Some people agree, some people disagree and some people are too scared to have an opinion but Kenny's done the job he's needed to do and we should move on.
One of the side effects of the worldwide attention is the many references on TV and the media to the "Scottish Government". Here, in the Middle East, some locals were very surprised to learn that Scotland actually had a 'government'.
From "Wardog"
"Kenny and the SG seem to have been the only ones acting with any due process "
From the moment he met Megrahi in greenock he stepped outside due process. That's the problem. that's where the criticism started. A decision based on medical evidence did not require the meeting and few would have found anything to argue with. meeting him opened up suspicions. It allowed there to be an appearance that all was not well. Due process went out of the window then - and that lies at the heart of the legal criticism of Megrahi (especially when an appeal that need not have been dropped, is dropped immediately afterwards). The subsequent comment from redcliffe - although favourable to MacAskill - demonstrates the problem.
Jeff - the release of any prisoner on compassionmate grounds with sentence unserved is always a technical instance of release on licence (my use of the word "parole" may mislead). Any problems and they can be brought back to prison. This is not perverse, but how it works. Someone with cancer has the potential to reoffend - if prisoner A serving life has cancer and is released on compassionate grounds and then assaults person B he will be brought back into prison. That's how it works. This will be no different.
For the anonymous comment this morning to say
"I think he has played it straight. He has made his decision on the right grounds , after appropriate consideration. I see no untoward delay either. He hade to wait for the appeal to be dropped."
See my comments above - and note that the dropping of the appeal was not necessary to make a decision on compassionate grounds. That could have been decided some time ago - and the dropping of the appeal should not have mattered. Scots law allows an appeal to continue where the convicted person has been released on compassionate grounds. Dropping the appeal is only relevant to prisoner transfer. Both processes were before MacAskill. Each could be dealt with independently. MacAskill could have dealt with the compassionate issue based purely on the medical evidence. So, why did Megrahi - who has protested his innocence for years - drop his appeal (thereby admitting his guilt) immediately after meeting the man who had the power to made a decision?
Silent Hunter - a deal was done between Tony Blair and Colonel Gadaffi which resulted in the prison transfer agreement between the UK and Libya.
If Megrahi was being transferred under that agreement then you could argue that a deal has been done.
However the reason he is being released is very straightforward. He is dying.
(I would imagine the next twist in the conspiracy theories will be that Megrahi was poisoned somehow to give him cancer so that 'the truth' would never come up.'The truth' will never come out because it is too late for that and grown up people should accept that because there is no alternative.)
Meanwhile let a dying man die at home - who could argue with that?
I agree fully with Jeff. Kenny MacAskill comes out of this affair head and shoulders above his critics.
Scott - releasing him on compassionate grounds is effectively releasing him on parole, he is released on what is called life license which means he can technically be recalled to prison if he breaches the terms of his license. Given that he will be dead shortly that is unlikely to happen. However because it is a kind of parole the Parole Boiard, as well as the Prison Governer, health experts and social work are required to make a report about whether the application should be granted.
There was no requirement for Megrahito drop his appeal to apply for compassionate leave. There was a requirement for him to drop his appeal in order to apply under the prisoner transfer agreement, under which an application was also made.
As for meeting Megrahi - I think it probably did form part of Kenny's decision-making. I think we should remember that Kenny was dealing with two applications - the application made under the prisoner transfer agreement was made by the Libyan Government, not by Megrahi himself, whereas the application for compassionate leave was made by Megrahi through his own lawyers.
I think it was important for Kenny to establish whether Megrahi was 1) aware of the application made by the Libyan Government on his behalf 2) was aware of the implications (i,e. that his appeal must be dropped) and 3) that he gave his consent to that.
Jeff, I think that it is right to free Al Megrahi, but I do think the SNP has made it more difficult for the world to see why it's the right decision.
All Kenny MacAskill needed to do was to study the medical reports. He didn't need to visit Megrahi in jail, we shouldn't have had this week of speculation about Megrahi's appeal being dropped and the Justice Department shouldn't have been a leaky sieve.
I said on my own blog that if Kenny MacAskill was in a room with an open door and a locked window, he'd choose to go out the window. Right decision, but fiasco in the making.
Indy
I am aware compassionate release s on parole. I was trying to explain this because it appeared not to be understood earlier in the thread (the mere use of the word parole conveys a certain impression that a fuller context does not).
If MacAskill's decision was influenced by this meeting then this lies at the heart of the problem for him. It should not, because the meeting should not have taken place. if this meeting is relevant what's to stop others seeking such meetings. How will we react when a seriously ill Peter Tobin demands his meeting with the Justice Secretary to consider his application for release on compassionate grounds?
It was for his lawyers to explain the position. he had one of the best QCs in the business and a fantastic team of solicitors. Are you suggesting that MacAskill didn't think they'd explained things to him?
I know there was no requirement to drop the appeal for the compassionate release application but there was for the prisoner transfer case. But why was there a need to decide the two simultaneously? They are 2 separate matters, for which separate considerations apply. The compassionate release application could have been decided on medical grounds with receipt of the other reports. 2 separate matters needs to 2 separate decisions. Best to separate them and not tie them together.
I find it bizarre to suggest a possible rationale for the meeting appears to be on the premise that the legal team couldn't explain the distinction between the 2 processes, and MacAskill had to make sure himself.
Caron you are talking mince I am afraid. The medical evidence was irrelevant in the context of the application under the prison transfer agreement. Kenny had to consider that application for the simple reason that it had been made.
Scott - why should the meeting not have taken place?
I think there was definitely a requirement that either Kenny or someone representing Kenny meet with Megrahi relating to the application under the prison transfer agreement for the reasons I have already given.
You could make the argument that Kenny should have sent one of his team rather than go himself and should not have made it public but I don't agree. If someone from his department had gone to see Megrahi in secret that would be concealment.
To suggest that any governmental decision is made without being influence by the political implications is absurd. It is akin to claiming to understand ones personality objectively.
For this, and other reasons, it is completely valid for Jeff and others to assess what the possible knock on effects of the decision will be.
SU, I think that it’s fair to say that cybernats and unionists alike have sought to design political capital from this situation. That’s the fun, soap-opera world of politics in which we live… This is no more clear than the daily sound-bite laden press releases that I receive from the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.
Caron,
I think you are just reaching for something to hit the SNP over the head with, despite you agreeing with Kenny's final decision.
Having seen him on tv, do you still think Kenny's made it difficult for the world to understand his decision?
it's as thorough an explanation as you could wish for.
Would you rather he rushed the decision on the back of media scrutiny? is that how we run countries now, on the basis of what The Scotsman and Daily Mail think?
Yeah, it was the right decision. Two weeks in a luxury prison for each life taken--yeah, that sounds about right.
Sean Smith (Austin, TX)
Indy
kenny clarified why he went. megrahi asked to make representations in person
But this leaves two questions. 1. why was that not made clear when he visited the prison thereby putting an end to a series of questions on the topic. No statement was issued by the Justice department at the time. This is the first time it has been mentioned by anyone from the Justice Department. mentioning this earlier would have stopped the queries. However, it does beg a second question:
2. Why did MacAskill have to go in person? he was acting in a quasi-judicial manner in another application? Sending an official, announcing in a statement why the official was being sent (and no lawyer would have questioned that) would have avoided any problem.
What we are left with is a positon where he acted in a quasi-judicial capacity in relation to the compassionate release - and met the applicant. This is still unsatisfactory and to me inept.
And the failure to make the reason for his visit clear at the time smacks of post-rationalisation.
Scott
Post a Comment