Tomorrow marks the three month anniversary of Kenny MacAskill's speech to the world in which he announced that Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, would be released on compassionate leave.Needless to say, there is little doubt that a Scottish, perhaps even international, political storm is ready to kick off once more as this decision was based on medical reports that suggested the man had less than three months to live. There have been a few suggestions that the Libyans health was deteriorating, even a strong rumour that Al-Megrahi had died, but he lives on into his fourth month of being a free man.
The Lib Dems have now joined the Conservative's calls for the release of documents which cast doubt on the Lockerbie bomber's conviction to be made public. It seems the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission conducted an investigation which concluded that a second appeal should be launched.
As far as I can make out, this is the same appeal that Al-Megrahi started but then dropped so why we need to learn of the detail of these documents is beyond me. Dropping that appeal was Al-Megrahi's decision to make alone so the deail is now surely irrelevant. That said, there is surely no harm in releasing documents if politicians are adamant that they are important.
One question is, do those who do not want to revisit the decision do so out of the lack of results it would bring or merely out of political expediency?
I can understand the concerns that people may have surrounding the whole issue but if a decision is taken to free a dying man on the strength of medical reports then it shouldn't matter if he dies within three days, three months or three years.
The human body is an incredible thing, many of us will know of relatives or friends who have confounded doctors to see one last Christmas or one last anniversary before moving on, so to focus on how long someone can cling onto a life that lost a certain quality a long time ago is frankly ghoulish and certainly unbecoming of a parliamentary representative. It is important to remember that three months is the average length of time a prostate cancer victim in Al-Megrahi's August 20th state would expect to live.
Don't get me wrong, there are no doubt questions that need to be asked and answers that need to be given, but hopefully the point will not be laboured and the significance of going beyond the three month anniversary exaggerated.
The mystery of the Lockerbie bombing needs fixed but we don't need a fixation on one man's slow demise.
25 comments:
Watch Richard Baker's action in the next fortnight.
Thanx Jeff. I was trying to work out his 'anniversary' myself the other day and got a little confused.
There are loads of issues here which all tend to get shouted at once when the news cycle trawls round again (how did it come to be that I no longer have sympathy for Dr Jim Swire?). I disagreed completely with the decision to set Megrahi free, but accept that it was legally/legitimately done and I will have no truck with those who will scream foul for any reason (medical advice was wrong/medical advice was false/medical advice was not legal/medical advice was not medical/medical advice was not American).
Surely there can be no doubt of the placebo benefits of being released from a confined hostile environment to the comfort of family surroundings. But there will be many who (however craftily they pose their questions) will make themselves look foolish by effectively asking: "Well? Why isn't he dead yet?" That misses the point of compassionate release entirely.
"As far as I can make out, this is the same appeal that Al-Megrahi started but then dropped so why we need to learn of the detail of these documents is beyond me. Dropping that appeal was Al-Megrahi's decision to make alone so the deail is now surely irrelevant."
I think the friends and relatives of the 270 people killed as a result of the bombing would disagree with you, Jeff. They have as much moral right to know if any details in these documents cast genuine doubt on Megrahi's conviction as anyone else. Megrahi's sudden appeal drop - a process which, even if successful, would have certainly taken far longer then the 3 months medical opinion predicted he had left to live - and his subsequent release means that any doubts that still linger may never be tested in a legal setting, an extremely unsatisfactory situation for anyone interested in open justice.
On the contrary Keith, I think they would agree with me and would rather see a fresh enquiry into what happened. Such an enquiry is not incumbent upon and is entirely unrelated to the second appeal that Megrahi launched and subsequently dropped once his cancer became terminal.
We don't need to rake over dying embers of what has gone before but start a new fire, hence my linking to Jim Swire's website at the end there.
"On the contrary Keith, I think they would agree with me and would rather see a fresh enquiry into what happened."
Ah, I misunderstood - although I think it's a little unsafe to suggest that documents relating to the dropped appeal should be immediately discarded without any consideration whatsoever, particularly if Megrahi should die before any fresh investigation had been launched and had reached a conclusion. Given the state of his health this may will be the only chance Megrahi has of making any contribution on his own behalf. Any 'new fire' of which you speak may be fatally undermined from the outset if this is not the case.
No worries Keith. To be honest I don't have a strong understanding of the first appeal, second appeal or medical report situation so I'm not saying much with any real conviction (if you pardon the pun).
However, I don't believe I suggested 'documents relating to the dropped appeal should be immediately discarded without any consideration'. On the contrary I suggested there is little harm in releasing such documents but their release rather spectacularly misses the point of what should be trying to be achieved.
The question behind the Megrahi affair boils down to whether truth and justice were served and if the integrity of Scottish justice remained intact in view of their decisions following the trial and the first appeal.
I have read the findings of both and in my modest opinion regard the case as not been made by the first and not established by the second.
Ref, the point you raise on Megrahi dropping his second appeal. He had no choice. If he wanted the appeal to continue he would have had to stay in jail. So while it may have been a backhanded convenience for him, it was also a convenient out for the judiciary.
However, with the conviction still being questioned, we now have the surprise announcement of the Police having eight senior Libyan suspects they now want to question?
Of course that means there can be no appeal or enquiry started while there's an ongoing investigation.
Strange - or should that be 'strained' coincidence?
Megrahi did have a choice though.
While it is true that his application to be released under the PTA required him to drop the appeal his application for release on compassionate grounds did not.
Of course if he had dropped his application under the PTA he had no way of knowing if compassionate release would be granted.
As it happened his application for prisoner transfer (requiring the appeal to be dropped) was rejected but the application for compassionate release was accepted.
The pity of it is that many of the cyberbrits will be seeking as usual to use this sad story to harm the SNP and Kenny MacAskill.
The decision was made. Let's leave it at that and hope that Mr Megrahis final days are not too unbearable, terminal cancer is a dreadful way to die.
"Let's leave it at that and hope that Mr Megrahis final days are not too unbearable"
Why should we hope this?
"Why should we hope this?"
Hopefully Anon, because we are human beings with a measure of decency.
Mr Al-Megrahi's physical pain is not going to make the pain of the victims' families any less. There is therefore no point in wishing him an ill end. It can do no good to any reasonable person.
"The decision was made. Let's leave it at that and hope that Mr Megrahis final days are not too unbearable, terminal cancer is a dreadful way to die."
What a peculiar statement, Anonymous. Are you suggesting that once a decision is made, or statement announcement, or legislation introduced, that all discussion and debate surrounding it should immediately cease?
And should Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds set a precedent for the release of all criminals suffering from terminal illnesses, or should it stand alone? And if so, why?
http://keithruffles.blogspot.com/2009/08/pain-of-lockerbie.html
"Mr Al-Megrahi's physical pain is not going to make the pain of the victims' families any less."
It's one thing saying that we should wish no ill at the end but to say that we should wish it peaceful is something else.
I don't understand why we should specifically wish for him to have a peaceful ending to his life.
Dancing on the head of a pin a little here, I'd say.
Well anon, you wish for what you want, and I'll wish for what I want.
"should Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds set a precedent for the release of all criminals suffering from terminal illnesses, or should it stand alone? And if so, why?"
You have got this back to front Keith.
The decision on Megrahi follows the precedent set by past Justice Secretaries and before them the Scottish Secretary.
The question therefore would be should Megrahi's case have been dealt with differently - and if so why?
The answer many people might give is because he was convicted of being the biggest mass murderer in Scotland since Sawney Bean.
But that is a difference of scale, not principle.
For Christ's sake, someone shoot the bastard and put us out of our misery!
You make some very interesting points. The problem I can't quite come to terms with is whether Kenny MacAskill now feels that further action should be taken.
Clearly the 90 days advice was inaccurate. We really should be able to know what was wrong with it. Here are my thoughts.
http://johnault.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/it%e2%80%99s-3-months-today-since-mr-al-megrahi-was-released-and-no-news-from-tripoli%e2%80%a6/
The 9- day advice was not "inaccurate". No doctor anywhere in the world can predict exactly when someone is going to die. The Chief Medical Officer of the Scottish Prison Service however was satisfied that Megrahi met the criterion set down by Kenny MacAskill's predecessors for compassionate release.
This is going to be a tricky situation for the SNP government, and in particular MacAskill. Not so much because he took the decision itself, but more the way he handled it.
Fitalass:
I just don't see why: you can't die to order. The Justice Secretary acted on the appropriate legal and medical advice. It seems to me he had little choice, and to their discredit (and Labour's eternal embarrassment given the London head office attitude), the other parties played politics with this.
As I said you can't die to order, and we don't have doctors yet in the Scotland who can predict death to within a few days.
The prognosis was arrived at by people qualified to do so, (or we must assume that they are, given that they treat Scottish people too) that, with the treatment available on the National Health Service of Scotland, the likelihood was that he had 3 months or less to live.
He is now in an oil rich country where I understand they imported oncologists from Scandinavia, Switzerland and America at whatever expense to ensure the best possible treatment and drugs that the Scottish Health Service can't begin to imagine supplying. With the best will in the world the National Health Service of Scotland cannot afford the best treatment
Perhaps the treatments he is receiving will enable him to live a bit longer.
I wish we lived in an oil rich country so that we could have these benefits.... oh wait....
"I just don't see why: you can't die to order."
tris, what a horrible expression, and one I would avoid using.
I am simple pointing out that politically MacAskill made mistakes when he dealt with this issue, not least with the Minister at the pulpit sermon he dished out to all of us.
As for the rest of your post, words fail me.
Why Fitalass?
It's true. He's in a rich contry where he will get treatment that we couldn't begin to afford here.
The sermon I'll grant you was unneccesary. Probably mainly for American ears. Shouldn't imagine it impressed many Scots
If only we had oil....
tris, you are talking complete rubbish!
Fitalass:
In what way?
You make statement like "words fail me" and "you're talking rubbish" but you fail to explain why or in what way?
So, why do words fail you?
Is Lybia not an oil rich country? Are you telling me that I'm lying; that I did not read that cancer specialists had been imnported from the rich countries?
Are you saying that Scottish National Health has all the resourses to treat cancer that can be brought to bear by a very very rich country?
Are the very best oncologists not in America and Switzerland?
Explain how I'm talking rubbish.
Otherwise with respect, your comments are pointless.
Post a Comment