What the left should grasp about the Megrahi case
Posted on Monday 24 August, 2009
Filed Under International
I HAVEN’T seen any leftist comment on the topic yet that hasn’t welcomed the Scottish Executive’s decision to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. Many of them were explicitly premised on the idea that the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was innocent.
Megrahi’s defenders – not least my journalistic hero Paul Foot – have always maintained that the crime was actually the work of Syria-based terrorists acting as proxies for Iran. The argument is long and involved, and in so far as I have studied it, I find it convincing.
There is also an impeccable liberal case that the move is accordant with Scottish law as it stands; compassionate release is available to prisoners within three months of death, irrespective of the offences they are said to have committed, and irrespective of guilt.
Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill was undoubtedly right to come to the conclusion to which he came. So I take it as read that much of the mock outrage emanating from the right is as feigned as it is misplaced.
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.
But if this post was to restrict itself to agreeing with just about everybody else in my part of the political spectrum, it would have very little point.
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. Nor is it a demonstrable instance of determined adherence to the principles of justice, regardless of US outrage.
We do know that the release was preceded by a number of meetings between prime minister Gordon Brown and business secretary Peter Mandelson and high ranking figures in the Libyan dictatorship.
Brown admits that he discussed the matter when he bumped into Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi at the G8 summit in Italy six weeks ago, while Mandy recently talked things over with Gaddafi’s son Saif at Lord Rothschild’s villa in Corfu.
It also seems that – contrary to official insistence that the Scottish Executive was acting entirely of its own accord – the British government did bring pressure for Megrahi’s release to bear on Edinburgh.
Meanwhile, both Gaddafi and Saif have claimed that Megrahi’s freedom is explicit payback for some kind of business deal, presumably in the best interests of BP and Shell, who are both involved in oil and gas projects in the country possessed of the largest proven oil reserves in Africa.
Neither is a witness of the highest calibre, shall we say. But just because the Libyan strongman and his boy say something is true, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
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.
<<Go back
Comments
34 Responses to “What the left should grasp about the Megrahi case”
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
What was in it for the SNP?
I thought it strange that no one (that I read) actually commented on the timing and how it was *so* important to Gaddafi.
The release coincided with the 40th anniversary of the coup d’etat that gave Gaddafi power.
Gaddafi has a problem, how to brag about the historical revolutionary leadership for the last 40 years, but also explain away where the oil wealth has gone and why many people in Libya are still very poor.
So the al Megrahi affair provides a welcomed distraction and allowed Gaddafi to bathe in its glory for a while, whilst he hopes that the people of Libya don’t ask too many questionx about the oil wealth.
Ok Mod that pure speculation might explain why Gaddafi might have wanted the deal now but doesn’t explain the British reasoning.
Myself, I agree with Mr Osler. I would say, however, that most of the left I talk to also agree with him. Therefore, I think the left fully grasped the situation and in retrospect this article was a waste of time!
Dave demonstrates that the UK government wanted the release of Megrahi for commercial reasons. But he doesn’t show how they managed to force Kenny MacAskill to carry out their wishes.
The Ivan Lewis letter is hardly a smoking gun. The letter merely indicated to MacAskill that the UK government favoured Megrahi’s release. If that amounted to “pressure”, as Dave claims, it was extremely mild pressure.
A more likely explanation of what happened is that MacAskill took the decision to release Megrahi for the entirely admirable reasons he has stated.
No doubt he did so under the impression that his decision would receive the backing of the British government. And he is probably feeling extremely aggrieved that they failed to give him any public support whatsoever. Instead they have allowed him to carry the can for a decision they privately welcomed and had encouraged him to take.
Worse still, the Labour group in the Scottish parliament joined the Tories and Lib Dems in savaging MacAskill, cynically exploiting the issue for party political advantage.
I was pleased to see that Malcolm Chisholm broke ranks, criticising “the politicisation of what is a quasi-judicial decision” and declaring his support for MacAskill.
And there’s a good letter backing MacAskill from Ken Ferguson of the SSP in today’s Morning Star.
Thank god I’ve left the Labour party, if the left thought he was innocent why did we not hear them screaming free him. he was found guilty in a court of law, OK I thought it stank, but he was found guilty we knew an appeal would in the end free him, now people will say he is still guilty he will die and Labour hope it will all be over.
But something always goes wrong for Brown and it now looks like he has put his number twelve bloody foot in it again.
I think all this is adding to Brown looking like the worse Saviour the Labour party has ever had.
I don’t doubt anything you say Dave however what did Kenny MacAskill or the SNP Government gain out of this? There is no doubt that Gaddaffi and the West will be friends now and that will be a green card for BP etc to exploit Libya. I think Kenny MacAskill’s decision was his and the SNP’s Executive’s decision and their’s alone. They were not cojuled into not doing this because it was in the interest of global capitalism not to.
I am not a SNP fan however on this occasion I support Kenny MacAskill 100%. Almost every terminally ill prisoner in Scotland is given compassionate release unless it is believed that they would re-offend, not to give Al Meghari compassionate leave would have been political.
As for America boycotting Scotland will that mean Trump will pull out of Aberdeenshire or the US NAvy from the Clyde? Of course it won’t. Al Meghari was a patsy for Libya and the West and remains one.
Doesn’t reaction to Dave’s article tell us something?
We are told “in retrospect this article was a waste of time!”
That “But he doesn’t show how they managed to force Kenny MacAskill to carry out their wishes.”
Isn’t that peculiar?
On the modern British Left you can barely make a comment without someone questioning your motives, but in this instance we are meant to believe (as followers of the political scene) that these decisions were primarily humanitarian and there was no ulterior political motive?
Surely, that is naive in the extreme?
To normally question people’s motives from the outset and yet then suspend critical judgment simply because the decision goes a long with your own views?
Again, questioning motives is a constant on the political scene but we are somehow meant to turn off such thinking in this case.
PS: I have no opinion on the subject, but I certainly think that’s more to it than meets the eye.
nowhere did anything but welcome it, except our new blog
http://meanwhileatthebar.org/blog/?p=117
An interesting intervention in the debate in the Scottish Parliament by the Labour MSP Patricia Ferguson cast further light on what’s been going on behind the scenes.
First to set her intervention in context.
It became clear today from MacAskill that the Prisoner Transfer request came from the Libyan government, not Megrahi himself. MacAskill said it was the requirement on him to find out what Magrahi’s view on this was which led to the prison visit [given that MacAskill would be opposed to P.T. on principle one could understand why he wanted to check if Magrahi wanted this]. MacAskill seemed to imply that his initial fact-finding activity, including speaking to the families of the bereaved, as well as Megrahi, was made necessary by this move by the Libyan government.
Now to Ferguson’s intervention.
She asked if the Justice Secretary had sought advice from his legal advisers as to whether he was competent to refuse the Prison Transfer rather than to merely check whether Magrahi met the criteria. In other words, she was saying that the Prisoner Transfer legislation, because it was based on a treaty between the UK and Libya, was not something he had authority to intervene in.
MacAskill did not accept this, but the fact that he pre-empted having to test this by releasing Magrahi anyway makes one wonder. The fact that Magrahi dropped his appeal may now be understood as a necessary means of maintaining pressure on MacAskill to, either agree to P.T., or respond in some other way [the continuation of the appeal would have ruled out Prisoner Transfer]. Clearly, having objected to the deal, the Scottish government would not want to be seen to be implementing it, if there was an alternative. However, in going for compassionate release, instead, they have muddied the waters and let the UK government off the hook. As a result they have also taken all the flack themselves.
This may also explain the Libyan government’s response of thanking Brown i.e. because the release came out of the process initiated by their request for Prisoner Transfer [something agreed between them and the Labour government]. Presumably, also, they would have been reminded of this option when Gaddafi spoke to Brown at the G8 and his son spoke to Mandelson in Greece.
Brown’s advisors may well have guessed that the Scottish government would be forced by the terms of the Prisoner Transfer legislation to seek an alternative solution, which respected the independence of Scot’s Law. In other words, keeping him in Scotland was never an option once Libya entered a request for Prisoner Transfer.
@Modernity
in this instance we are meant to believe (as followers of the political scene) that these decisions were primarily humanitarian and there was no ulterior political motive? Surely, that is naive in the extreme?
This might be because nobody can think of any reason why it benefits the Scottish Government to invite the wrath of their opponents and the tabloids. Not one of the scenarios that have been offered – moral grandstanding, oil contracts, anti-Americanism – rings true. In fact, they make no damn sense at all.
Perhaps you can suggest a plausible explanation, rather than saying I have no other opinion beyond these lying bastards are up to something?
I don’t have any extra evidence on the al Megrahi affair, and I suspect neither does anyone else.
But I find it curious that otherwise extremely cynical people are now bending over backwards to see the best side of these events and dismissing any notion that some informal deal, however nebulous, has not been struck with the ever so typical English nod and a wink?
It is entertaining to see almost professional cynics argue, in this particular case as they agree with it, that nothing is suspicious or underhand.
This is a great site that you have here. I have a site myself where people can freely express their opinions towards controversial debate topics. After looking at your site, I see that you have some valuable insight you can provide us. This is why I left this comment.
Keep up the good work. Maybe we can do a link exchange.
Sincerely,
Jason
I find it curious that otherwise extremely cynical people are now bending over backwards to see the best side of these events and dismissing any notion that some informal deal, however nebulous…
This is rather the point – Kenny MacAskill could well find his political career going down the plughole as a result of this. The SNP have been more or less bulletproof since they were elected, but have taken some real damage over this issue… And even the biggest cynics can’t think of any underhand motive they might have.
Myself, I’m pretty much ambivalent over the release – keep him in or free him, either can be spun as a victory for justice. I just think it’s worth applauding a politician who’s prepared to flip off the tabloids.
Again, is there any reason you can think of that I should feel differently, or is it just Boy, you lot sure like being nice to terrorists, eh?
for once I agree with Hitchens minor:
‘I cannot join the protests against the release of the Libyan Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.
I have never seen any convincing evidence that he had anything to do with the Lockerbie bombing and I don’t believe there is any.
It has been common currency among experts for years that the outrage was an Iranian-Syrian operation, nothing to do with Libya.
I am mystified that Megrahi has dropped his appeal against this fishy conviction.
I expect it has something to do with the weird neo-conservative truce between the US and Libya, under which that country pretended to abandon weapons of mass destruction which it never possessed, and the
neo-cons pretended that this was a victory for George W. Bush’s half-witted foreign policy.’
should I seek psychiatric advice?
Dave, at a time like this, there is much to be said for focussing on a few key aspect of the al-Magrahi issue which the politicians are keen to ignore. Above all – was there or was there not a serious breach of Heathrow security affecting the bag handling facilities on the night that the Pan Am plane en route to the US over Lockerbie was transiting in London? Why is it that the powers that be are so anxious not to have this line of approach explored and why was knowledge of this denied to al-Magrahi’s defence? Incidentally explosives identical to those which destroyed the PanAm plane were subsequently found in the possession of a Frankfurt cell of a suspected Palestinian micro-faction. You are right that Paul Foot – with help from the impressive Jim Swires (father of a Lockerbie victim) was onto much of this. It is not necessary to pursue more speculative conspiracy theories about the CIA and breakaway anti PLO splinter groups to insist on answers from the government on these specific questions.
I disagree with John Palmer. The present political row doesn’t hinge on the guilt or innocence of Megrahi but on the decision to release him on compassionate grounds.
Kenny MacAskill was right to take that decision, from which (as has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread) the SNP government has derived no political advantage at all. On the contrary, they have been subjected to a disgraceful cross-party witch-hunt by the Tories, the Lib Dems and the Labour group in the Scottish parliament.
What the left should be focusing on at the present time therefore is defending MacAskill, attacking the rotten political alliance that has been formed to exploit his decision to release Megrahi, and condemning the Labour government at Westminster for its cowardly refusal to back MacAskill’s decision.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t raise questions over the reliability of Megrahi’s conviction, but that’s not the central focus at the moment.
1. Not a direct interest of the SNP as such, but the Scots legal establishment certainly had an interest in disposing of Megrahi’s appeal in some way before the role of the Scots courts and bar in a large-scale stitch-up got exposed in the media.
2. Being denounced by the US government, the Tories and the right wing London press for an act of humanitarianism will almost certainly be beneficial to the SNP in electoral terms.
So the decision is win-win for everyone involved: the US gets ongoing rapprochement with Libya (everyone involved in real diplomacy recognising that the synthetic outrage is purely for domestic consumption) and the UK gets commercial benefits, without either having actually to take the decision and get slagged off in the media; the Faculty of Advocates and Scots judiciary gets a cover-up; and the SNP gets liberal, leftist and anti-American credentials.
I disagree with you Bob. MacAskill’s decision can be defended on its own merits. I agree with Jim Swires (father of one of the victims) that the real priority is uncovering the cover up as to who was really responsible for the Lockerbie atrocity (remembering always that it all began with the downing of an Iranian civilian airliner by a US warship with loss of hundreds of innocent people.) I note that SNP MSP Christine Graham plans to name an individual close to the pro-Syrian Palestinian faction of Ahmed Jibril in the Scottish Parliament next week as the “true mastermkind” of the Lockerbie bombing. I INSIST “is it true or not that there was a major security breach at Heathrow airport the night the Lockerbie PanAm flight was transiting in London en route to the US?”
Modernity,
you said,
“We are told “in retrospect this article was a waste of time!”"
“Isn’t that peculiar?”
What?? Mr Osler himself said in the article that he only posted because he claimed he had something new to say on the subject, I just said he didn’t.
So why get so paranoid about suspecting motives?
Lets face it, Megrahi was in jail because the US wanted Libya to take the rap.
I have no idea who carried out these attacks but it was probably retaliation for some US outrage. This cycle of violence doesn’t help the victims families but we should note that an international criminal court should handle these cases, something the Americans have repeatedly tried to scupper. (for obvious reasons!)
JimD, disagree with me by all means, but at least have the ability to render accurately that which I write:
“Doesn’t reaction to Dave’s article tell us something?
We are told “in retrospect this article was a waste of time!”
That “But he doesn’t show how they managed to force Kenny MacAskill to carry out their wishes.”
Isn’t that peculiar?
On the modern British Left you can barely make a comment without someone questioning your motives, but in this instance we are meant to believe (as followers of the political scene) that these decisions were primarily humanitarian and there was no ulterior political motive?
Surely, that is naive in the extreme?
To normally question people’s motives from the outset and yet then suspend critical judgment simply because the decision goes a long with your own views?”
Modernity,
I AGREED with Daves article, i.e. I was being cynical about the reasons given!
This in no way means I didn’t support the decision, but this issue goes way beyond just agreeing or disagreeing with the decision.
If you believe that some people are taking a position based upon an inherent anti Americanism then I think you are wrong.
I don’t dispute the need to use the present situation to raise the need for an inquiry into Lockerbie. What I am pissed off about is that some people on the left are reluctant to come out uneqivocally in support of MacAskill and the SNP.
So we have Dave asserting, without any real evidence to back it up, that MacAskill was acting on behalf of the Labour government and in support of the business interests it serves – and that, if the correct decision was taken, this was “simply felicitous coincidence”.
Mike McNair by contrast claims that MacAskill’s decision was not in fact carried out on behalf of the Westminster government but was rather an attempt to burnish the “liberal, leftist and anti-American credentials” of the SNP.
I think this just illustrates the hopelessness of the far left. When a major political clash takes place in which they should take sides, they just sit on the sidelines sneering and attributing cynical motives to everyone but themselves.
“If you believe that some people are taking a position based upon an inherent anti Americanism then I think you are wrong.”
JimD, do you have a problem with reading ? I made my point about 4 times and still you don’t get it.
I’ll try again, let me put it another way:
1) Suppose you know someone who likes a drink, and drinks every day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year, never misses an opportunity to have a drink, got that?
Then one day, they don’t.
They don’t touch a drink and avoid talking about it or anything. Now if you are aware of the behaviour of others, then you might find that surprising? How a constant habit is suddenly stopped and not indulged in. It is that striking difference between constantly doing something and then not.
2) So it is with political cynics, to suddenly see them looking for the most charitable interpretations, talking up a particular issue, when they are invariably negative on nearly every issue, is peculiar.
I am mot questioning *why* people do this, I am not interested in people’s motives. I’m not a telepath nor a psychiatrist, but I was remarking on the *evidence* of it, in the thread.
Again, why people do it I don’t know, just observing that it takes place. I hope you got that?
It is true that nobody on the left has quite had the nerve to say “Let’s lock him up forever, and ever and ever! WAHAHAHAHA!” Not even the AWL. I guess this is because the left is supposed to be different from the right.
I can think of plenty of occasions when there has been a failure of left cynicism. For example, much of the left, much of the time, tails the bourgeoisie’s media agenda.
If you are not interested in motives then why ask the question? Why make the observation?
I actually think most ‘political cynics’ as you call them, though this implies a lack of reasoning and more a state of mind, were not just accepting all the facts at face value.
Some small, insignificant, not worth mentioning propotion may be guilty but I have trouble with this pointless building up of straw men and worse portraying the questioning/analysis of events as cynism. I have to question your motives.
“I have to question your motives.”
Of course you do, but you are making my point for me.
No exchange of political views on the British Left is complete without an act of bad faith. And one particular reoccurring theme is to question each other’s motives, see SU blog threads for evidence.
That ultimately leads to a slanging match, the result is that the British Left gives off a bad impression and no one wishes to take them seriously.
Oh, I forgot that is the situation we are in, a small insignificant Left in Britain, which is better known for its splits, petty arguments and fracturous attitudes.
Therefore, questioning your interlocutor’s motivations is fairly useless and ultimately counterproductive, because if you question their’s why don’t they question yours?
And so on then we are back to a slanging match, instead of a reasoned discussion on political themes, conducted in a fraternal way.
Having said that, I think it’s good to question the motives of *leaders* and of politicians, because invariably they will put some spin or shine on events and their own actions, but questioning those who wish to debate is futile.
Again, one the worst symptoms on the British Left is the deliberate exercising of bad faith, it is a nasty petty bourgeois habit and rather off putting. Question what leaders do, and certainly take with a pinch of salt whatever politicians will tell you, but if you’re in the business of persuading people and winning them over to your point of view then questioning their motives is rather silly and will leave you isolated.
Modernity,
Seems like fair points you raise. Except, if we cast our minds back to your first comment, you included a quote of mine to make your own point about cynics suddenly not being cynical but I WAS being cynical (to use your term). Moreover, by even pointing out this cynics hypocrisy you started this exercising of bad faith, apparently out of idle curiosity.
Pot and kettle spring to mind here.
The SNP may lose as much as it gains. Anecdotal evidence:- my colleagues, Scottish lawyers, think it was all right to free the guy as they are in doubts about his guilt, and they take the legalistic line. My friend’s colleagues, people who work in kitchens, think death by slow torture is too good for him. A fair amount of Scots read the right wing London press and agree with its stance.
I understand having compassion for people. However, terrorists are brainwashed, mentally unstable, and dangerous..
KB, I think you are wrong. I am from Glasgow and I can tell you the guy on the street, in the main, supports the SNP over this issue. I think what you exhibit here is a kind of snobbish assumption of working class simple mindedness.
The reality is that the Tory voting ‘elites’ think that torture would be too good for him but then again, the old Etonian set love their torture.
Joy,
you are correct, that George Bush was the most unstable man on the planet and just look at his supporters. The recent brainwashed, mentally unstable and dangerous hysteria over the NHS is a classic illustration of the point you were making.
But we must have compassion for these people and engage with them, what is the alternative ?
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/116451-majority-of-scots-want-megrahi-behind-bars/
My point wasn’t a class one. My lawyer colleagues are more aware of the legal aspects of the case and what MacAskill’s powers are. I don’t know if a bunch of bankers would think the same.
Anyway, according to that poll at least it wasn’t a popular decision and means no electoral gain for the SNP.
So the British government told the Libyans they’d do something they were likely to have to do anyway. They (and possibly the international community) got something out of it. The letter and the spirit of the law was followed. The Scots are shown that devolution has worked. Some big businesses get some more money. Gaddafi gets his party.
Now who loses?
Frankly if it was Mandelson that organised this, that kudos to him, though you have to pity the emasculated David Milliband whose position is shown to be honorary.