Home > Alex Massie

Monday 21 May 2012

Freeing the Lockerbie Bomber?

Thursday, 13th August 2009

Back when I worked at Scotland on Sunday I was never the Lockerbie Guy. Nor was I even the Lockerbie Guy's Assistant. For years every paper needed a Lockerbie specialist, not least because having one ensured that the rest of us didn't have to follow the tortuously complicated story any more closely than the readers. Which is to say, I don't know the extent of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's involvement, though clearly even if he was involved he wasn't the fellow who ordered or thought of the mission.

Still, the speculation that he might be released on compassionate grounds - he has been diagnosed with incurable prostate cancer - has provoked a furious reaction from some of the usual suspects. Con Coughlin, for instance, considers his potential release a "humiliating episode" and wonders if Megrahi, far from dying, might "suddenly make a miraculous recovery the moment he sets foot back in Libya". Does Con really think Megrahi has faked his own cancer? Perhaps!

Still, Coughlin is more restrained than Nile Gardiner who writes:

It would send completely the wrong signal to terrorists across the world that the West doesn’t even have the stomach to keep them in jail for more than a few years. Such a move will only encourage future terrorist attacks, and embolden our enemies.

It also defies belief that the United States government (most of the victims were American) would agree to such a deal being struck, though it could well be part of the Obama administration’s broader strategy of engagement with dictatorial regimes, including Libya. Barack Obama recently shook hands with Gadaffi at the G8 summit in Italy.
It is important in the coming days that US Senators and Congressmen, as well as British MPs, speak out against any release for Megrahi, and demand that he serve the rest of his days behind bars on British soil. David Cameron should also make his voice heard on the issue and call for a full explanation from the Brown government.

The families of those who were viciously murdered over Lockerbie deserve to be given a huge say over the fate of Megrahi – there appears to be little indication they have been fully consulted on the matter. The release of such a brutal terrorist, with the blood of hundreds of innocents on his hands, would be an affront to civilized values and a dangerous gesture of surrender to terrorism.

Frankly, it is hard to see how any decision made by Kenny MacAskill (the Scottish Justice Secretary) is going to have much impact upon international terrorism. For good or for ill. Perhaps we should keep Megrahi in jail even after he has died? That would show the terrorists that we're serious!

I also find it curious that Gardiner seems to think that the American administration should have the power to decide what is, despite the international elements to the case, a decision for the Scottish legal and political systems. I dare say the Americans have been consulted, but unlike Gardiner, I don't think that means giving them the power of veto. (It's also worth remembering that it was the Bush administration that began the rapprochement with Libya, not Obama.)

Nor for that matter is there much point calling for a "full explanation from the Brown government" since, as Gardiner must know, it's not a matter for Jack Straw to decide either. Equally, if permitting a man with terminal cancer the luxury of dying at home constitutes a "dangerous gesture of surrender to terrorism" then, really, we're losing our minds. By this standard, letting Megrahi appeal his conviction must also be considered a dangerously naive, soft-on-terrorism decision.

One final point: it's interesting to ask who leaked this? Was it MacAskill wanting to "soften up" public opinion in advance of letting Megrahi go home, or was it a senior civil servant (or someone else) hoping to provoke a backlash against the idea and keep Megrahi in Scotland until he dies?

Filed under: Hack (1 more articles) , Libya (295 more articles) , Scotland (499 more articles) , Terrorism (298 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (5)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

cuffleyburgers

August 13th, 2009 6:05pm Report this comment

Sorry, but it is not for american senators or even victims' families to decide on matters pertaining to whether or not this individual should be released.

That is a matter for the authorities involved who will doubtless make a wise decision based on the law and precedent.

Anyway I seem to recall at the time of his conviction that there was considerable grounds for suspicion, reported at length in private Eye that he was set up and in fact the Syrians were behind the attack.

Could be this is just a pretext - compasionate grounds on the basis he didn't do it?

ndm

August 13th, 2009 7:15pm Report this comment

-- Equally, if permitting a dying man the luxury of dying at home constitutes a "dangerous gesture of surrender to terrorism" then, really, we're losing our minds.

I fear we lost our minds regarding terrorism years ago. Britain suffered Irish terrorism for decades with more than 3,500 deaths and two direct attacks on the Prime Minister one of which almost succeeded. And yet through all that Britain didn't abandon core principles of freedom. But Britain did so in spades following the 9/11 attacks.

And we continue to lose our minds when we raise up every two-bit terrorist in the World to be al-Qaeda and a certain sign that the end of the world is nigh. We have made many awesomely bad mistakes over the last decade but a particularly damaging mistake has been our deliberate overstatement of the danger posed by every two-bit terrorist in the World. It is not terrorism that is the threat to civilization as we know it but our intellectually vacuous response to it. Norm Geras typifies this vacuity with his whole shtick about FKATWOT - he should stick to cricket.

Britain abandoning its historic approach to terrorism coincided with its adoption of any stupid idea used by the American justice system. There have been several foolish imports but the most foolish has been the copying of the American confusion between justice and revenge. Nile Gardiner exemplifies this when he writes that "the families of those who were viciously murdered over Lockerbie deserve to be given a huge say over the fate of Megrahi." Surely the entire point of a humane and decent justice system is that we replace revenge with justice. They deserve our sympathy not a right of revenge.

CassiusClaymore

August 14th, 2009 2:14am Report this comment

Anyone who thinks Megrahi is innocent just can't have read the judgement. There is vast and compelling evidence of his guilt (and, of course, Libya formally accepted responsibility, a fact not oft mentioned in the media). His grounds of appeal are a joke - more or less the classic "a big boy did it and ran away".

Seriously - read the judgement.

Rob Marrs

August 14th, 2009 11:49am Report this comment

What could possibly show what it means to be British than actually showing some humanity so someone who showed so little?

The question should be: Is it just to keep this man, found guilty in a court of law, in jail whilst dying of terminal cancer? If so, keep him in. If not, send him home.

Edward McLaughlin

August 15th, 2009 9:55am Report this comment

Medical science is sometimes a malleable thing.

Ernest Saunders and his miraculous avoidance of the ravages of Alzheimers, shows us how this game can be played.

But even if the man's condition is genuine and serious; if he is guilty of such an extreme crime, for justice to be seen to be done, he should be denied the right to any special release.

Post comment