Jail Megrahi!
A growing chorus of people is calling for Abdel al-Megrahi, to be placed in gaol again.
Any regular of Private Eye would know that his original conviction was based on incredibly weak forensic evidence and very dubious witness statements. There is considerable evidence of dark and dirty backroom dealing by various secret services to get someone banged up and the whole thing swept under the carpet. This is disgraceful, because it means that the people who are left behind have not, despite all appearances to the contrary, received justice.
His release on medical grounds was thoroughly vetted and was completely lawful.
Apparently, he has broken the terms of his bail conditions because his parole officer has been unable to reach him on the phone, hardly surprising given what is happening in Tripoli at the moment.
And yet now people are calling for him to be put in gaol again. You can tell by the way that it’s being reported that this is just cheap political point-scoring against the SNP, or possibly to shore up the votes of “right-thinking” Daily Mail readers.
But the most surprising person to join the chorus is Nick Clegg. As either a Liberal or a Social Democrat, there should be no call for him to require a person who has done his time, been lawfully released on compassionate grounds and has not committed any subsequent crime, to be put in gaol again.
It once again underscores the complete lack of principle in modern British politicians, who will say anything, literally anything, if they think it will gain them more votes than it loses them. There are no principles, no beliefs, no rules in the world of modern politics. It is all about expediency, soundbites and bandwagons.
It is also profoundly depressing.
August 29, 2011 at 14:48
- August 27, 2011 at 14:29
-
I think everyone is missing the bleedin obvious re Megrahi living his life
of Reilly in downtown Tripoli.
He has and is being treated for his terminal cancer with a hormone based
drug which was developed by The Institute of Cancer Research of the UK and
part funded, I think by Cancer UK.
The drug is not approved by the EU and thus not available to treat people
in Scotland or the rest of the UK. There is no guarantee that it will be
approved for funding, when it is.
Thus ironically he is receiving a better treatment than he could have
received in prison in Scotland and possibly because of the same is living
longer than he would have.
The drug is called Abiraterone and costs about £3,000 a month but I would
doubt if that treatment will continue for long unless he has a stash under his
bed, wherever that might be.
- August 26, 2011 at 21:39
-
I don’t always agree with Private Eye, but I am convinced that Megrahi was
not guilty, and was only released to avoid the embarrassment of a successful
appeal. The evidence seems to have been very weak.
- August 26, 2011 at 22:50
-
A successful appeal would not only have freed Megrahi and embarrassed the
Scottish legal authorities, it would have meant that they had no one to pin
the crime on, and thus they would have had to reopen the investigation,
which was the very last thing they wanted to do.
- August 27, 2011 at 14:23
-
You may be right, 99. My view is that the Scottish Executive’s real
nightmare scenario was set out in the final paragraph of the judgment in
Megrahi’s bail application of November 2008.
- August 26, 2011 at 18:56
-
August 26, 2011 at 18:49
-
A few days ago, I was chatting to a friend on Twitter and I made a couple
of slightly sniffy comments regarding the US legal system in relation to the
highly dubious fudge which resulted in the West Memphis Three getting
released. For those unfamiliar with the story, the three entered what are
known as “Alford pleas” under which they asserted their innocence but conceded
there was sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, and got their sentences
reduced to time served, with a further period suspended. For the accused (one
of whom was on death row), this gave them a guaranteed release, as opposed to
a possible release if their forthcoming appeal succeeded. For the prosecutors,
it enabled them to claim that they got the right people all along and avoid
being sued. It also conveniently enabled the DA and the AG to pursue their
campaigns for higher office without a potentially-embarassing appeal / lawsuit
hovering over them.
Anyway. Shoddy compromise, I called it. Equivocal pleas, I said. Wouldn’t
be allowed over here. Technically, I was right, but the route taken in the
Megrahi case is only very slightly different, and the parallel didn’t occur to
me at the time. Megrahi didn’t reach a plea agreement, as such, but it was a
pre-condition of his compassionate release that he drop his forthcoming
appeal. Guaranteed freedom as opposed to possible freedom. With the Reaper
hovering in the background, coughing discreetly and glancing at his watch, who
wouldn’t take that offer?
But if the authorities were entirely satisfied with his guilt, why on earth
would they take it? This was a man who, if guilty, was responsible for the
deaths of 270 people. Men, women, and children. Even the higher-end estimates
for Harold Shipman’s victims top out at around 250. Can you imagine him being
given compassionate release? I mean, Peter Sutcliffe has been told he’s going
nowhere, ever, and he’s 65 years old, blind, diabetic, seriously mentally ill,
has served 30 years in prison and he only killed 13 people. Megrahi, on the
other hand, had served about 8 years. That’s less than half of his minimum
term. He wasn’t even eligible to apply for parole for another 11 or 12 years.
If the evidence of his guilt were that compelling, I don’t think too many
people would have objected very strongly to him dying in prison.
It has to be said, that this situation is even more pronounced in the case
of the WM3. None of them are dying of cancer. The only risk to their ongoing
health was the State’s determination to execute one of them. They too had the
choice of guaranteed freedom against possible freedom, and for Damien Echolls
the choice was definitely-not-executed against maybe-not-executed. One of the
others even stated when he was released that he wouldn’t have taken the deal,
if it weren’t for the fact that Echolls was on death row.
But why in God’s name would the prosecutors take it? If they’re guilty,
then these three boys (well, men now; they were banged up for 18 years)
tortured, mutilated and murdered three children in a Satanic ceremony. They’ve
never shown a shred of remorse. No rehab work or psychiatric treatment has
been done to try and analyse and ameloriate whatever risk they pose. They’re
still young, healthy men, perfectly capable of murdering other children.
Surely they pose as much of a risk now as they did when they were locked up?
One of them was considered so evil that the only thing to do with him was kill
him. And it turns out that after 18 years in prison, all they needed to do was
go “I didn’t do it, but there is some evidence saying I did” and the
prosecutors would say “Thanks, that’s all we were looking for really. Just an
acknowledgement that we had some evidence. Appreciate your time. Off you
go.”
I don’t profess to know what precisely was going through the minds of the
authorities in either case, but were I a wagering man, I’d bet it went
something like this:
“When they win this appeal, we’re going to look like complete idiots. And
then we’re going to get sued. Like, reallly, really sued. I’ll probably have
to put my daughter on the game, just to pay the interest. Someone come up with
an exit strategy or I’ll take all of you bastards down with me.”
That’s not a precise transcription, obviously. The Scottish one probably
thought “Och” and “Wee” at some point, and I’d imagine the American one manage
to squeeze a “Y’all” in there somewhere. But the gist is probably right.
And it’s striking to note that despite the fact that equivocal pleas are
totally, completely and utterly inadmissible in the UK, they still managed to
come up with something that acheived almost precisely the same thing.
-
August 27, 2011 at 00:15
-
@ Psychonaut99. Extremely well thought out comment… and very likely near
the truth. I’d only just discovered the concept of Alford pleas a few days
ago but didn’t make the connection you have.
As for Megrahi. Let him be. His life (what remains of it) in Libya will
be less comfortable now that his patron is on the run.
For the record, I’ve always believed (from the get go) that Libya’s
partial involvement was merely on a subcontract basis.
- August 26, 2011 at 14:31
-
Couple of points, he’s not actually breached the arrangements of the
compassionate relief yet (see http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.com/2011/08/send-megrahi-back-to-chokey.html
for the legal explanation.) There is the notion that by appearing at a
pro-Gaddafi rally he breached it but no court would or could take action since
Gaddafi probably isn’t the type of man anyone says no to. “But Muammar,
Renfrewshire Council said I couldn’t attend…”
I’ve also heard the stories about Iranian planes being shot down and
revenge attacks, false flag ops by the CIA etc, none of them tested in court,
arguably though becuase of the conditions insisted upon by the US, the trial
Megrahi did get wasn’t exactly creditable, I would argue the Lockerbie bombing
hasn’t been properly tested in court either.
What possible political ploy could the Scottish Government be deploying ,
more over, what would there be to gain except perhaps save some embarassment
for the Scottish legal system.
And to finish, Megrahi has been subjected to the kind of medical treatment
that either isn’t accepted as being safe or hasn’t been tested by UK medical
authorities, it is widely held that that is the reason he’s still shuffling
around although it is an embarassment to the Scottish Government, when a
doctor offer a prognosis on life span you can’t expect the patient to just die
three, six or twelve months hence because the doctor said so.
- August 26, 2011 at 13:57
- August 26, 2011 at 13:42
-
Could someone tell me why Megrahi was surrendered to the court for trial by
Gadaffi in the first place, if the Libyans knew he was not actually
guilty.
They are perfectly capable of manufacturing enough evidence in
Libya, and then trying and shooting a random prisoner for the offense without
the nonsense of handing over their own man.
I have no idea about the trial,
but handing him over for trial and then welcoming him back makes no sense at
all.
- August 26, 2011 at 14:40
-
Hi.
Libya surrendered him as part of a package in exchange for sanctions on
the country being lifted by the UN.
It’s a funny one though, Megrahi was a low grade intelligence officer (so
we are told anyway,) and head of security for LAA. Either he was told that
going through the motions of the trial and being imprisoned (possibly) was
his new mission or they just hung him out to dry.
I suppose he also has family, possible leverage there too, they might
have said go and do this and your family will want for nothing, refuse and
they’ll disappear.
In a sense the Scottish Legal system shot itself in the foot by agreeing
to all the stuff demanded by the US/UK etc in terms of the court case being
held elsewhere, by doing that, Megrahi was able to then start claiming
innocense (oddly enough, rightly so) keeping the whole thing in the media.
Meanwhile, Westminster, Holyrood atc are made to look daft for fumbling the
ball.
Gaddafi must’ve been laughing up his sleeve at it all.
- August 26, 2011 at 15:27
-
Possibly even a ‘Jack Ruby’ moment!
- August 26, 2011 at 16:07
-
Innocence…
Erm…
- August 26, 2011 at 15:18
-
I think the apposite term is; taking one for the team. Megrahi was handed
over to get the sanctions lifted.
- August
26, 2011 at 12:51
-
Yesterday, Thursday, I suggested other reasons to leave Megrahi alone. The
whole thing is a bad business and there are critical matters to deal with in
relation to which this would be just another complication.
-
August 26, 2011 at 12:40
-
If Mr Magrahi (sic) was wrongly jailed in the first place Daz, you should
be glad he was released, however much you dislike the manner of his release.
He was jailed on false evidence for a crime carried out by the CIA and Pasdarn
themselves to give Iran its one and one only revenge for the shooting down
(deliberately) of IR655, the Iranian Airbus.
-
August 26, 2011 at 13:02
-
Charles, I’ve heard those stories, but then they haven’t been tested or
checked in court. If he didn’t do it (and there’s an explanation of events
that suggests he didn’t) then not only should he be released but the
conviction overturned. Maybe the release on compassionate grounds was, to a
coin a phrase, ‘a miserable little compromise’?
- August 26, 2011 at
12:39
-
It was a political ploy by the Scottish government to release this
terrorist who was found guilty by a Scottish court. Is the original verdict
being questioned as to its integrity? There is no reason why having failed in
his legal obligation he should not be subject to recall like any other
convicted murderer.
- August 26, 2011 at 22:47
-
“Is the original verdict being questioned as to its integrity?”
Hell yes!
- August 26, 2011 at 12:31
-
The disclosure of all the medical evidence on which he was released would
go a long way. Like the author, I’m deeply sceptical as to his initial guilt,
but then the ‘compassionate grounds’ release looks like a pretty dumb move
now.
Is there any reason why a re-trial cannot take place?
- August 26, 2011 at 12:18
-
Don’t be so quick to doubt Salmond, the press do nothing, in fact propagate
the notion that the SNP and Salmond are somehow against the English; he and
they are not though, they are against the current westminster system, the
English are as much a victim of it as are the Welsh and the Scots, we north of
the borber are lucky enough to have an alternative political party that (so
far) has been fairly honest.
On Megrahi, the only thing I think the SNP administration did was dodge a
bullet, I think if he’d been allowed an appeal it would have been very
embarassing for the Scottish legal system and with the current climate within
the press, even although the SNP were not in power during the ‘trial’ of
Megrahi, the press would make sure the shit stuck to Salmond & McAskill
and wider SNP party.
Contrast that with fact, labour in power (at westminster) at the time were
prepared to do a deal with the Libyan’s on behalf of BP even although
comp-release was a devolved matter. The idea that the SNP would cooperate with
the UK government on this, especially a labour UK government is farcical. In
the press though, Westminster often gets confused with Holyrood, the two seem
to merge, especially when there is blame to be spread around.
Also, there is no parole board in Scotland, its Renfrewshire Council who
are responsible for keeping tabs on Megrahi and since the country is war torn,
I think even the ample resources of that august council would be hard
stretched to manage.
Clegg is a turncoat and not worthy of comment.
On re-jailing (probably not a word) Megrahi, Leland’s peat worrier (another
blog) explains that it’s not possible under the current law comp-release laws,
incidentally voted in by the tories I think in 1993. Read the peat worrier
blog though, its very enlightening.
- August 26, 2011 at 13:53
- August 26, 2011 at 11:18
-
I did a double take when Clegg was spouting off about Megrahi. That
confirms to me that he has not one single prinicple left – if he ever had any
in the first place
-
August 26, 2011 at 14:18
-
His principles have never waivered – Nick first, second and last. Of
course similar may be said of many other politicians!
- August 26, 2011 at 11:08
-
August 26, 2011 at 10:51
-
I agree with that conclusion!
{ 27 comments }