Scotland released Pan Am 103 bomber

[Darth Wagtaros]

FREEDOM....... for terrorists!

[Sheilbh]

I actually support this move by the Executive.  Unrelated question, in the US is it known as the Pan Am 103 disaster?

However, the Scottish government have royally fucked it all up.  This should embarrass the SNP, because it's been handled dreadfully:

A disastrous debut on the world stage
Scotland's treatment of the Lockerbie bomber has sacrificed compassion, truth and its good name
Magnus Linklater

It is hard to overstate the three issues at the heart of the Lockerbie affair. The first is compassion — for a man, who may be innocent, and is dying in prison. The second is justice — the search for truth about a deadly act of terrorism. The third is reputation — the probity and good name of a government seeking to balance all these against the need to do the right thing.

To sacrifice all three in the course of a week, while at the same time emerging as weak, indecisive, secretive and self-serving, is a quite spectacular achievement. Yet that is what the Nationalist administration in Scotland has succeeded in doing in the course of its first important appearance on the international stage.

In seeking to resolve the fate of the Lockerbie bomber, it has failed to show humanity, failed to uphold the judicial process and failed to demonstrate its ability to manage events in a fair and coherent manner. "Diplomacy," said Sir Humphrey Appleby in Yes, Prime Minister, "is about surviving till the next century — politics is about surviving until Friday." On both counts it has floundered.

No one, to be fair, should underestimate the dilemma that Scottish ministers have been facing — one that would tax even the minds of Moral Maze. A man convicted by a Scottish court of causing the deaths of 270 innocent people is serving life in prison.

The years roll by as a lengthy appeal process unwinds, each time attracting an accumulation of doubt as campaigners dig up claim and counterclaim, suggesting that the conviction was unsafe. Meanwhile, the man himself develops prostate cancer and is said to be close to death. The final appeal, his family say, may come too late.

At this point, a justice minister of mature judgment might have taken stock by consulting those most directly involved — his own law officers, his opposite numbers in London and Washington, his predecessors in office.

This, after all, is not a party matter, but one that involves a wide range of interested, and passionate, participants. He would also have been well advised to keep his counsel until he was absolutely clear what he intended to do.

So far, so straightforward. No need to state anything in public, no need to indicate which way your mind is moving, simply wait until you have reached a decision, then tell the people what it is. As Macchiavelli put it: "If, to be sure, you need to conceal a fact with words, do it in such a way that it does not become known, or, if it does become known, that you have a ready and quick defence."

The sequence that unravelled was so completely the opposite of this that you could conclude only that the Scottish Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill, a liberal-minded lawyer, whose views on penal affairs have been sensible and well argued, was making it up as he went along. From a position where a strong line was held — ministers are staying out of this and leaving the judicial process to take its course — it took on the pattern of a deranged polygraph.

After indicating that he was "minded" to release the bomber on compassionate grounds, Mr MacAskill did something Macchiavelli would certainly have forbidden — he went into prison to see the man himself. Minister and terrorist face to face, a meeting that ensured that Mr MacAskill was no longer at arm's length from the affair.

What did they say to each other? We do not know. But within days, it emerged that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi would indeed be released on compassionate grounds, and might well be back in Libya within a week — in time for Ramadan.

There were, of course, protests from American relatives, but those had been expected. The case would continue, they were told, even in the absence of the accused. But then, just as we were adjusting to this, the defence team announced that it was dropping his appeal.

This had the immediate effect of alienating not only those who had argued that al-Megrahi should stay in prison, but those who wanted him returned; they had always insisted that the case must go on so that his name would be cleared. The immediate supposition was that a deal had been done in that prison cell, perhaps to prevent embarrassing disclosures in the High Court. As for the rest of us, we mourned that the last chance of getting at the truth of this murky, contentious and unresolved mystery was now lost.

Worse, the good reputation of the Scottish judicial system — a prosecution case almost 20 years in the making, and approved by successive lord advocates — was being undermined. It could not, surely, get any worse than that. Except that it could. Enter Hillary Clinton from left field, who succeeded, as secretaries of state do, in getting the Justice Minister's telephone number and giving him an earful. The State Department wanted al-Megrahi held in prison.

At this, the last pretence to a coherent line was dropped, and it was indicated that the Libyan would not after all be returned — at least not yet — and the minister was still "considering" the case. So what we have at present, though the line is changing so fast I may be out of date already, is a convicted terrorist, who has, by dropping his appeal, conceded that he is guilty; held in prison, presumably to die there, with the issue of compassionate release shelved; and the possibility of resolving the matter in the High Court dead in the water.

It is the worst of all possible worlds. The SNP administration of Alex Salmond, which never loses an opportunity of scoring political points to boost its standing in the polls, has failed to demonstrate that, when it comes to the serious business of government, it is capable of rising to the occasion. That not only undermines its reputation as a party, it is a disservice to the nation that it claims to represent.

[citizen k]

I think it's more of a case of "selective compassion". 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-lockerbie21-2009aug21,0,1431516.story

Lockerbie terrorist's release is an ugly act of 'mercy'
The muted U.S. reaction to the bomber's repatriation to Libya adds to the insult to justice.

August 21, 2009

The release by Scotland of Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi, who was expected to spend his life in prison for the 1988 bombing of a Pan American jetliner, was merciful, certainly, but an outrage nonetheless. The "compassionate release" of the terminally ill Libyan terrorist showed no compassion for relatives of the 270 people killed when the jet exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland. Compounding their trauma was the muted protest of the Obama administration.

Instead of viewing the special relationship between the United States and Britain as a cause for candor, the president, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. resorted to diplomatic circumlocution. The president called Megrahi's release "a mistake" and was reduced to asking Libyan dictator Moammar Kadafi not to treat Megrahi as a hero and to place him under house arrest. Clinton issued a statement calling the release "deeply disappointing." Holder shifted into passive voice to say that the interests of justice "have not been served by this decision."

This country has a special interest in punishment for Megrahi because 189 of the victims were Americans, including 35 Syracuse University students returning home for the Christmas season. But whatever their nationality, they were innocent victims of an attack that virtually defined the term "terrorism." For many of their families, a life sentence was the minimum punishment to be meted out to Megrahi. His release and repatriation after serving only eight years thus upends their expectations and undermines the argument that life in prison is an acceptable alternative to execution.

In announcing that he was releasing Megrahi because of the prisoner's advanced prostate cancer, Scottish Minister of Justice Kenny MacAskill sought to shift blame to Britain, which has sole authority in foreign affairs. He said the British government had declined to offer an opinion on the proposed transfer, and also noted that officials from London had negotiated a prisoner-transfer agreement with Libya that failed to provide exclusion for Megrahi. Yet neither that agreement nor Scottish guidelines for compassionate release required MacAskill to release the terrorist. MacAskill's blinkered interpretation of "compassion" took no account of the enormity of Megrahi's crime or his refusal to acknowledge his guilt. Nor are victims' families likely to be assuaged by MacAskill's patronizing promise that Megrahi "now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power."

It's naive to pretend that foreign policy considerations never affect the administration of justice. But no reason of state justified Megrahi's release. Libya already has been amply rewarded by the West for renouncing the development of weapons of mass destruction.

In reacting to Megrahi's release, relatives of the victims used words such as "disgusting" and "outrage." The Obama administration should have been equally, and openly, appalled.

[CountDeMoney]

Fail on all sides.
Scotland, for being Euroweenies as usual.
And, as one of the victims' fathers said, if the US government really didn't want this guy to get out, he wouldn't get out.


I was impressed at the homecoming he got at the airport in Libya.  Lots of love there for terrorists still.

[Sheilbh]

I think it's more of a case of "selective compassion". 

I've a number of points about this.

First of all there are very serious concerns that this wasn't an entirely fair conviction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/world/europe/28cnd-lockerbie.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp

Second, if those allegations are true Scottish justice contains three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty and not proven.  Not proven basically means there's not strong enough evidence for a conviction, but there's also not strong enough evidence for a declaration of innocence.  I disagree with this system because I think a defendant has a right to either be convicted or declared innocent, but it's in Scots law.  On appeal, and the appeal seems relatively strong with a number of unanswered questions, the verdict of 'not proven' could be given which would release the guy.

Third I don't think anyone ever really thought that this guy was behind it.  Even if he had planted the bomb no-one is of the opinion that he was the man behind the decision to bomb the plane or that he was, in that sense, really responsible.  So the conviction was, to some extent, symbolic.  We'll jail the man who put the bomb on the plane because we can't get the guys who are really behind it/the Libyans won't give them up or whatever.  The sad truth is that to some extent he was largely just a symbol of the detente between the West and Gaddafi.

He has a month or so to live, I have no problem with him living out the rest of his time in Libya because I think his conviction could have been unsound and he was a largely symbolic prisoner anyway.  Though I think when someone has a terminal illness that will kill them very shortly that a degree of compassion on the part of the justice system is no bad thing.  Having said that I think that he apparently had to drop his appeal is deeply unfortunate.  I would have liked compassion with truth and an attempt to find answers in one of the most complicated cases in the world.

I would also add that I don't really think the American administration could have prevailed on the Scots one way or the other, because I don't think the British Prime Minister could have.  The Lockerbie investigation has always been a Scottish affair run by Lord Advocates and Secretaries of State for Scotland, since devolution by Lord Advocates and Scottish Ministers of Justice.  I don't think the American government could feasibly have done anything with this anymore than the British government could have much pull with the Attorney General of California (for example) when dealing with a nation state and a devolved state within a nation there's no real incentives or threats that the US could make that would be particular to Scotland, so they could only make them to the UK which has no constitutional right to interfere with Scots justice.  I think if the US, beyond making phonecalls and sending letters, tried to deal directly with the Scots on this then it would piss off the British government with whom the US deals with on every other issue.  I just don't think it's plausible in a situation involving a devolved state.

[DontSayBanana]

I've a number of points about this.

First of all there are very serious concerns that this wasn't an entirely fair conviction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/world/europe/28cnd-lockerbie.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp

Second, if those allegations are true Scottish justice contains three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty and not proven.  Not proven basically means there's not strong enough evidence for a conviction, but there's also not strong enough evidence for a declaration of innocence.  I disagree with this system because I think a defendant has a right to either be convicted or declared innocent, but it's in Scots law.  On appeal, and the appeal seems relatively strong with a number of unanswered questions, the verdict of 'not proven' could be given which would release the guy.

Third I don't think anyone ever really thought that this guy was behind it.  Even if he had planted the bomb no-one is of the opinion that he was the man behind the decision to bomb the plane or that he was, in that sense, really responsible.  So the conviction was, to some extent, symbolic.  We'll jail the man who put the bomb on the plane because we can't get the guys who are really behind it/the Libyans won't give them up or whatever.  The sad truth is that to some extent he was largely just a symbol of the detente between the West and Gaddafi.

He has a month or so to live, I have no problem with him living out the rest of his time in Libya because I think his conviction could have been unsound and he was a largely symbolic prisoner anyway.  Though I think when someone has a terminal illness that will kill them very shortly that a degree of compassion on the part of the justice system is no bad thing.  Having said that I think that he apparently had to drop his appeal is deeply unfortunate.  I would have liked compassion with truth and an attempt to find answers in one of the most complicated cases in the world.

I would also add that I don't really think the American administration could have prevailed on the Scots one way or the other, because I don't think the British Prime Minister could have.  The Lockerbie investigation has always been a Scottish affair run by Lord Advocates and Secretaries of State for Scotland, since devolution by Lord Advocates and Scottish Ministers of Justice.  I don't think the American government could feasibly have done anything with this anymore than the British government could have much pull with the Attorney General of California (for example) when dealing with a nation state and a devolved state within a nation there's no real incentives or threats that the US could make that would be particular to Scotland, so they could only make them to the UK which has no constitutional right to interfere with Scots justice.  I think if the US, beyond making phonecalls and sending letters, tried to deal directly with the Scots on this then it would piss off the British government with whom the US deals with on every other issue.  I just don't think it's plausible in a situation involving a devolved state.

Actually, the "not proven" thing would be very helpful- in the US, we're bound by double jeopardy, so if a premature verdict of innocent is given, there's no recourse but to escalate the case in a superior court; a judge can dismiss a case without prejudice, but I'm not sure until what stage of the trial process they can do so. The possible "not proven" verdict closes a lot of "reasonable doubt" loopholes that trial lawyers in the US exploit- for example, they could have reopened the OJ Simpson case, as it was cleared strictly on reasonable doubt.

[Valmy]

"reasonable doubt" loopholes that trial lawyers in the US exploit

Trial Lawyers work to convince juries that somehow "reasonable doubt" is the same as "no doubt at all" which is absurd.  They also try to convince juries that they are bound by law to decide in favor of innocence if any doubt exists...which is not only against the spirit of the law but the letter as well.  Technically a jury is above the law and can decide guilt or innocence based on anything they see proper, even if most of us try to be as fair as possible.

However that has nothing to do with introducing a bizarre and meaningless legal definition like "not proven".

[ulmont]

However that has nothing to do with introducing a bizarre and meaningless legal definition like "not proven".

"Not proven" is awesome.  "I think you probably did it, but I don't think the government proved their case."

[Sheilbh]

However that has nothing to do with introducing a bizarre and meaningless legal definition like "not proven".

Well it's not new in Scotland.  In Scotland traditionally courts didn't judge whether someone was guilty or not guilty but whether it was proven or not proven.  From there it's evolved into guilty, not guilty and not proven.

I agree it would be pointless to introduce it elsewhere and I have serious objections to it because, as I say, I think people have a right to have their name cleared if the court can't convict.

[DontSayBanana]

Trial Lawyers work to convince juries that somehow "reasonable doubt" is the same as "no doubt at all" which is absurd.  They also try to convince juries that they are bound by law to decide in favor of innocence if any doubt exists...which is not only against the spirit of the law but the letter as well.  Technically a jury is above the law and can decide guilt or innocence based on anything they see proper, even if most of us try to be as fair as possible.

However that has nothing to do with introducing a bizarre and meaningless legal definition like "not proven".

As I said, it would have its place, but only in addressing where a flimsy reasonable doubt defense was used to exploit double jeopardy. We've done without it for a bit over two hundred years, and it only patches a very specific issue, so I do think it'd be inconsequential if it were to be instituted now.

[Admiral Yi]

Unrelated question, in the US is it known as the Pan Am 103 disaster?

Pan Am 103 gets some play but I've heard Lockerbie more.

[Admiral Yi]

Just heard on NPR that dude got a hero's welcome when he landed in Tripoli.

Britain is cancelling some trade talks as a result.

[Barrister]

However that has nothing to do with introducing a bizarre and meaningless legal definition like "not proven".

Well it's not new in Scotland.  In Scotland traditionally courts didn't judge whether someone was guilty or not guilty but whether it was proven or not proven.  From there it's evolved into guilty, not guilty and not proven.

I agree it would be pointless to introduce it elsewhere and I have serious objections to it because, as I say, I think people have a right to have their name cleared if the court can't convict.

I've had quite a few judges say in their decision "Well I think you probably did this, but it hasn't been proven BRD".  I don't see how making that a formal verdict makes any difference.

A not guilty verdict was never intended to "clear someone's name".

[Darth Wagtaros]

However that has nothing to do with introducing a bizarre and meaningless legal definition like "not proven".

Well it's not new in Scotland.  In Scotland traditionally courts didn't judge whether someone was guilty or not guilty but whether it was proven or not proven.  From there it's evolved into guilty, not guilty and not proven.

I agree it would be pointless to introduce it elsewhere and I have serious objections to it because, as I say, I think people have a right to have their name cleared if the court can't convict.

I've had quite a few judges say in their decision "Well I think you probably did this, but it hasn't been proven BRD".  I don't see how making that a formal verdict makes any difference.

A not guilty verdict was never intended to "clear someone's name".

True.

[Sheilbh]

A not guilty verdict was never intended to "clear someone's name".

Doesn't it declare them innocent?