UK

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 7° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

PM 'did not want Megrahi to die in Britain'

As Gaddafi celebrates 40 years' rule in Libya, a new political storm rages over Lockerbie bomber

By Andy McSmith and Nigel Morris

Secure behind bullet-proof glass, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi watches the 40th anniversary parade in Tripoli yesterday

AP

Secure behind bullet-proof glass, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi watches the 40th anniversary parade in Tripoli yesterday

Libyan officials were secretly told that Gordon Brown wanted the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to return home rather than have him die on British soil.

The message was conveyed by a former Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell after the Libyans had warned that Megrahi's death in a Scottish prison would have a "catastrophic" impact on relations between the two countries.

The revelation was contained in a pile of documents released yesterday by the UK and Scottish governments in an attempt to prove that no deal was struck to return Megrahi in exchange for Libyan oil. But it increased the pressure on the Prime Minister to end his two-week silence on whether he supported the release of the terminally ill prisoner. The disclosure was a new setback for Mr Brown who had hoped that the cascade of documents would put an end to the damaging controversy.

David Cameron, the Tory leader, accused Mr Brown of "double dealing" over Megrahi's fate because the US government believed it had a firm promise that the convicted bomber would serve the whole of his life sentence in Scotland.

Video: Leaders react to Megrahi documents

Megrahi's return last month to Tripoli – where he received a hero's welcome – brought condemnation from around the world. His release came after years of intense negotiations that began with a meeting in 2004 between Tony Blair and ColMuammar Gaddafi, who yesterday celebrated his 40th anniversary of seizing power in Libya.

The documents also disclosed that Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, warned it would not be "necessary or sensible" to risk damaging relations with Libya by insisting on Megrahi's exclusion from a prisoner transfer deal.

They showed Mr Straw raised the alarm with Edinburgh over the prisoner's failing health nine months before his release. Reports from Libya yesterday claim Megrahi is now close to death

And the documents reveal that the Foreign Office denied the US government had been given a binding promise that Megrahi would remain in a Scottish jail for life.

The most damning revelation comes in a note of a meeting between Scottish and Libyan officials six months ago, in which Libya's Minister for Europe, Abdulati al-Obidi, claimed Mr Brown and the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, backed the prisoner's return home.

According to notes released by the Scottish government, Libya was given the reassurance in Tripoli by Mr Rammell in February. The note said: "Mr Obidi confirmed that he had reiterated to Mr Rammell that the death of Mr Megrahi in a Scottish prison would have catastrophic effects for the relationship between Libya and the UK. Mr Alobidi went on to say that Mr Rammell had stated that neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary would want Mr Megrahi to pass away in prison but the decision on transfer lies in the hands of the Scottish ministers."

There was silence from Downing Street last night, while a brief statement from Mr Rammell, now a Defence minister, failed to deny the Libyan claim. He only said: "Neither the Libyans or the Scottish Executive were left in any doubt throughout this entire process that this was a decision for the Scottish Executive over which the UK Government sought no influence.

"I made it clear in all my dealings with the Libyans that the decision around Megrahi was exclusively one for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Executive alone."

As Mr Salmond insisted the note was accurate, Mr Cameron renewed his call for an independent inquiry into the affair. The Tory leader said: "The British Government stands accused – and indeed the Prime Minister stands accused – of double dealing. On the one hand apparently saying to the Americans they wanted Megrahi to die in prison, but on the other hand saying privately to the Libyans that they wanted him released. Now we have got to get to the bottom of this."

Papers released by the Ministry of Justice showed the Government changed its mind over the question of transferring Megrahi into Libyan custody between July and December 2007.

During these same months BP was waiting for the Libyan government to ratify the biggest oil exploration deal in the company's history, which was drawn up in May of that year and finally sealed in February 2008.

Explaining his change of heart in a letter to Mr Salmond that month, Mr Straw cited "national interests" and stressed the importance of bringing Libya back into the international community. He wrote: "I don't believe it is necessary or sensible to risk damaging our wide-ranging and beneficial relationship with Libya by inserting a specific exclusion into the PTA [prisoner transfer agreement]."

The papers also show that when the Scottish Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill, received a formal request from the Libyans last May to transfer Megrahi, one of his first actions was to consult the US government. Washington strongly objected and claimed that Britain had promised in 1999 when Megrahi was first handed over by Col Gaddafi that if convicted he would serve his entire sentence in Scotland.

Mr MacAskill wrote to the Foreign Office asking to see all the relevant documents, but it refused. A Foreign Office minister, Ivan Lewis, told him: "While the US pressed the UK to provide a definitive commitment on the future imprisonment of the Lockerbie accused, the UK government of the day declined to do this on the grounds that it did not wish to bind the hands of future governments.

"The then UK government could equally not rule out the possibility that our relations with Libya may one day change."

Both the UK and Scottish governments stressed yesterday that the tortuous negotiations over the prisoner transfer were academic because Megrahi, who is suffering advanced prostate cancer, was not transferred but released on compassionate grounds.

The new evidence: What it shows

"Libya agreed prior to Mr al-Megrahi's trial that anyone convicted of the Lockerbie bomb would serve their sentence in Scotland. We have reminded them of this and made clear... that, for this reason, any Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya could not cover Mr Megrahi."

Letter from Lord Falconer to Alex Salmond, 22 June 2007

"I understand you would prefer that the terms of any Agreement with Libya should specifically exclude al-Megrahi... I have set out below the ways this could be achieved."

Letter from Jack Straw to Kenny MacAskill, 26 July 2007

What the letters show As the UK was negotiating a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) with Libya, both Jack Straw and his predecessor, Lord Falconer, agreed with the SNP that it should never apply to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

"The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and... I have agreed that in this instance the PTS should be in the standard form and not mention any individual."

Letter from Jack Straw to Kenny MacAskill, 19 December 2007

"I do not believe that it is necessary, or sensible, to risk damaging our wide- ranging and beneficial relationship with Libya by inserting a specific exclusion into the PTA."

Letter from Jack Straw to Alex Salmond, 11 February 2008

What the letters show Jack Straw changed his mind in the second half of 2007, making it clear to SNP leaders that this was driven by political considerations.

"Mr Obidi indicated that ... it would be a major problem should Mr Megrahi die in prison, and would be viewed as a form of death sentence."

Note of meeting between Libyan and Scottish officials, 18 November 2008

"Libyan concerns for Megrahi's health and possible return to Libya remain..."

Letter from Jack Straw to Alex Salmond, 21 November 2008

What the letters show The PTA was signed on 17 November 2008, and immediately the Libyans were threatening trouble if Megrahi died in prison.

"Mr al-Obidi spoke of Mr Bill Rammell's (minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office) visit to Tripoli in February ... Mr al-Obidi confirmed that he had reiterated to Mr Rammell that the death of Mr Megrahi in a Scottish prison would have catastrophic effects for the relationship between Libya and the UK. Mr al-Obidi went on to say that Mr Rammell had stated neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary would want Mr Megrahi to pass away in prison..."

Note of meeting between the Scottish government and a Libyan delegation, 12 March 2009

What the document shows This is the first evidence to substantiate that Gordon Brown and David Miliband wanted Megrahi returned to Libya.

"I have spoken to the US Attorney General... Representations were made to me about the continuing effect of agreements that were reached among the US, UK and Libyan governments through the United Nations prior to the surrender of the accused for trial..."

Letter from Kenny MacAskill to David Miliband, July 2009

What the letter shows Having had a formal application from the Libyan government for Megrahi's transfer, Mr MacAskill consulted the US government, who claimed it would break a promise made by the British in 1999.

"While the US pressed the UK to provide a definitive commitment on the future imprisonment of the Lockerbie accused, the UK government of the day declined to do this... I hope on this basis that you will now feel able to consider the Libyan application."

Letter from Ivan Lewis, a Foreign Office minister, to Kenny MacAskill, 3 August 2009

What the letter shows The Foreign Office's version of events is the US asked for that promise but was not given it.

Megrahi: The unanswered questions

* Why has Gordon Brown – not usually reluctant to condemn decisions by the SNP administration in Edinburgh – constantly refused to give his view on the wisdom of releasing Megrahi?

* How did London and Edinburgh decide which were the "relevant" papers relating to the case? What information was contained in other documents?

* The first document released yesterday over Megrahi's fate dated from the summer of 2007. What discussions took place between 2004 – when Tony Blair first met Col Gaddafi – and then?

* What did Britain and Libya say to each other in official discussions about Megrahi? Were notes taken?

* What were the factors that persuaded Jack Straw to change his mind over Megrahi in the "national interest"?

* What was Jack Straw referring to when he warned that "the wider negotiations with the Libyans are at a critical stage"? Was it a reference to talks with BP over its return to the country?

* Did Kenny MacAskill only take into account the state of the prisoner's health when approving his release? How widely did he consult over the prisoner's condition?

* How did the US government gain the impression that Megrahi would spend his life in jail in Scotland? Were ministers saying one thing to Washington and another to Tripoli?

* Did Jack Straw's warning about the dire state of Megrahi's health influence Kenny MacAskill?

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

The worst that could happen...
[info]realetybytes wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 01:22 am (UTC)
...except for anything else.
Seriously, for whatever reason, having this inhuman beast die in Scotland, or under British rules would have been a propaganda feast for the peoples that violently revolt over cartoons!
It served its sentence in the jail, it is a dead shell now. Better it not be made into a martyr.
I hate to go here, but the results of the Danish cartoons, (out of countrol riots and deaths all over europe), are evidence that you cannot dare tick off your real masters. Your sharia courts are proof of who the real masters are.
The only place those cartoons were published that did not produce death, was America. A free populace with the right to bear arms kept that from happening here.
Arm your people, and take back your country.
Until then, these are the safety measures, (letting the beast go), to which you must adhere.
It defineatly was for "humanitarian" reasons, but not for it. Saving your citizens from out of control rioters with guaranteed deaths due to your inability to defend your own country.
Re: The worst that could happen...
[info]usatom wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 02:33 am (UTC)
I hate to admit it but the politically correct lefties in our country (the U.S.) didn't allow the cartoons to be shown here. I agree you need to fight these *its* but the liberals in the U.S. are just as scared as those in your once proud country.
Re: The worst that could happen...
[info]realetybytes wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 03:07 am (UTC)
I do believe that those cartoons, while not broadcast on the liberal MSM, were published here, in numerous places. Other than that, I agree with your assessment of the conditions being foisted upon us by the socialists in our government. At least there are no more murderers in the senate!
Ron Reale
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com
Re: The worst that could happen...
[info]drahcir38 wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 08:22 am (UTC)
You couldn't be anything other than an American (and no doubt proud of it). What do you do, you dont look at the fact that we are indeed talking about another human being here (no matter what he may or in fact may not have done), you try to invent him into some kind of inhuman character and that makes it easier for your simple little mind to deal with by referring to him as "it". Dont forget, many people throughout the world would consider you to be the shit on their shoes, hows it feel to be an it?
Re: The worst that could happen...
[info]pozac wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 09:45 am (UTC)
What? OH I see...YOU are one of those people you are talking about. Are you an IT (and no doubt proud of it?).
Re: The worst that could happen...
[info]wiburfescue wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 12:20 pm (UTC)
And those would generally be people who owe their very existence to America, but let us not quibble eh?
Re: The worst that could happen...
[info]realetybytes wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 11:13 pm (UTC)
It is a beast, and your defense says much about you. If your lack of a moral compass can make you worry about an inhuman beast being called an inhuman beast, you are beyond intelligent conversation.
Until I go and give "people throughout the world" reason to loathe my existence, I worry not what people think of me
O that's right, I forgot, Bush did it.
Ron Reale
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com
Re: The worst that could happen...
[info]utahmink wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 05:15 pm (UTC)
realetbytes:
The majority of Americans are sick and tired of hearing the rantings of the teabaggers/conservative right. Go back and watch some more Faux News and Glenn Beck or better yet - educate yourself, read some accurate history of the US and the world and stop with the "socialist" bit - it's getting old and worn.
Re: The worst that could happen...
[info]realetybytes wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 11:08 pm (UTC)
I have educated myself, that is why I know we have a socialist/facist traitor in the white house, doing his best to destroy capitalism. I, without getting insulting like others I know,can site examples of his traitorous deeds.
If you think it's getting old, that is just what they want you to think, so they can roll over your apathetic body.
I would love it if just once, one of you libs could give examples of "faux" news on FOX. FOX is beating all other networks because they are lying, right?
Or is it because, unlike you, everyone else is just too stupid to realize it, right?
If you see no socialism in this governments actions, (health care), or facism, (GM and Chrysler), you need to look more carefully, but I think you want the destruction of the US capitalist system.
Ron Reale
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com
The Last Line of my post...
[info]realetybytes wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 01:51 am (UTC)
Saving your citizens from out of control rioters with guaranteed deaths due to your inability to defend your own country. THAT'S the "humanitarian reason".
Ron Reale
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com
Mr Brown is a fool ...
[info]kalvisjansons wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 05:18 am (UTC)
... and the Labour party is out of control:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/

It is surely time for the big push to get rid of him. So far 70,000 people want him out, which is more than 3 times more than voted for him.
Can we have....
[info]smarttog wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 06:23 am (UTC)
A straight truefull answer please????

Did Gordon Brown want the Libyan released????

Even if it was the wrong decision, which I am not saying it is necessarily, at least have the courage to give a true account. Rather than it being dragged out piece by piece.

Such a lack of truth means that the government cannot be trusted at any level and must therefore put itself up for re-election.

Even the raving loony party would be better than this bunch of self interested, self indulgent, power grasping cowards.
PM 'did not want Megrahi to die in Britain'
[info]famulla wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 07:13 am (UTC)
As Gaddafi celebrates 40 years' rule in Libya, a new political storm rages over Lockerbie bomber
By Andy McSmith and Nigel Morris
I agree with Mr. Brown
The burila costs are very high in UK and the tax and oil going up is too much for anyone to have in his bed
What I am surprised is, UK is upset about the LAW of Scots? Do they prove anything besides shouting?
IS SCOTLAND A PART OR BROWN OR DAVIDE(David) CAMERON?
The plane dived in the land; they did not sleep for nights I said this before http://opinion.independentminds.livejournal.com/1169722.html
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
doesnt look like a witch to me but hey, thats not the point is it
[info]freedommonger wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 08:11 am (UTC)
So what precisely is the story? That UK gov expressed their view that Magrahi should not die in jail but did nothing to alter what was a Scottish decision?

Pathetic. Where is the crime in the UK gov expressing a view? There is no crime, nothing, just the ever spreading British disease (mental illness) of "people" who wish to loath ourselves over anything and everything regardless of reality and certainly only applying these mentalist "standards" to ourselves and never to others.

Why not just hate ourselves for the simple reason we want to, state it honestly so people can see this aberration for what it is, instead of making up these never ending piles of nothing passing off as journalism which it is not. It is witch hunting rabble rousing propaganda. It sells though, big time, to the mentally ill masses in their rich yet still strangely empty lives (no one to blame you see except yourself hence the need for mental illness to "justify" how you feel)
English Media Don't Get It
[info]muckle10 wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 08:31 am (UTC)
1. The Scottish government is not the UK government.

2. The SNP is DEFINITELY not the Labour Party

3. Alex Salmond is not Gordon Brown

4. Kenny MacAskill is not Jack Straw

5. Compassionate release is not a Prisoner Transfer Agreement

6. The Scottish judicial system is not the English judicial system

7. A Scottish quasi-judicial process is not UK foreign policy


a. UK government ministers stated that they did not want Megrahi to die in a Scottish prison.

b. UK government ministers changed their position on the Prisoner Transfer Agreement to include Megrahi.

c. The Scottish justice minister following due process rejected the use of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement.

d. The Scottish justice minister following due process accepted prisoner release on compassionate grounds.

Q. Which of the above does the English media don't get?

A. All of it!


Re: English Media Don't Get It
[info]freedommonger wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 10:16 am (UTC)
well said. do a public good, name the UK media for what it is, a sewer staffed by people who are by measures ignorant, slothful and bigoted.

What can be said in defense of the UK media? Nothing I say. They reflect you, dear reader, for it is you who they "serve" and your self loathing mental illness.

Britain used to be a great country but, like a fish, it is rotting from the head, from inside of individual minds. The UK media promotes and glorifies our decline. They need failure and human misery as it is their oxygen
Re: English Media Don't Get It
[info]wiburfescue wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 12:28 pm (UTC)
They ceased being journalists when they ceased being fair. About the same time they decided they would change the world with their slanted reporting. Damn the truth, it's about the cause.
The question is, "Did Brown interfere."
[info]rustyroosterfan wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 08:37 am (UTC)
The question is not what Brown wanted. I wanted this guy to die at home too. So what?

The question is, "Did Brown interfere."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-turse/my-lai-and-lockerbie-reco_b_272279.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081201/turse/single

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081201/turse_web
As a Canadian watching the US and reading the UK media
[info]rustyroosterfan wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 08:44 am (UTC)
I can say muckle10 has it exactly right.

The English think their parliament has more power than it does.

And the US can't hold the Scots to blame, so they blame the UK.

But really, in the USA this is yesterday's news.

It has gotten around about how they overlook their own war crimes, their own terrorists.

They don't want My Lai brought up.

So they mostly want to forget the whole thing.
Re: As a Canadian watching the US and reading the UK media
[info]wiburfescue wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 12:25 pm (UTC)
Good try, My Lai has what to do with blowing up a plane full of innocents 25 years later?
Inquiry into Lockerbie required
[info]allenn007 wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 09:06 am (UTC)
Whether or not a dying man, albeit convicted by a kangaroo court, should be sent home is hardly the issue here.

The Scottish Government acted in a humanitrian fashion in releasing him at the same time acknowledging that his release would be politically expedient, building bridges with a section of the world that has become alieniated. Also the Scottish Government realised that it would be commercially expedient for British business interests and this was no doubt of interest to London as well, and the British public as a whole. Hence the truth about Brown wanting his release too.

What is needed is the truth to be uncovered surrounding Lockerbie itself, although the Americans have already demonstrated their desperation to keep the truth covered and to uphold the unsafe conviction of Al Megrahi. It is something that the Scottish Government could and should be pushing for as a matter of urgency, on behalf of the victims' families and the wider public.
Now there are actually two seperate issues
[info]deimosp wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 10:11 am (UTC)
This incident has now become two separate issues:
a) Should this guy have been released
b) Are our government being straight and honest to the electorate and other countries

a) Should he have been released ?
Different people will have different attitudes to this. It will surprise nobody that the relatives of the victims feel strongly, that the US feels strongly, etc. (nothing right or wrong with this). I think there is probably no "right" answer and my own opinion would just contribute to the ongoing poll (the "Oh yes he should, Oh no he shouldn't" - which will make no difference to anybody as there is no way he is going back to prison in Scotland now).

b) Our Government
Is the more important question as it seems they are saying one thing to some, something different to others and saying nothing to those they are supposedly represent !! and it is those who they represent who are the ones they really should be open with. There is no excuse for Brown's secrecy on this. e should tell us what he is doing in our name. the problem comes in that this would then reveal how "two faced" he has been and would upset many - so for political reasons he is keeping his mouth shut. He should remember his job is to represent the electorate and he is accountable to us and at the moment he is acting as a dictator.
Brits negotiat with terrorists
[info]travismlc wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 11:05 am (UTC)
What this shows is that the policy in the UK is that they negotiate with terrorists for oil. 'nuf said.
He is kind to the cruel will wind up being cruel to the kind.....
[info]geulanow wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 11:42 am (UTC)
There is a statement in the Talmud:

He who is kind to the cruel will wind up being cruel to the kind.......

"no binding promise"
[info]ts86 wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 12:02 pm (UTC)
Hey Jack and Gordon, just let your yes be yes and your no be no, so we don't have to figure out if your word is a "binding promise" or the opposite, which I suppose is a nonbinding promise???
Mr. Brown...
[info]five_am2000 wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 01:10 pm (UTC)
just confirms to the whole world that he is a ball-less idiot...
Gift boondoggle meaningless?
[info]headmaxroom wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 03:40 pm (UTC)
What seems like an insignificant gaffe when it occurs can have far-reaching consequences over time. The Obama administration's ham handed gift giving gaffe (Wal-mart DVD collections, etc.) certainly sent a message to the PM and the U.K. government that they were less important of an ally to the Obama White House.

How can you expect a PM to take what he feels is a risk (rioting over the death of this monster in a jail cell) for an "Ally" that has snubbed you twice this year?

Coincidence? I think not.
Re: Gift boondoggle meaningless?
[info]utahmink wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 05:05 pm (UTC)
How ridiculous you are!
Oil, Oil, who's got the Oil
[info]utahmink wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 05:04 pm (UTC)
The message coming through loud and clear on this whole issue is that the world, particularly the US needs to get its act together and get going on alternative energy sources or we will all forever be held hostage to those who have the oil. Fortunately, we finally have a President who sees the light and is trying to push us in the right direction. Unfortunately, the rightwing Christian conservatives a/k/a Republicans keep holding us back. They still don't believe there is such a thing a global warming!!!
PM 'did not want Megrahi to die in Britain'
[info]janye1 wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 05:19 pm (UTC)
The relatives and friends of the bomber's victims did not want them to die at all.
Nutter
[info]milesbatch wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 06:52 pm (UTC)
I found the video of him smiling whilst having talks with the nutter deeply disturbing. And Gaddafi isn't much better!
Adam Smith on Brown's act
[info]wayne1945 wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 09:23 pm (UTC)
"Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." -- Adam Smith (1723-1790)



Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date