Megrahi - the Ronnie Biggs connection

Author: Jon Snow|Posted: 1:35 pm on 01/09/09

http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/2009/09/01/megrahi-the-ronnie-biggs-
connection/
http://tinyurl.com/mc8tg4

Over the summer, the fog of ‘conspiracy’, ‘commercial deals’ and more have 
clouded around the fundamentals of what we know about the ‘early release’ of 
the convicted Libyan ‘Lockerbie bomber’.

I’ll be surprised if today’s release by Edinburgh and London of the 
‘Lockerbie papers’ dispels the clouds significantly.

The UK government has worked overtime to distance itself from the decision 
of the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, to free Abdel Basset al-
Megrahi on compassionate grounds, citing the autonomy of the Scottish legal 
process.

Let’s be clear, though, there’s much muttering among the diplomatic and 
legal ‘insiders’ in this case, to whom I have spoken over the years, that 
they are are in absolutely no doubt that the Megrahi release was “driven 
from the top”.

One of the mysteries about the case was the complete U-turn conducted by UK 
Justice Secretary Jack Straw over the early release on ‘compassionate 
grounds’ of train robber Ronnie Biggs.

On July 1st Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would NOT be released on 
parole despite the train robber’s evidently failing health. Within just 
thirty seven short summer days, on August 6th, Biggs was out, in Straws new 
words, “very ill… his condition has deteriorated… death… likely to occur 
soon.”

What’s the release of a Great Train Robbery villain got to do with all this? 
Well, it would have been untenable politically for Biggs, whose release had 
been so recently rejected and who had killed no one, to stay in prison 
whilst Megrahi who had allegedly killed 270 people was freed.

Mr Straw has that rare qualification in this matter in that he knows both 
the legal and diplomatic issues surrounding this case. Oliver Miles, the 
former UK Ambassador to Libya, is quoted as asking why Megrahi gave up his 
legal appeal against conviction, an appeal he has always very publicly 
committed himself to pursuing.

“I’ve got a nasty feeling”, says Miles, “That he [Megrahi] did it because 
someone tipped him the wink that he was more likely to get a humanitarian 
release if he gave it up”.

There’s a view - some would call it conspiratorial, others would call it 
well-informed - that it’s proved much more convenient for the government to 
suffer the allegation that this was a ‘release for oil’, than that anyone 
would seriously examine the questionability of the case against Libya and Mr 
Megrahi.

Legal sources very close to Megrahi’s defence team have told me that a 
number of lawyers have been convinced from the very beginning that neither 
Libya nor Megrahi were central to the Lockerbie bombing.

Defence lawyers often resent losing a case, but in this case one very senior 
and much respected QC in the case has passionately believed all along that 
at the very least the Lockerbie trial that convicted Megrahi constituted a 
“profound miscarriage of justice”.

Those of us who have reported on Iran over the years have been much more 
intrigued by the view that Lockerbie had a strong Iranian involvement in 
reprisal for the shooting down by a US navy cruiser of an Iranian civilian 
airliner in the Straits of Hormuz.

Iran Air Flight IR 655 was destroyed with the loss of 290 lives, on 3rd July 
1988 by the American warship the USS Vincennes. The Americans maintained 
that the Vincennes had mistakenly identified Iran Air flight as an attacking 
F-14 Tomcat fighter and fired upon it.

Lockerbie occurred the following December 21st. But whilst Libya was already 
the subject of sanctions and international pressure, meting out the same 
treatment against the vastly more powerful and populous nation of Iran would 
have been a highly dangerous diplomatic manoeuvre.

The isolation of Libya was only broken by the payment by Libya of 
‘reparations’ for Lockerbie to the tune of some $2.7 billion. (America on 
the other hand paid Iran $131.8 million for the shooting down of the Iranian 
airliner, although US insisted the payment meant it did not accept liability 
for the shooting.)

Neither America not Britain has ever wanted the Lockerbie case re-opened. 
Megrahi’s appeal was on course to do just that.

Just as Biggs had to be freed if Megrahi was to come out - if you believe 
those I’ve talked to - so Megrahi HAD to be freed if the inevitability of a 
dangerous re-opening of the case was to be avoided.

Is Oliver Miles, the former ambassador right that this is the core of the 
‘mystery’? He calls it a ‘political deal’ not a compassionate one.

Is he right? Is a grubby deal about oil the real issue?

Or is it something with very much wider and more serious ramifications?

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

"Robin T Cox"  wrote in message 
news:0k9nm.74285$OO7.34802@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Megrahi - the Ronnie Biggs connection
>
> Author: Jon Snow|Posted: 1:35 pm on 01/09/09
>
> http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/2009/09/01/megrahi-the-ronnie-biggs-
> connection/
> http://tinyurl.com/mc8tg4
>
> Over the summer, the fog of 'conspiracy', 'commercial deals' and more have
> clouded around the fundamentals of what we know about the 'early release' 
> of
> the convicted Libyan 'Lockerbie bomber'.
>
> I'll be surprised if today's release by Edinburgh and London of the
> 'Lockerbie papers' dispels the clouds significantly.
>
> The UK government has worked overtime to distance itself from the decision
> of the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, to free Abdel Basset 
> al-
> Megrahi on compassionate grounds, citing the autonomy of the Scottish 
> legal
> process.
>
> Let's be clear, though, there's much muttering among the diplomatic and
> legal 'insiders' in this case, to whom I have spoken over the years, that
> they are are in absolutely no doubt that the Megrahi release was "driven
> from the top".
>
> One of the mysteries about the case was the complete U-turn conducted by 
> UK
> Justice Secretary Jack Straw over the early release on 'compassionate
> grounds' of train robber Ronnie Biggs.
>
> On July 1st Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would NOT be released on
> parole despite the train robber's evidently failing health. Within just
> thirty seven short summer days, on August 6th, Biggs was out, in Straws 
> new
> words, "very ill. his condition has deteriorated. death. likely to occur
> soon."
>
> What's the release of a Great Train Robbery villain got to do with all 
> this?
> Well, it would have been untenable politically for Biggs, whose release 
> had
> been so recently rejected and who had killed no one, to stay in prison
> whilst Megrahi who had allegedly killed 270 people was freed.
>
> Mr Straw has that rare qualification in this matter in that he knows both
> the legal and diplomatic issues surrounding this case. Oliver Miles, the
> former UK Ambassador to Libya, is quoted as asking why Megrahi gave up his
> legal appeal against conviction, an appeal he has always very publicly
> committed himself to pursuing.
>
> "I've got a nasty feeling", says Miles, "That he [Megrahi] did it because
> someone tipped him the wink that he was more likely to get a humanitarian
> release if he gave it up".
>
> There's a view - some would call it conspiratorial, others would call it
> well-informed - that it's proved much more convenient for the government 
> to
> suffer the allegation that this was a 'release for oil', than that anyone
> would seriously examine the questionability of the case against Libya and 
> Mr
> Megrahi.
>
> Legal sources very close to Megrahi's defence team have told me that a
> number of lawyers have been convinced from the very beginning that neither
> Libya nor Megrahi were central to the Lockerbie bombing.
>
> Defence lawyers often resent losing a case, but in this case one very 
> senior
> and much respected QC in the case has passionately believed all along that
> at the very least the Lockerbie trial that convicted Megrahi constituted a
> "profound miscarriage of justice".
>
> Those of us who have reported on Iran over the years have been much more
> intrigued by the view that Lockerbie had a strong Iranian involvement in
> reprisal for the shooting down by a US navy cruiser of an Iranian civilian
> airliner in the Straits of Hormuz.
>
> Iran Air Flight IR 655 was destroyed with the loss of 290 lives, on 3rd 
> July
> 1988 by the American warship the USS Vincennes. The Americans maintained
> that the Vincennes had mistakenly identified Iran Air flight as an 
> attacking
> F-14 Tomcat fighter and fired upon it.
>
> Lockerbie occurred the following December 21st. But whilst Libya was 
> already
> the subject of sanctions and international pressure, meting out the same
> treatment against the vastly more powerful and populous nation of Iran 
> would
> have been a highly dangerous diplomatic manoeuvre.
>
> The isolation of Libya was only broken by the payment by Libya of
> 'reparations' for Lockerbie to the tune of some $2.7 billion. (America on
> the other hand paid Iran $131.8 million for the shooting down of the 
> Iranian
> airliner, although US insisted the payment meant it did not accept 
> liability
> for the shooting.)
>
> Neither America not Britain has ever wanted the Lockerbie case re-opened.
> Megrahi's appeal was on course to do just that.
>
> Just as Biggs had to be freed if Megrahi was to come out - if you believe
> those I've talked to - so Megrahi HAD to be freed if the inevitability of 
> a
> dangerous re-opening of the case was to be avoided.
>
> Is Oliver Miles, the former ambassador right that this is the core of the
> 'mystery'? He calls it a 'political deal' not a compassionate one.
>
> Is he right? Is a grubby deal about oil the real issue?
>
> Or is it something with very much wider and more serious ramifications?
>
> -- 
> Facts are sacred ... but comment is free



I think Megrahi's release was the symptom of a much wider disease.  So much 
was going on underneath.  The lid will never stay on all this.

This case should be re-opened.  It just shows how vulnerable we all are 
before our governments.  Even under the rule of law you're really not that 
much safer if they're really out to get you than you would be in some 
dictatorship.

Megrahi didn't need to drop his appeal.  That would surely have been 
explained to him.  What was his appeal going to turn up?   I hope if the 
Conservatives get back in they re-open this case - which was held during 
Labour's time at the top.  I don't expect they will, but I would be very 
interested to see a few rocks turned in this case.   If Megrahi is 
innocent - and it was always known he probably was innocnet - it's unjust 
that the last eight years of his life just get written off to save US and UK 
blushes.  It makes us no better than the people who held Terry Waite or John 
McCarthy.   I just wonder what kind of people we have running things.  Why 
is it so painful for them to be honest?



TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> I hope if the
> Conservatives get back in they re-open this case

That seems very unlikely. It's one thing to kick the opposition while
seeking to get back into power, it's quite another to risk jeopardising
UK-US relationships when in power.

I'd love to see an 'al-Meghari appeal' or similar which gets to the truth of
the matter, but it doesn't seem to be in the interests of political or
diplomatic relationships from any quarter to have that. If the Tories were
in power now it is interesting to speculate what they'd have actually done.
Given Libya promised a 'shit storm' if al-Mehagri had died in prison which
would have blown the whole case open and exposed the allegations against the
US there'd be a natural reluctance to permit that. Seeing Scotland, not
Downing Street, release al-Mehagri, the dropping of the appeal and keeping
those 'normalised Libyan relations' would probably be just as appealing to
the Tories as a neat ( and beneficial ) solution to wrapping the affair up.

The only thing New Labour seems to have underestimated was the backlash from
the US, and that the Tories would so opportunistically join in the mud
slinging.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:7%hnm.74523$OO7.37392@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> I hope if the
>> Conservatives get back in they re-open this case
>
> That seems very unlikely. It's one thing to kick the opposition while
> seeking to get back into power, it's quite another to risk jeopardising
> UK-US relationships when in power.
>
> I'd love to see an 'al-Meghari appeal' or similar which gets to the truth 
> of
> the matter, but it doesn't seem to be in the interests of political or
> diplomatic relationships from any quarter to have that. If the Tories were
> in power now it is interesting to speculate what they'd have actually 
> done.
> Given Libya promised a 'shit storm' if al-Mehagri had died in prison which
> would have blown the whole case open and exposed the allegations against 
> the
> US there'd be a natural reluctance to permit that. Seeing Scotland, not
> Downing Street, release al-Mehagri, the dropping of the appeal and keeping
> those 'normalised Libyan relations' would probably be just as appealing to
> the Tories as a neat ( and beneficial ) solution to wrapping the affair 
> up.
>
> The only thing New Labour seems to have underestimated was the backlash 
> from
> the US, and that the Tories would so opportunistically join in the mud
> slinging.
>
>

Another 30 year wait for the truth then.  I'm not sure I'll be around to 
hear it!

As a matter of interest, who would have got these oil contracts if we 
hadn't?

TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
> news:7%hnm.74523$OO7.37392@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >
> > "TWP"  wrote ...
> >
> >> I hope if the
> >> Conservatives get back in they re-open this case
> >
> > That seems very unlikely. It's one thing to kick the opposition while
> > seeking to get back into power, it's quite another to risk jeopardising
> > UK-US relationships when in power.
> >
> > I'd love to see an 'al-Meghari appeal' or similar which gets to the
truth
> > of
> > the matter, but it doesn't seem to be in the interests of political or
> > diplomatic relationships from any quarter to have that. If the Tories
were
> > in power now it is interesting to speculate what they'd have actually
> > done.
> > Given Libya promised a 'shit storm' if al-Mehagri had died in prison
which
> > would have blown the whole case open and exposed the allegations against
> > the
> > US there'd be a natural reluctance to permit that. Seeing Scotland, not
> > Downing Street, release al-Mehagri, the dropping of the appeal and
keeping
> > those 'normalised Libyan relations' would probably be just as appealing
to
> > the Tories as a neat ( and beneficial ) solution to wrapping the affair
> > up.
> >
> > The only thing New Labour seems to have underestimated was the backlash
> > from
> > the US, and that the Tories would so opportunistically join in the mud
> > slinging.
> >
> >
>
> Another 30 year wait for the truth then.  I'm not sure I'll be around to
> hear it!
>
> As a matter of interest, who would have got these oil contracts if we
> hadn't?

That's the crux ... if you stand by arguing 'principles' someone else gets
in there before you, secures a good deal and locks you out for a very long
time. Missing a deal can be very detrimental later on (*).

Which I suspect is why the US are so peeved, having missed out because they
kept sanctions going after the UN lifted theirs and 'all that for nothing'
now al-Meghari is a free man.

When UN snactions were lifted every oil company rushed in except US ones.
Australia, Brazil, France, Greece. Italy, Spain, and perhaps more, were
continuing to operate in Libya during US sanctions or were striking deals.
Italy I think is the biggest importer from Libya.

(*) so on balance ...

Al-Meghari dies in prison
Libya throws a shit-fit
We get no Libyan oil
The potential Libyan market is closed
The deals go to someone else
We lose any influence we could have over Libya
We're stuck with that for a very long time
The al-Meghari appeal goes on with a potentially devastating outcome for UK
and US

or

Let a dying man out who will soon be dead anyway
The appeal gets cancelled, the UK and US can breath a sigh of relief
We get our oil
We open up other Libyan markets
We get the long term security of that and some influence over Libya
Libya is happy
UK is happy

Now, whether there was a deal or not, you've got to admit that apart from
"principles" the second looks decidedly best for the UK. And those
"principles" aren't exactly strong anyway, or we'd be demanding justice for
the hundreds of thousands murdered in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some
would say al-Meghari's crime is nothing compared to that, and there's
serious doubt he's even guilty as convicted.

Apart from the debate over whether compassionate release is right or not,
right in this case or not, I cannot see much to create a fuss over; it's
international business as usual.

It's notable that the people making the biggest fuss are Americans who
missed out early on, and maybe this time round also, and Tories who have
everything to gain in kicking Brown as a precursor to the election.