20 August 2009

MacAskill’s Two-Track Railroad: part 10/10
Leaving Glasgow
20 August 2010

Note, August 20 2011: One year ago I posted this, to mark the one year anniversary of al-Megrahi's release. Two years on, he's still alive as Libya is murdered over rumors (like sniping children, "bombing his own people," etc.), and people are still mad about what Libya's "gotten away with." Anyway, this day marks another one of shame in the long and sad history of the grinding down of Libya and its people. Mr. al-Megrahi flew home permanently guilty. The events of Agust two years ago explain how. We know why. The saga starts, as I told it a year ago, on August 3. That post is below, and links carry one through the sickening process from there.

Note, Oct. 16: I just noticed again that August 20, that fatefully two-year anniversary, was the start date of the final rebel push on Tripoli that seemed to succeed in only two days. Uncanny timing, that.

<< Previous: 19 August

One year ago today Kenny MacAskill announced and enacted the decision he made the previous day - to release Abdelbaset al Megrahi to his native Libya. At midday the BBC announced:

[Megrahi] will be flown home to Tripoli from Glasgow this afternoon following an announcement by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. ... A spokesman for the administration insisted the decision had been reached "on the basis of clear evidence and on no other factors.

The promised appeearance came across the airwaves an hour later, at 1300 BST, from the Scottish Government's ministerial headquarters in Edinburgh. MacAskill was in top form, explaining the decision with flourishes like "compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people..." It droned on for a bit.

Another BBC story later in the day explained what came next:

A police convoy left Greenock Prison, where Megrahi was serving his sentence, just an hour after the announcement of his release was made.

It was greeting by angry jeers from a small group of local residents.

Megrahi was taken to Glasgow Airport where he boarded an Afriqiyah Airways Airbus plane bound for Tripoli, wearing a white track suit and clutching his prison release papers.

With a white scarf across his face to protect from infection, Megrahi labored up the ramp, looking like a human white flag of surrender flapping in the breeze. The colorful Libyan jet took off at 1530 BST, just two-and-a-half hours after MacAskill first opened his mouth to explain. It muscled up into the sky, away from Glasgow, and banked south towards home.

That was hardly the end of the story, but it is the end of this series of articles.

3 August 2009

MacAskill’s Two-Track Railroad: part 1/10
3 August 2010

Note: The posts in this series are not conclusive, but rather what I was able to learn before the anniversary arrived, sporadically updated later. Any suggestions from knowledgeable readers to improve the content will be gladly appreciated.

Next: 5 August >>

One year ago today, "Lockerbie bomber" Abdelbaset al Megrahi was still imprisoned in Scotland, convicted for the murder of 270, with an appeal of that endlessly stalled, and advanced prostate cancer drawing the grave closer to him. He was desperate to return home to Libya before the end, and the Libyan government was nearly as set on getting him back.

One way home had presented itself up to that point - a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) that had been Libya's brainchild, sponsored by Libya-UK business interests, and adopted by the UK government. One of the keen provisions of the PTA was that all legal proceedings - like Megrahi's dangerous second appeal - had to be closed first.

Another provision of the agreement, ratified on 5 May 2009, was its 90-day life span [1], which expired on this day last year, August 3. But Justice Secrtary Kenny MacAskill, had already "extended the deadline of the prisoner transfer request,” despite its being implausible to execute. [2]

Curiously, the same day one track was slated to stop (but didn't), a second way home came within reach. Megrahi had formally applied for Compassionate Release less than two weeks earlier, in late July. His original prognosis had been only in September 2008, when he was given “an informal mid-estimate of 18-24 months.” [3] Compassionate Release rules, first set-up in 1993, have no firm life expectancy standard, but do cite three months as a reasonable guideline.

By some time in July 2009, a "firm consensus" was reached by "a range of specialists" that Megrahi's cancer had become "hormone resistant," and so the prognosis has "has now moved to the lower end of expectations from ten months ago." [3] That had been 18-24 months, so minus ten from the low end leaves about eight months left.

An unnamed consulting doctor for the Scottosh Prison Service (SPS) looked Megrahi over again a year ago today [3]. This is widely believed to be Karol Sikora,  but is apparently not. [4] (see also comments, below) Having last seen the prisoner on 26 July, the specialist - not paid by Libya that we know of - reported an alarming deterioration in the short interim. A report from a week later explained "the clinical assessment, therefore, is that a 3 month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient." [3]

The 10 August report that passes this on was from Scottish Prison Services health director, and expressed his own and a general agreement that the prisoner was suitable for compassionate release. There was no other specific agreement with three months offered. And of course none was needed; as explained above, that  benchmark is a guideline, not a requirement.

But it was an important guideline, and it was on the record to inform the choice in Mr. MacAskill's hands alone. He had two tracks to consider now, one of which (the PTA) would cost Megrhi's appeal if used, and the other of which (compassion) could leave the way open to challenge the tenuous conviction...

Sources:
[1] http://www.libya-watanona.com/news/n2009/may/0509nwsc.htm
[2] Times Online. 21 August 2009. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6804645.ece
[3] Medical Report, 10 August 2009. PDF download page: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/legal/lockerbie/CompassionateReleasePro/medical-report
[4] STV. 6 Sept.2009. http://news.stv.tv/scotland/121060-scots-govt-libyan-paid-doctors-did-not-influence-megrahi-release/

19 August 2009

MacAskill’s Two-Track Railroad: part 9/10
Repentance and Decision
19 August 2010
small edits 2 Sept.

Note: The posts in this series are not conclusive, but rather what I was able to learn before the anniversary arrived, sporadically updated later. Any suggestions from knowledgeable readers to improve the content will be gladly appreciated.

<< Previous: 18 August
Next: 20 August >>

Both Tracks Come to an End
After months of confusing pursuit of two separate repatriation routes for the “Lockerbie bomber,” one year ago today, Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill made his final decision on al Megrahi’s fate. It was a private process for the minister, though he did alert family members that he'd decided on something, and would tell them - along with the world - what it was the following day. [BBC, 19 August]

Again, the twin options, which MacAskill had opted to consider and decide on at the same time, were a prisoner transfer (PTA) worked out between the UK and Libya, and release on compassion grounds due to advanced prostate cancer. His judgment, as announced the following day (see 20 August), was to reject the former and grant the latter.

The only reason he would give for denying the PTA option was the ”understanding,” held by the U.S. government and American family members, that al Megrahi would serve his sentence in Scotland. On the latter, effectively ending the sentence and sending him back to Libya on medical grounds, he cited the 10 August report of Dr. Andrew Fraser that included an arrant three-month prognosis anchoring the low end of the life expectancy range.

One can only wonder just why the decision could only happen on the 19th and not before. The American families’ understanding was communicated clearly to him back on July 9 (see representations PDF), and the US government’s similar view, calling on this understanding, came a month later, on file now for a week.

Further, the appeal situation was still unsatisfactory, as Mr. Burgess’ advice had pointed out. The Crown’s appeal for longer sentence still stood, even as Megrahi’s was closing down. This had been the main legal reason given to reject the PTA, but MacAskill neglected to mention it on the 20th as a factor in his thinking.

The 18 August ruling that the appeal of conviction was no more might just explain why MacAskill finally decided the following day. The strange fact is that only once this key term of the PTA was fulfilled was it finally ruled out. And this segues perfectly with the notion that the PTA’s continued pursuit served but one purpose for Scottish Justice – to kill the appeal. If so, it was appropriately tossed aside once its job was complete.

Signaling Repentance
From the little we can know, the crudest construct, a direct and spoken trade of appeal for release, seems to be unfounded. The secret meeting where this was thought to be laid out did mention dropping the appeal. But this was recorded as only for the improbable PTA, not as a condition on medical release (see 5 August). But things line up so one might still expect some more subtle or circuitous set-up. For an unusual insight, consider the following:

The 6 August release of famous criminal Ronnie Biggs on compassion grounds has been suggested as a possible signal regarding Megrahi. To start with, this release date was set well ahead of time, back in early 2009, and one could well question the reliability of any such signal; Labor’s government at Westminster could not usually count on the devolved Scottish one at Hollyrood to follow its cues. But there is much we cannot clearly see, and the possibility can’t be ruled out. Let us consider it as a hypothetical.

The obvious overall message that some have seen is approval of compassionate release for high-profile criminals, like the ailing Megrahi. And keeping the shackles on Biggs - a debilitated and fading folk-hero who was never supposed to die in jail - while a “mass-murdering terrorist” walked would be, well, a bit awkward. The Englishman’s release thus made it (somewhat) more plausible to do the same with the Libyan two weeks later.

In addition to smoothing the way, there might be additional information “encoded” in this possible signal. Biggs had a period where he seemed to qualify for compassionate release, even if he wasn’t quite at death’s door. After a series of strokes in January 2009, he had his walk date scheduled for 6 August –two days prior to his 80th birthday. Yet U.K. Justice Secretary Jack Straw, given a chance to let him out just a month early as the parole board was recommending, refused on 1 July, as the prisoner had evaded justice for decades and still remained “wholly unrepentant.”

This was a startling and unusual move in itself; many could see a cheap ”tough on crime” stance and chasing headlines. But the headlines were mostly negative and he was seen as just mean. Was this a badly planned PR maneuver? Or did he have another motive altogether?

A month later his scheduled release date called and Biggs was wheeled out to hospital, perhaps having established his contrition, perhaps not. Straw only cited that he was quite sick, specifying pneumonia. Biggs’ son called his father a “political prisoner” during this last month, and the phrase could be more apt than he realized. Whether intended or not, the notion was inserted, and starkly, that a lack of remorse or of respect for the judgment imposed was suitable grounds for rejecting compassionate release.

Mr. Al-Megrahi too was unrepentant in his way, in fact as  of 6 August brazenly insisting his innocence and trying to establish that as legal truth with his second appeal. It’s not much further from there to wonder if Mr. MacAskill managed to construe it this way, equating the appeal with Biggs' globe-trotting defiance. He might call on Straw’s message for a temporary philosophy: Megrahi had to be broken and made subservient by surrendering that appeal, as some equivalent to showing repentance for his sins.

This is a rather nebulous thought, and it's hard to imagine MacAskill spelling it out openly. But it might have worked its way into his own internal dialogs and those considered rationalizations that politicians have to become so adept with. Or were these signals directed at Megrahi? It’s an interesting parallel to consider, at any rate, since we’re already on the lookout for some unseen but palpable link by which Megrahi’s release consumed his appeal’s rightful place in the courts.
---
Extra:
Blether with Brian, Brian Taylor, BBC NEws Scotland Correspondent, 19 August 2009:

"It would seem that, in one respect at least, the interests of the United Kingdom government and security services have already been served by the ending of the Megrahi appeal. London does not want the disclosure of further documents relating to the case, as demanded by Megrahi's legal team.

How about the United States? Just as with London, it is conceivable that there are interests in Washington who welcome the final closure of the case, the ending of the appeal.

[...]

Remember that Scottish ministers are adamant that there has been no deal, there will be no deal. They insist that the issues of Megrahi's fate and the abandonment of his appeals against conviction and sentence are entirely separate.

Plus they argue that the Scottish Government - by contrast with others - has no interest in securing the abandonment of the appeals.

If we accept that at face value, then that means that the Scottish Government does not seek to claim any gain from the ending of the Megrahi appeal. No governmental interest is served."

18 August 2009

MacAskill’s Two-Track Railroad: Part 8/10
18 August 2010 

Note: The posts in this series are not conclusive, but rather what I was able to learn before the anniversary arrived, sporadically updated later. Any suggestions from knowledgeable readers to improve the content will be gladly appreciated.

<< Previous: 13/14 August
Next: 19 August >>

One year ago today, Kenny MacAskill still hadn't decided whether or how how to send Megrahi home - as a dying but essentially free man, or as a prisoner under terms of the Libya-UK PTA. These two options vied for his attention, and he had amassed reams of information and opinions for and against different versions of each.

The families of UK victims had weighed in, largely concerned with Megrahi's appeal, opposing the PTA which would cost the world that chance at truth. American families were interviewed, and opposed any release, transfer, or any relenting in the extraction of justice. The US government sided with the families but were pragmmatic enough to entertain compassionate release. However, under no conditions would they support his return to Libya (see 9 August). The UK position was that the prisoner swap should go ahead and there was no reason not to send Megrahi back to Libya.

Medical experts weighed in with a picture of advancing cancer, set to kill him within months. The estimates ran as short as three months, but tended more like eight under cirumstances as they stood - the return home they proposed was sure to lengthen that (10 August). MacAskill also received legal opinions from W. George Burgess (14 August). These saw no barrier to compassionate release straight out to Libya. Shockingly, Burgess also said the Crown's outstanding appeal for longer sentence was enough to bolock the PTA despite Megrahi's own surrendered appeal. Precisely the sharpest danger that faced him in the surrender process was recognized and suggested in this strategy paper.

The most recent known pieces to fill in MacAskill's puzzle had been Burgess' twin documents on the PTA and compassion angles. By 18 August, the Justice secretary had four days to consider this in light of everything else on file.

And still he hadn't quite made up his mind as one final piece fell into place one year ago today; a panel of three judges ruled that Megrahi's appeal should be closed. He had applied for this six days earlier, for somewhat mysterious reasons related to getting home quicker. A Canadian news story, among many others, seemed to think about the same thing: "A British court will allow convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi to drop an appeal, taking him a step closer to being released." CBC, 18 August

Structurally and by normal rules, this could only assist in the Prisoner transfer, not compassionate release. MacAskill had been advised by Burgess that this was still a closed option, due now to the Crown's outstanding appeal for longer sentence. But whatever the prisoner's reasoning and the effects on his repatriation, the formal loss of the appeal had peculiar side effects, vis-a-vis the truth. As British families leader Pamela Dix told the Guardian the following day:

"This is the worst possible decision for the relatives. ... There now seems little chance of this evidence [in the appeal] being heard and scrutinised in public." 
[Source: Guardian, 19 August]

Could it be that was exactly the point of the exercise?

13/14 August 2009

MacAskill’s Two-Track Railroad: Part 8/10
14 August 2010

Note: The posts in this series are not conclusive, but rather what I was able to learn before the anniversary arrived, sporadically updated later. Any suggestions from knowledgeable readers to improve the content will be gladly appreciated.

<< Previous: 12/13 August
Next: 18 August >>

The previous post left off on 13 August with responses the day after Megrahi filed to drop his appeal. The same day, a BBC article suddenly expressed as fact that the convict was going to be released. The core information, included in the sidebar, was this short dispatch from Glenn Campbell, BBC Scotland political correspondent

I understand preparations for Mr Megrahi's release are being made in time for him to be home with his family in Libya by Ramadan, which starts next Friday. The Parole Board for Scotland has been asked to give its opinion on compassionate release. The Libyan authorities - who have held high level talks with the Scottish justice secretary in recent days - have also been advised to make plans to fly Mr Megrahi back to Tripoli. The Scottish Government is right to say "no decision has been taken" - but that should change in the next few days and the likelihood is Mr Megrahi will return to Libya by next weekend.

Elsewhere in the article it was said these talks were "over Megrahi's appeal against his conviction." This could mean the meeting of the day before where the Libyans were reportedly told Megrahi would have to surrender it before being released. (see 12 August) Any direct connection between the appeal and the imminent decision remained unstated in the article. But comparing two sections, the language reflects the kind of confusion Megrahi may have been experiencing at the very moment:

The Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is likely to be freed on compassionate grounds next week, the BBC understands. [...] A prisoner transfer cannot take place if criminal proceedings are active, meaning Megrahi would have to drop his latest appeal against his conviction in order to be sent home.

And the whole article's premise was that someone with inside info he couldn't explain was sure that Megrahi would be sent home on compassion grounds - just as the appeal was surrendered.

One year ago today, on the afternoon of 14 August 2009, Kenny MacAskill received his “final advice from my officials” on the legal options for release/transfer. This came as two documents, one on prisoner transfer advice and one on Compassionate Release (CR), both penned by W. George Burgess of the Criminal Law and Licensing Division.

Both documents set out “mechanical criteria” and a longer section on legal, structural, and public relations considerations. All discussions with U.S. government counterparts and some points from the UK foreign Office are redacted. Both say for “timing: Urgent. This advice should be considered alongside advice on the Libyan Government’s application under the PTA.” The PTA advice document added between the sentences "the 90 day guideline in the Prisoner Transfer Agreement finished on 3 August 2009." The was reportedly extended (see 3 August) and if so, proved no barrier.

The CR document explains requests are usually passed through a ”prison governor” who considers all facts and then applies for the prisoner. But in this case Megrahi was allowed to lobby straight to the top, with Prison Services only consulted after. All were in agreement, however - the Governor, Medical Officer, and Prison Social Work Unit. All in all, Burgess found no reason to deny the request or even to keep Megrahi on Great Britain. Paragrahph 17 reasons he would not be allowed to travel freely outside the country, but Libya, instead of the UK, could be the country he'd have to stay in.

All the mechanical criteria for PTA had been met "bar the criterion of 'finality of judgment.'" Both appeals were in force, but "we understand that Mr Al-Megrahi has lodged a notice of abandonment." And yet, an incomplete sentence explains "the fact that this criterion on finality of judgment, in itself, is reason to refuse the transfer." The heinousness of the crime he was accepted as guilty of - extremely heinous - was itself reasoned to be no obstacle to a transfer. But his appeal surrender not being finished yet, and/or the Crown's appeal for longer sentence (due to heinousness), were sufficient. Bizarre.

Shockingly, Burgess also said the Crown's outstanding appeal for longer sentence was enough to bolock the PTA despite Megrahi's own surrendered appeal. Precisely the sharpest danger that faced the prisoner in the surrender process was recognized and suggested in this strategy paper.

The PTA advice section "public confidence in the justice system" is highly interesting. Its two points (paragraphs 15 and 16) address a “perception that the appeal and the PTA application are linked,” and pursuing the PTA “could be seen as influencing Mr. Al-Megrahi’s decision on whether to continue his appeal.” Burgess was happy with macAskill’s solution so far; “to avoid this, you have been at pains throughout the process to avoid discussion or consideration of the appeal,” while proceeding on a course that seems to have silently destroyed it. “Finality of judgment” is all that was ever mentioned, a phrase meaning all proceedings - including appeals – must be closed.

MacAskill's ongoing refusal or inability to decide against the transfer - when he would have to rule against it eventually - might constitute actual influence on Megrahi's decision-making, if managing to avoid the perception of it. Even after 12-14 August, Mr. MacAskill continued to put off the inevitable decision, as if he were waiting for some final piece to fall into place.

5 August 2009

MacAskill’s Two-Track Railroad: part 2/10
MacAskill-Megrahi Meeting
5 August 2010

Note: The posts in this series are not conclusive, but rather what I was able to learn before the anniversary arrived, sporadically updated later. Any suggestions from knowledgeable readers to improve the content will be gladly appreciated.

<< Previous: 3 August
Next: 6 August >>

One year ago today, Wednesday 5 August 2009, a much-speculated meeting occurred between "bomber" al-Megrahi and Scotland's Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Held in Megrahi's cell at Greenock prison, it's been often described as a "secret meeting" - unprecedented, off-the-record and highly suspect. It was preceded, by mere days, with the prisoner's application for release on compassion grounds and the nearly-instant 3-month prognosis that made it more doable. And the meeting was followed a week later by the Megrahi filing to surrender his appeal, and another week on by his return home to Libya, on compassionate grounds.

It's been wondered if MacAskill used the unusual visit to set out the deal to the prisoner - drop the appeal or die in jail. It is a bit heavy and crude, but I more than half-believed just about that until shortly after hearing Magnus Linklater, publishing magnate, speak about it. He said on a radio show recently that he'd read the transcript of this meeting it said something like "there is no question of you being released while there is still an appeal outstanding. The decsion as to whether you pursue that appeal is for you and your legal team." [1]

I soon learned why Mr. Linklater was wrong, and that the transcript is not secret but freely available. The meeting was to solicit Megrahi's "representation," as part of the ongoing PTA process Mr. MacAskill had been unable to stop. The minutes are on pages 14 and 15 of a PDF of collected representations from all interested parties. [2] So the meeting dealt with transfer, not release, and that distinction changes the meaning of Linklater's recollection.

To start with, the date on the minutes is wrong – Wednesday Aug 6 2009 does not exist. It was either Wednesday the 5th, as scheduled [3], or else changed to Thursday the 6th and written wrong. Besides Megrahi and MacAskill, present at the meeting were two players from the Scottish Justice side and Mr. Megrahi's lawyer, Tony Kelly.

Regarding the PTA application, “Mr.MacAskill stressed that he could not give any indication as to his likely decision.” Mr. MacAskill explained that he was looking at compassionate release as well, and "was considering this application in parallel and he would aim to make both decisions at the same time." And the secretary stressed that “he can only grant a transfer if there are no court proceedings ongoing. Mr. MacAskill stressed that this was a decision for Mr. Al-Megrahi and his legal team alone.” [3]

Megrahi knew what this last meant, despite the indirect reference. Procedings means his appeal of conviction, granted by the SCCRC over two years prior. He complained about the "unduly" stalled process, which was slated to resume about as he was just slated to die - early November. But he followed this by affirming that he qualified for the PTA, suggesting he was open to dropping the fight.

There was also another appeal that was definitely not "a decision for Mr. Al-Megrahi and his legal team alone.” The Crown's standing appeal of sentence, demanding a longer term than the 27 years established, would also have to be withdrawn for the transfer to happen. If Megrahi dropped his own appeal, he faced a risk the Crown's would remain and bar his release anyway - guilty with no appeal and locked up for even longer, all while dying innocent and far from home.

Besides offering no tip as to whether he would grant a transfer, MacAskill was also unclear if he would choose compassion. It could have one or the other or perhaps neither. This unnecessary confusion may have led Megrahi to drop his appeal in preparation, when MacAskill already knew the reason the PTA could not be implemented.

When announcing the release just two weeks later, the Justice Secretary explained why he felt he must reject Libya/UK transfer option. "the American families and Government either had an expectation, or were led to believe, that there would be no prisoner transfer and the sentence would be served in Scotland." [4] This had been established for him at a meeting with American relatives on 9 July (see [3] pp 10-13), a month before this meeting where he misled Megrahi into believing it was a viable option and perhaps his ticket home.

But for his part, the prisoner's 3-page handwritten note (pages 16-18 in the PDF) insisted he was wrongly convicted, was hated by the victims but didn't hate them back, was dying, felt "desolation," wanted to see his family, and was ready to go under PTA or compassion. Mr. Megrahi's thinking is important to understanding what came next. The most important decisions weren't his, but he and his team were left with one ball in their court - would they keep the appeal open and block one possible way home, or surrender the fight to overturn that unjust verdict?

Having said and heard what he needed to, Mr. MacAskill thanked the prisoner for his own thoughts, and they parted ways again to consider what move to make next.

Sources:
[1] http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2010/07/macaskills-meeting-with-megrahi.html
[2] http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/925/0085963.pdf
[3] http://www.scribd.com/doc/34616433/Megrahi-Correspondence-US-DID-Know
[4] http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/This-Week/Speeches/Safer-and-stronger/lockerbiedecision

"The Advice of Just One Doctor..."

Who said Megrahi had Three Months?
July 13 2010
last edit August 8


This post will address, if not resolve, some of the confusion about just who was responsible for that controversial decision that Abdelbaset al Megrahi was likely to die within three months or less. As the span since then stretches to a year, the pressure has risen to investigate just how this decision was made in the first place.


First, the "three months" benchmark, while important, is over-stated in its importance. The rules on Compassionate Release state as one of its main criteria:

"Those suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period."
Scottish Government Website, Sept. 1 2009

That is, the "bomber" could have been sent home even without this supposedly pivotal prognosis. To actually do so would court criticism that the 3-month guideline hadn't been met, however, so it was useful in that regard.

One Doctor = Sikora
The recent slew of press reports is a little vague and confused on the number and identity of the doctors responsible for the prognosis in question. But the over-arching impression is most sources originally citing "one unnamed doctor," who later seemed to be questionable cancer expert-for-hire, Karol Sikora. He was paid by “Libyan officials,” and so, as one comment grossly summed it up, Scotland allowed “one terrorist diagnose another terrorist.”


MSNBC, July 4 2010

“The doctor who said he would maybe only have three months to live now says he could live another ten years.”

CNN, July 5 2010

"... the Sunday Times said it could only find one doctor who admits giving three months to live. Dr. Karol Sikora was hired by Libyan officials, who asked him to assess the patient. He told the Times, "It was clear that three months was what they were aiming for"...

Daily Fail, 5 July

"The cancer expert who predicted the Lockerbie bomber would die within three months of his release from prison has admitted he could live for another ten years or more."

New York Daily News, July 7:

"It's bad enough that Megrahi still hasn't died. It's even more stomach-turning that the doctor who provided the convenient initial prognosis now says the released terrorist might live 10 years, maybe even 20. That's the latest word from cancer specialist Dr. Karol Sikora ..."

SF Gate, July 7:

"Megrahi's doctor [sic], Professor Sikura [sic], was the only expert who would assert Megrahi had only three months to live."

Scotsman, July 8

The senators [Schumer, Lautenberg, Menendez, Gilibrand] wrote: "The doctor responsible for the key medical opinion has told the media that not only could Mr al-Megrahi live another ten years, but that the Libyan government had commissioned the doctor to make his assessment, expressly because the Libyan government hoped for a three-month prognosis. This is outrageous."

A Panel and No Sikora

Four senators, including a Kirsten Gilibrand, wrote to the UK ambassador in DC, Nigel Sheinwald,asking for answers about what Sikora had said. NY Daily News, Mouth of the Potomac:

Sheinwald denies the physician influenced the release at all, saying a panel of doctors made the recommendation. “This group did not include Prof. Sikora,” Sheinwald wrote in a letter to Gilibrand obtained by The Mouth.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/07/brits-deny-docs-libyan-tale.html


Earlier, the Scottish government had said the same thing:

"The Sunday Telegraph reported that the Libyans had paid for the medical advice of three doctors and "encouraged" them to form the opinion that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi had just three months to live.
A [Scottish Government] spokesman said: "This report is false and factually incorrect.

“The Director of Health and Care at the Scottish Prison Service drew on expert advice from a number of cancer specialists in coming to his clinical assessment that a three month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for the patient.

These included two consultant oncologists, two consultant urologists and a number of other specialists, including a palliative care team, who had reviewed and contributed to the clinical management of the patient.

They did not include Karol Sikora, Jonathan Waxman or Ibrahim Sherif, whose assessments played no part in considerations – including no part in the report submitted by the Scottish Prison Service Director of Health and Care."
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/121060-scots-govt-libyan-paid-doctors-did-not-influence-megrahi-release/

One Man = Andrew Fraser and/or an Unnamed Doctor
Besides MacAskill, at least one other decision-maker in the Scottish justice system, who is in fact a doctor, did make the, or a, crucial call in all this:


Daily Record, August 26:

"Four specialists said in June and July that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could live for up to 10 months and was not sick enough to be released.
But less than a month later, prison service medical director Andrew Fraser told MacAskill that in his opinion, Megrahi's prostate cancer had got much worse.
He said it was now "reasonable" to predict that he would be dead within three months."

The Times, August 28 2009

"The final report on al-Megrahi's condition, which went to Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, was drawn up by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care with the Scottish Prison Service."

It seems worth wondering if Andrew Fraser is that "one doctor" whose opinion was relied on. But it seems there was another one consulting, who supported or informed this endorsement.




Daily Mail,28 August 2009

"It emerged that the doctor who advised that Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi had fewer than three months to live was not an expert in prostate cancer.
[…]
The report to Mr MacAskill […] contains a reference to an unnamed doctor who 'dealt with him prior to, during and following the diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer'. It added: 'Having seen him during each of these stages, his clinical condition has declined significantly over the last week [26 July to 3 August]. The clinical assessment, therefore, is that a three month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient.'"

Telegraph, August 25

Bill Aitken, Scottish Tory justice spokesman, said: “In June and July, there was a consensus on prognosis of eight months. Where is that consensus now? ”We only have the opinion of one anonymous individual - not the range of medical experts promised.”
[...]
Dr Simpson [...said] ”Kenny MacAskill released him apparently on the advice of just one doctor whose status is not clear and who is not named.”

Following Fraser'sreport, but just prior to MacAskill's decision, a clue emerges:
Daily Record, August 26:

On August 20, the day before MacAskill announced Megrahi's release, a cancer specialist asked by Libya to examine the bomber told the minister to make an "urgent" decision.
Professor Karol Sikora said: "We believe he has only a very short period of time to live."
Sikora said he visited Megrahi in Greenock jail on July 28, along with Professor Ibrahim Sheriff from the Tripoli medical centre and Dr Abdulrahman Swessi, Libya's consul-general in Scotland.

Telegraph, 4 July 2010

"The Scottish government insists Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister who took the final decision to release Megrahi, based his ruling on a medical report by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). A spokesman said Professor Sikora’s advice to Libya “had no part to play in considerations on the Megrahi case."

A Panel With Sikora
Many sources in fact cite or collectively suggest a panel of four doctors, voting either 3/4 or 4/4 against three months, but overridden by Dr. Fraser and/or the fourth doctor.  The balance suggests Dr. Sikora was the dissenter.


At least one of these reports stands out for differing. From early April, well between "three months" and "ten or 20 years":


Scotsman, April 5 2010:

"Karol Sikora was one of three specialists who refused to concur with the prognosis by a prison doctor last August that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi had just three months to live when he was released last year.
[…]
"I say he will be dead within four weeks," said Mr Sikora, the medical director of Cancer Partners and Dean of Buckingham University medical school."

This last oddball aside, it seems Dr.Sikora was indeed the one doctor on a panel of four, once anonymous but now named, who gave Fraser a possible 3-month message. And urgently, according to the Daily Record's report. From there, of course, it had to be accepted by Fraser and reccommended in his report to the Justice Secretary. And from there, Secretary MacAskill had to make the decision  that he alone claims responsibility for - to release what he considered to be a man responsible for the murder of 270 souls.


Libya's payments to Karol Sikora do little to explain any of that. Other interests must be considered to get even the faintest understanding of how compassionate release was leveraged here. Looming above all considerations, I suspect, was Megrahi's second appeal and its ominous threat to the Scottish Justice system. Perhaps a magic ticket like Dr. Fraser proposed, with strings attached (or rather implied) by that system's guardian, Mr. MacAskill, could be used as the lever to pry that appeal away from its rightful owner. If one also considers the urgency of death some months off, and a conspicuously stalled appeal process, stretching out like a sunset shadow well past the grave, it becomes clear just how absolutely ripe the situation was to exploit this way. As Rolfe puts it:

If it was actually possible to infect someone with prostate cancer, I'd suspect Kenny MacAskill (or his predecessor, since the diagnosis was actually made in 2008) of doing just that. It's the most convenient diagnosis since Socrates swallowed the hemlock.

---

Megrahi's Three-Month Prognosis

Caustic Logic
April 4 2010
last update July 12

I wanted to bump this old aimless post as a spot to sort out details on Megrahi's prognosis, with links to other posts on specific aspects.

- Confusion over who was responsible for the prognosis are addressed here: Dr.Karol Sikora does appear to be the "one doctor" who was willing to say three months.

- Dr. Karol Sikora has some troubling suggestions of being a "hired gun" and his findings being suspect. He was paid by Libyan clients in mid-2009 when he reached the prognosis he understood them to want. That's clearly troubling from a standpoint of professional ethics.

- Then Dr. Sikora was unfortunately quoted July 4 ruminating that hypothetically, "there was always a chance he could live for ten years, 20 years . . . But it's very unusual." It was July4. "British Petroleum's" oil was/is still gushing into the Gulf. BP had also lobbied for Megrahi's release. Somehow...the story resonnated and sparked a s**tstorm of fury and indignation and words.

- Four senators wrote to the UK ambassador in DC, Nigel Sheinwald July 8, asking for an investigation. Rebuked, they called on the State Department July 12 to press for Megrahi to be put back in jail.
---
Original Test, April 4
The 21-year old Lockerbie case has enjoyed an increased profile over the last six months, and that has of course been due to the early release, last August, of convicted conspirator Abdelbaset al Megrahi. Have no doubt, innocent though he surely is, the man was legally convicted and stands legally guilty (right?), and was released with that assumption, based on something disbelievingly quoted in quotes as, quote, "compassion." Meaning, to so many minds, some Scottish (?) greed for Libyan oil, or something.

But in fact, as they know, the compassionate release was based on al Megrahi's prognosis of terminal prostate cancer, set to kill him within three months. Scottish law demands a prisoner with three months or less to live should be allowed to die at home - compassion, if not for the prisoner, than for his innocent family. People were angered immediately that mr. Megrahi should be given that privelege when the people he was convicted of killing recieved no such "compassion." And as three months stretched to four, five, six, and now seven, with conflicting reports and opinions on his life expectancy from here, well, people might start wondering if he could be taken back to jail...

I'm no expert on the relevant laws, nor on the medical angle, nor on oil negotiations where Libya demanded its terrorist back. So I won't even try for an eludicating post on this for the moment. Rather, I'm hoping this time for comments from other readers. It's been a hot issue at Professor Robert Black's blog The Lockerbie Case recently.  But for my own part, to start or in case no one else comments here...

I understand there is some room for improved condition with family support and a home environment that would turn three months into something longer. But it's starting to push that envelope as well, and as I've said elsewhere, I can also see the logic of manipulating the science to fit a political agenda. I of course see it less as trading terroritst for oil as trading a framed patsy home-death for the dropping of his appeal. After he released his appeal documents to the court of public opinion instead, it became confusing why he dropped it with such an amazing case and a third try at clearing his name - unless he knew it was required in order to leave.

And then there are the valid question about the diagnosis. Perhaps these two questions of political medicine and perplexing surrender answer each other?

The Scottish Governments deny any connection to the release aside from the 3-month prognosis - it was decided on the medical records only. To my knowledg no one had specified if the diagnosis itself (or rather its acceptance) was the result of any such deals ...

There are numerous related issues here - Megrahi's secret meeting with Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, the medical details of the diagnosis, the (still?) unnamed doctor originating the opinion, the dropping of Megrahi's appeal so soon after the prognosis, the relation between Prisoner Transfer Agreements, compassionate release, standing appeals, Megrahi's understanding and his legal team's maneuvers, and, yes, UK political concerns, Libyan relations, oil and business deals, etc. Here are some excellent insights on the PTA phase of talks from Professor Black, from his own dealing between Libya and the UK government.

Thoughts?

"Emotional Blackmail"

Deals, Appeals, and Megrahi's "Compassionate" Release
Adam Larson (Caustic Logic)
April 20 2010
last edit May 18 1 am

*Note: There are some aspects of this issue I'm not 100% clear on, like the continuity of PTA deals. Some of this is hashed out in the comments section below.

See also Professor Black's response at The Lockerbie Case and comments there.
---
There was much talk last year about a suspected deal over the release by Scottish authorities of convicted but innocent “Lockerbie bomber” Abdelbaset al Megrahi. The vast majority of the discussion skips over the subject of this article and obsesses over images of Brits caving to a Libyan trade of oil access for its terrorist back. It’s rather a crude construct, and technically untrue, but oil was a factor in earlier negotiations headed by the UK government back to 2007 - a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) scheme pursued following Libya’s rapprochement with the West. [1] As talks with London dragged on towards 2009, it became clear that neither a newly-Nationalist Scotland nor the United States would agree to a PTA, and that option eventually faded away, as Professor Robert Black put it, “to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away.” [2]

Now, for such an arrangement to have gone ahead, any outstanding appeals had to be closed. And yet for the two years that PTA agreements were considered, both defense and the Crown (prosecution) had appeals pending: the Crown had an appeal against leniency of sentence and Megrahi had his second appeal of the conviction (the first was controversially dismissed in 2002). [3] Scottish Courts had made him “convicted Lockerbie bomber” and only they could undo it in the right way. Besides, once an appeal is dropped by the applicant, it cannot legally be revived by anyone. So while Megrahi had reportedly said he'd surrender this appeal if a transfer was ever approved, [4] until that unlikely event, he kept it open to clear his name if at all possible.

Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill eventually made the decision for release on other grounds entirely, following Megrahi’s diagnosis in July 2008 with advanced prostate cancer. A controversial (and somewhat mysterious) July 2009 prognosis gave the prisoner perhaps three months to live, the key point at which release is mandated. There was no need for oil interests, or any other trades – the only requirement for compassionate release is that the applicant contracts a terminal, incurable disease and be expected to die quite soon.

There is an application process, where the Justice Secretary decides to approve or deny the request, but so long as the prognosis is good, such appeals had always been approved. There was American pressure to make an exception and deny the request, but to judge by MacAskill's later statements, he would have made the decision to release no matter what, as it was the right thing to do. Importantly, when a prisoner is released on compassion grounds, appeals can be left open for a successor to clear one’s name posthumously.

The Cost of Compassion?
Yet just as the prognosis and decision to release were made official and announced, Megrahi also, suddenly, dropped his appeal. Following the prognosis and Megrahi's appeal for the compassion out in late July 2009, Justice Secretary MacAskill made an unprecedented visit to the prisoner’s cell for an unknown discussion [5] (alternately reported as August 4, 5, or 6). This was followed a week later by Megrahi’s mysterious request to surrender the fight on August 12. That same day, the BBC broke the story of his imminent release [6], and indeed the High Court of Justiciary accepted Megrahi’s plea on the 18th and graciously closed the appeal, dooming him to permanent legal guilt. [7] Megrahi was released and flew away two days later, or eight months ago today, in what officially is a separate development.

While it’s been denied strenuously by the Scots, many sources at the time, seeing this rapid chain of events, simply stated things like “Libyan Lockerbie bomber Al-Megrahi drops appeal, paves the way for compassionate release.” [8] And Megrahi’s own words seem to show that he himself felt, deeply and tragically, that the two were linked. In an open letter to the people and system of Scotland of August 20, the day of his release, he again proclaimed his innocence and said in part:

"Many people, including the relatives of those who died in, and over, Lockerbie, are, I know, upset that my appeal has come to an end; that nothing more can be done about the circumstances surrounding the Lockerbie bombing.
I share their frustration. I had most to gain and nothing to lose about the whole truth coming out - until my diagnosis of cancer.
[…]
I have been faced with an appalling choice: to risk dying in prison in the hope that my name is cleared posthumously or to return home still carrying the weight of the guilty verdict, which will never now be lifted.
The choice which I made is a matter of sorrow, disappointment and anger, which I fear I will never overcome."[9]

Clearly, he’d somehow gotten the idea that abandoning the appeal was connected to returning home. It was an “appalling choice” he was somehow “faced with,” and took the home route. Nine days later Herald Scotland confirmed that Megrahi had “dropped his appeal against the conviction because he would not live to see its outcome and was desperate to return to his family.” "It is all about my family," they quoted him saying. "People have said there was pressure from the Libyan authorities or Scottish authorities, but it wasn't anything like this." [10] Perhaps there really was no squeeze, but something went quite wrong here, and others can see it too:

"I saw Megrahi not so long ago and apart from his number one priority of seeing his family he was absolutely determined to clear his family’s name and prove his innocence […] If he had found a way to do both I know he would have chosen that route. That’s why I’m highly surprised by his decision to drop the appeal and why I believe he has been leaned on.” - Member of Scottish Parliament Christine Grahame, August 14 [11]

“I cannot know what exactly happened but I believe that the UK and Scottish government wanted the appeal to be dropped and somehow it was dropped […] I think there may have been some kind of deal. One part of the deal was to have the appeal dropped and the other part was the release on compassionate grounds.” - Former UK ambassador to Libya, Oliver Miles [12]

Confusing Compassion
For the curious decision to finally surrender the fight for his name, the reason Megrahi gives is to be at home one last time. And that simply does not compute with the normal rules of Compassionate Release. It would be a very confused man who’d do that, and one can only wonder how he got that befuddled. Scottish law magazine/website The Firm stepped in during this process on August 12 to address a scandal reported to them by “sources within the Scottish Government Justice Department.” In a meeting the day before, the Libyan attendees were told “if Megrahi is to be granted compassionate release he must first drop his appeal […] This was the rammed home to the Libyans at their meeting with the Minister yesterday,” the Firm’s source said. [13]

The site publicly asked the Scottish government for “reassurance … that Megrahi’s return home is not being made conditional upon his dropping his appeal. Justice must be done, though the heavens may fall. That time, surely, is now.” The following day, a governmant spokesman responded “In answer to the simple question posed by The Firm, the answer is “No."" [14]

Megrahi was reportedly set to drop his appeal anyway, and the UN's knoweldgeable observer at the Zeist trial, Dr. Hans Köchler, implied deliberate confusion of the prisoner. Köchler told the Firm that “certain quarters confronted [Megrahi] with the alternative of either giving up his appeal in order to be sent back to Libya on the basis of a recently ratified “prisoner exchange agreement” between the UK and Libya – or die in a Scottish jail.” He further urged MacAskill to “act without further delay” to simply grant compassionate release and so “allow the appeal to continue and avoid the circumstances of “emotional blackmail"" inherent in the existing arrangement. [15]

The answer MacAskill et al. had given was “no,” they were not placing such a deal before Megrahi, yet even with this assurance presumably communicated to the applicant, he continued to link the two in his words and his "personal decision" we're to believe arose only from the terrorist's own mysterious whims. Perhaps the dying man decided to just cash in all his chips in a desperate flailing bid to secure his release in as many ways as possible, but that contradicts the shrewdness he's shown before and after. I simply cannot buy it. (I could entertain moves that account for that shrewdness, but needn't go into them here.)

A Bad Turn and a New Beginning
Quashing the appeal wasn’t in the interests of the “convicted Lockerbie bomber,” nor in the interests of the families of the victims he’s convicted of killing. At least some of those acknowledge the loss; Pamela Dix, whose brother died in the bombing and who now heads the UK survivors’ group, said:

"My immediate feeling is of great disappointment if the appeal does not go ahead. Further useful information may or may not have appeared through Megrahi's appeal process. At the moment there is no other process or procedure ongoing to tell us how the bombing was carried out, why it was done, the motivation for it and who ordered it. As the British Government are aware, we will continue pressing for the independent inquiry that has been denied to us to date primarily because of the ongoing criminal case.” [16]

No convincing official explanation for Megrahi’s motive has ever been offered. While it has little traction with anyone knowledgeable. there is a theory that Megrahi knew he was guilty and was simply ending the charade. This was stated explicitly by the Telegraph's foreign affairs editor Con Coughlin - after calling August 20 "a black day" for Scotland and before suggesting US sanctions on the sitting government at Holyrood, Coughlin used the dropped appeal as proof of guilt:

"[Megrahi] remains the only person to have been convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity committed on British soil [...] he planted the bomb that killed 270 people [...] we have no reason to believe it was anyone other than Megrahi who placed the fatal device because he dropped his appeal against conviction shortly before Mr McAskill made his shameful decision." [17]

Likewise, no legal justification was ever given for tacking PTA requirements onto a compassionate release, but it worked out exactly as if that’s what happened. Mr. Megrahi talks as if he’d been forced into such a deal, and many others report such arrangements actually being forced.

I’d guess that while deciding to surrender, Mr. Al Megrahi also – shrewdly - plotted to release his case to the world and appeal to the court of public opinion after his return. Of course he did so, and controversially, and the retrial is by default in session. Legal courts have more direct power, of course, but get forced into blind alleys by being unable to question planted evidence and the like. In the court now running, scattered and confused as it is, all avenues are open, and the truth is finally coming out in force.
---
Sources:
[1] United Press International. "Straw: Oil a factor in Libya prisoner pact." September 6 2009. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/09/06/Straw-Oil-a-factor-in-Libya-prisoner-pact/UPI-19581252216109/
[2] Black, Robert. Commentary attached to post "Straw Denies Megrahi Release was Connected to Trade Deals" The Lockerbie Case (blog). 30 August 2009. http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/08/straw-denies-megrahi-release-was.html
[3] Scottish Parliament. Justice Committee Report SP Paper 383 J/S3/10/R3 3rd Report, 2010 (Session 3) "The decision on Abdelbaset al-Megrahi." 5 February 2010. para 36. http://scotparliament.com/s3/committees/justice/reports-10/jur10-03.htm
[4] See [3]. paragraph 42.
[5] Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi (Decision). Scottish Parliament debates, 2 September 2009, 9:34 am http://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2009-09-02.19021.0
[6, 12] MacLeaod, Angus. "I suspect deal over al-Megrahi appeal, says former ambassador" The Times. August 31 2009. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6816334.ece
[7] "Lockerbie bomber allowed to drop appeal." Canadian Broadcasting corporation. August 18 2009. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/08/18/lockerbie-megrahi-bomber-appeal-scotland712.html
[8] "Libyan Lockerbie bomber Al-Megrahi drops appeal, paves the way for compassionate release." Associated Press. August 18 2009. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/08/18/2009-08-18_libyan_.html#ixzz0lWbmXuJM
[9] BBC News "In Full: Statement From Megrahi." August 20 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8212910.stm
[10] "Lockerbie : Al Megrahi says public inquiry must take place into bombing of Pan Am Flight 103." Scottish Law Reporter (blog). August 29 2009. http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2009_08_01_archive.html
[11] Taylor, Jerome. "Al-Megrahi 'pressured into abandoning appeal'" Independent. August 14 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/almegrahi-pressured-into-abandoning-appeal-1772156.html
[13, 14, 15] "Path cleared for Megrahi’s compassionate release as government confirms “No” to pressure claims." The Firm. August 13 2009. http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/1636/Path_cleared_for_Megrahi’s_compassionate_release_as_government_confirms_“No”_to_pressure_claims.html
[16] "New cover-up claims as Lockerbie bomber drops his appeal." Daily Mail. August 15 2009.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206716/New-cover-claims-Lockerbie-bomber-drops-appeal.html#ixzz0lRBi8Uc3
[17] Coughlin, Con. "The release of the Lockerbie bomber is a black day for the Scottish government." 20 August 2009. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100007064/the-release-of-the-lockerbie-bomber-is-a-black-day-for-the-scottish-government/

Corrections for the Daily Fail

June 7 2010

The Daily Mail (London), sometimes called the Daily Fail, just ran a rather obnoxious little piece about former PM Tony Blair's alleged consultancy with the Gaddafis in Libya. Their basis was a comment by Saif Gaddafi, Muammar's son, in which he called Blair "a personal family friend" and frequent visitor. Most importantly "he's adviser to the LIA, the Libyan Investment Authority. He has some consultancy role," Gaddafi said, explaining "Tony Blair has the right to earn money."

"If true," the article opined, "the claims will plunge Mr Blair - now a Middle East peace envoy - into a fresh row over potential conflicts of interest between his public and private roles." Indeed, claims causing a row is something that's not hard to see coming. Blair and his people denied flatly any role, even unpaid, with the LIA or Tripoli, but the Labour Godfather isn't convincing at the moment. There are at the least some variety in how one defines consultancy, and what constitutes "with" the LIA vs. someone else working with them, etc.

However, I'm not interested in that issue. I just didn't like the tone of their article in emphasizing what's wrong with cozying up to the Gaddafis - Pan Am 103 / Megrahi. They show no deviation from the standard manipulations.

Last night, families of the 270 Lockerbie victims accused Mr Blair of breaking bread with people who 'have blood on their hands'.

They have in the past raised questions about Mr Blair's relationship with Colonel Gaddafi especially over a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya that paved the way for the return of the Lockerbie bomber last year.

Saif made clear that the agreement - drawn up when Mr Blair was prime minister - was key to creating a 'special relationship' between Britain and Libya.

I could suggest more, but here are three important corrections. First, “families of the 270 Lockerbie victims” should be “Frank Duggan.”

Frank Duggan, president of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, told the Mail: 'If this is true, I guess this is Tony Blair's reward from the Libyan government for what he has done.
'It's important for world peace that Libya is brought back into the community of nations but that doesn't mean that you have to honour people with blood on their hands.'

Mr. Duggan was elected president of their brainwashed group, but he isn't even one of the 270 victims' relatives, let alone "families of the 270." And “have blood on their hands” should be “accused of having blood on their hands.” Only megrahi himself has a conviction, one other has an indictment, and the rest nothing but accusations, with all levels of allegation false (or, more precisely, unsupported).

And finally, these said victims “have in the past raised questions about Mr Blair's relationship with Colonel Gaddafi especially over a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya..." Cut there, this is accurate and worthy of discussion. The rest of the sentence, however, is grossly misleading. "... that paved the way for the return of the Lockerbie bomber last year.”

No. Terminal cancer and a questionable prognosis paved the way for Megrahi’s release. Blair’s ridiculous PTA scheme paved the way for Kenny MacKaskill to “consider it” alongside Compassionate Release, just enough to, it seems to me, trick Megrahi into dropping his appeal. An open appeal is allowed with Compassionate Release, but for not for a PTA. For all we know, the charade of reviving the Prisoner swap just at that time masked an explicit appeal-for-freedom swap - perhaps worked out in that secret jail cell meeting. It could be said the prisoner must have just gotten confused about his method of release.

I was thanked for registering and agreeing to the rules and for "adding a comment to MailOnline." I was informed "Comments on this article are being checked in advance. We aim to publish as many as possible. [...] If your comments do not appear, this may be due to the volume we receive or due to the content of your comment." Well, all the "enlightened" comments that did appear, "moderated in advance," did so in a 3.5 hour span. They were just too flooded with hate to let even a peep of a counter-point through. Terribly sorry.

So it's not my content, but the colour of comment that they are so good at drawing out in great masses. Which raises one last correction:

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

Not "necessarily," but it is uncanny how the article and comments tend to line up, and I would guess in this case the paper's own views are in fact represented.
---
Source: "Tony Blair our very special adviser by dictator Gaddafi's son." By Nabila Ramdani TimShipman, and Peter Allen. Daily Mail/Mail Online. June 5 2010. "Read more:" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284132/Tony-Blair-special-adviser-dictator-Gaddafis-son.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0q9sCS78O