Saunders' Spinsulation

13 January 2010

San Francisco Chronicle writer Debra J. Saunders, who bills herself as the paper's “token conservative,” is also a self-appointed (??) expert on the “Lockerbie bomber” Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and the feckless handling of his captivity by non-Americans. It’s not normally my style to pick on token people, but I've opted to take note of her lush layers of spinsulation - a fluffy confection of filtered snippets of reality, melted with industrial-scale hot air, and with some added color, blown up with political spin. It's a familiar commodity here, long used to rile up the public on the right issues and in the right way.

Somehow, in her pontifications on British buckling to Libya's "commercial warfare," this stuff has become jammed thick and tight between her words and the actual truth at every available point. It sure doesn’t take much to be a "journalist" using her formula.

Below is the main attraction, a two-part post collaborative with a rare guest writer. The first and scholarly half by Michael Follon deals with Saunders' wrong assertions about al-Megrahi's release. This is from an e-mail sent to her and then to me, responding to a re-printing of her article “Libya, Lockerbie, and commercial warfare.” The second part is by myself, from a comment I posted on the same article.
---
8 January 2011

Debra J. Saunders,
San Francisco Chronicle.

Dear Ms Saunders,

I am writing concerning an article "Pan Am bomber freed by 'commercial warfare'" written by you which appeared in the 'Gaston gazette' on Jan 03, 2011.

'On Aug. 20, 2009, Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill authorized the "compassionate" release of al-Megrahi on the grounds that prostrate cancer left al-Megrahi with less than three months to live.'

FACT: The decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds was made in accordance with Section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993.

FACT: The Medical Report did not specify that al-Megrahi had less than three months to live. The three month period was an estimate NOT a definitive statement as to life expectancy.

From the Medical Report -
'It is very difficult to be precise on matters of prognosis for any disease and Mr Megrahi's condition is no different.'

'the report found that "Scottish officials ignored their own prostrate cancer experts, none of whom would agree to a three-month prognosis."'

FACT: From the Medical Report:
'Consensus on prognosis, therefore, has now moved to the lower end of expectations from 10 months ago. Reviewing the total picture, the concluding specialist view is that, in the absence of a good response to treatment, survival could be in the order of 'months' and, no longer 'many months'. Whether or not prognosis is more or less than 3 months, no specialist "would be willing to say"...The clinical assessment, therefore, is that a 3 month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient.'

'There was talk of releasing al-Megrahi a year before he was diagnosed with cancer.'

FACT: In June 2007, it became public knowledge that a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (the 'deal in the desert') was being negotiated between the UK and Libyan governments (at the instigation of the then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair MP). Megrahi was the only Libyan prisoner being held in gaol anywhere in the UK. The SNP government in Scotland sought to have Megrahi specifically excluded from any such agreement. The UK government advised that this was not possible.

'The Menendez report also found that the British Labour government played a role in MacAskill's decision.'

FACT: The very suggestion that the British government had a role in the decision shows a total lack of understanding of the political, legal and jurisdictional realities as well as the relationship between the current Scottish government and the UK government.

FACT: At the end of the trial at Camp Zeist in Holland the prosecution conceded that it had been unable to prove how the bomb, which destroyed Pan Am 103, got into the baggage system and onto the aircraft.

- Lockerbie - Information relating to decision on Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi 
- Medical Report on Megrahi
- Lockerbie decision
- Lockerbie release - Parliamentary Statement
- Justice Committee Official Report - Inquiry into Decision on Abdelbaset al-Megrahi
- Meeting with Senate Delegation - 16 September 2010
- Protecting patient confidentiality
- Herald Scotland - 'Megrahi's gold'
- Herald Scotland - 'History of controversial Megrahi release'
- Blogpost: THE LOCKERBIE CASE - 'Scottish Government statement following Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing'
- THE LOCKERBIE DISASTER
- THE LOCKERBIE TRIAL AND APPEAL
- LOCKERBIE PRE-TRIAL REVIEW NOTES
- Blogpost: THE LOCKERBIE DIVIDE - 'Some Background on Karol Sikora'

Yours sincerely,

Michael Follon
---

First, on the above, the clearly flawed prognosis and questionable decision to release al-Megrahi, in my opinion, do seem a bit shady. I'm glad he got to go home, since I'm certain he's innocent. But the people deciding were not, ostensibly, motivated by mercy for an innocent man, nor likely by mercy at all. So I'd consider the motive category open, perhaps populated by more than one, and trade is likely in there somewhere. Of course, they killed his second appeal along the way, so maybe "trade considerations" aren't to blame for this – at least, not solely or even primarily. [To see my take on what happened there, see my chronology of August 2009, "MacAskill's two-track railroad"]

Then, my comment at Saunders' article, emphasizing Megrahi's likely innocence, here slightly edited and with links.
---
Posted by: CausticLogic 2:47 PM on January 7, 2011

I've noticed that Debra J. Saunders has been writing a lot about the "Lockerbie bombrer" and shady deals by non-Americans who live outside our little Island of virtue here, in that cold, weak-willed, terrorism-coddling world.

First, there's no doubt in reviewing convictions, appeals (heard and not), etc. that Megrahi is legally guilty and all this protest is legally justified.

But legal and physical reality are sometimes different. Take this case - a review of the best evidence suggests - strongly, coherently - that Megrahi was either framed or just wrongly convicted on accident.

So long as the distinction doesn't matter, carry on. Otherwwise, I reccommend to millions of Americans to take their own look at the facts:
- Tony Gauci's "identification" of Megrahi (different hair, face, height, build, age, and buying the clothes on a day when Megrahi wasn't on Malta at all)
- Abdul Majid Giaka's contributions to the indictments and his acceptance at trial ("liar")
- Edwin Bollier's role (google Bollier + "catch-letter")
- The many millions of $$ paid out to Gauci, another Gauci, Giaka, and perhaps Bollier (but declined by Vassallo)
- The list of important witnesses against Megrahi (precisely Gauci, Giaka, and Bollier)
- Bogomira's printout (Prod. 1060) with no verification (why no verification?)
- John Wyatt's forensics tests
- the records of political "scientists" Thomas Hayes, Allen Feraday, and Tom Thurman
- the London origin clues, Iran and the PFLP-GC as actual perps never caught.

Just in case reality, which evidence gives us a glimpse of, matters anywhere near as much as a cherished legal technicality. See about a hundred credible people that have made the right stand, with reality and against miscarried justice: "No one seriously doubts the Libyan's guilt?"

---

Cart before the horse

January 11 2011

Note: The following is an editorial written by Robert Forrester, Secretary of the Justicee for Megrahi campaign, first published Dec. 29 2010 on the website of the Firm, re-published at the author's permission. Original link: http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/853/Cart_before_the_horse.html

Tuesday the 21st of December 2010 marked the 22nd anniversary of the Lockerbie tragedy, and, yet again, the megaphones of the self righteous upholders of our sacred establishment were turned up to full volume broadcasting their moral rectitude, their contempt and their outrage at the compassionate release of the ‘Lockerbie bomber’ by those contemptible money grubbing Brits. And who do these Scots think they are, by the way? How dare their ministers refuse to appear before us to account for their sins?

What’s more, they’re obviously barbarians, just look at them, the men dress up in skirts! Perhaps I am just old fashioned, but, what is it about these politicians, whose currency is emblazoned with the strapline “In God We Trust”, and yet are so utterly oblivious of the need for common courtesy and respect to be shown to the bereaved of Pan Am 103 on the 21st of December? For the families and friends of that fateful flight in 1988, this day is their day of remembrance; a day for them to be left in peace. It is not a day for American senators: Gillibrand, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Schumer to vent their views on Mr al-Megrahi’s repatriation.

Not content with having openly demonstrated their comprehensive ignorance concerning, amongst other things, the fact that Scots law differs in a variety of substantial respects from English law, succeeded in muddling up the compassionate release with the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) and, moreover, made a most embarrassing public display of exhibiting their impotence when attempting to get those insolent Scots provincials, Messrs Salmond and MacAskill, to comply with their senatorial diktats, they now seem to consider it appropriate to trample over the sensibilities of those for whom the 21st of December will forever be a day cast with pain. Far be it for any of us to suggest that, prior to the November mid term elections, the US senators might initially have hyped up the release for their own cynical political advantage, however, to further raise the issue on the 21st betrays any sense of civilised decorum.

Predictably, the Scottish Tories too have fallen into line by bemoaning the fact that Mr al-Megrahi still hasn’t been invited to atone for ‘his’ heinous conduct before a “higher power.” Nothing new there then, Britain is still “self evidently the junior partner”, as Prime Minister Cameron clarified in his ‘Special Relationship’ gaffe. Such exquisitely tactless timing, of course, is nothing new. On the occasion of the 20th anniversary in 2008, Peter Fraser (AKA: Baron Fraser of Carmyllie, the Lord Advocate who brought the indictments against Messrs Fhimah and al-Megrahi no less) thoughtfully impressed the world with his psychology credentials by suggesting that one of the bereaved (Dr Swire) was suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Only the bereaved can truly claim the right to represent themselves on this annual commemoration. Whether they do or don’t doubt the safety of the Zeist verdict, they all deserve to be allowed the freedom and dignity to mourn their losses without politicians and other commentators utilising the occasion as an opportunity to exercise their crass and frequently ill-informed opinions. Given that Senator Menendez does not believe that Mr al-Megrahi is terminally ill anyway, he could presumably have held back the senators’ report until the anniversary of the verdict (the 31st of January), but perhaps that wouldn’t have had quite the same impact on the US market. After all, the senate wants to restrict the matter to the release and to speculating on the relationship between medical practice and business interests. Therefore, to associate the publication of their conclusions with the date of the judgement would inevitably attract even more attention to the issue of a possible miscarriage of justice at Zeist. And the last thing that ‘anyone’ wants is to query legal practice, isn’t it?

However, the on-going vaudeville being played out across the Pond has unquestionably had some quite unusual repercussions in Scotland. Firstly, SNP activists clearly owe a deep debt of gratitude to Menendez et al for achieving something that no amount of campaigning could. The Senate’s antics managed to recruit massive support from almost all the ‘barbarian’ inhabitants of Scotland behind their champions, Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill, in their refusal to become subservient to Washington’s arrogance when requiring that Scottish ministers subject themselves to the circus in person. Quite an accomplishment indeed.

The SNP must now be praying that the Washington mob start shooting from the hip again just prior to the forthcoming 2011 Holyrood elections. Never ones to look a gift horse in the mouth, the Justice For Megrahi (JFM) campaigners got in on the act too. Given all the righteous talk of opening an inquiry, JFM sent individual letters of invitation to the senators to join up as signatory members of its quest for an inquiry to be set up. Nor did it stop there. JFM also invited Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill to become members of the campaign group. Despite the gravity of the Lockerbie/Zeist case, never let it be said that JFM doesn’t have a sense of humour!

No doubt in part due to their busy election schedule, not one of the senators deigned to reply. Not so our Scottish ministers. It’s all in the breeding, you see. As expected, the ministers felt it inappropriate to accept the JFM invitation, however, in a letter to the organisation from the Scottish Government Justice Directorate, the government considerately outlined its reasons for not establishing an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie/Zeist case under the auspices of the Scottish Government. The message contained in the letter was nothing new or unexpected, in fact, it was identical to a statement made by Mr MacAskill shortly after Mr al-Megrahi’s release, namely: the Scottish Government does not possess the power to open such an inquiry due to the international facets of the case, it ought to be sanctioned by a body with the requisite powers to do so, and finally, the government “do not doubt the safety of the conviction of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi.”

The position of the government on this issue is one which leaves the party’s supporters with considerably less cause for celebration than the input of the US Senators. SNP activists quite openly express their befuddlement and even anger at the government’s stance. JFM has no allegiances to any political parties but does empathise with those members of the SNP who can’t comprehend the government’s reaction to what, on the face of it, seems to be an electoral gift to a party that professes its very raison d'être is Scotland’s independence from the UK.

On the 9th of November, armed with its public e-petition, JFM persuaded the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee (SPPPC) to write to the Scottish Government asking it to cite the legislation it is relying on to support its somewhat disingenuous contention that it lacks the power to sanction an inquiry into matters which fall squarely and exclusively under Scottish jurisdiction. [ed - see the video of that powerful session here] The SPPPC graciously gave the government until the 10th of December, an entire month no less, to locate just such legislation. Three weeks after the deadline, the government has still failed to reply. Surely it can’t be, given the legions of legal advisers at its disposal, that the government’s claim is fallacious after all. It’s all a bit embarrassing really. On the one hand, the SNP seems to want to break Scotland’s ties with the Union, whilst on the other, the behaviour of the government in abrogating its responsibilities on this matter leaves one with the image of the First Minister clinging on to the apron strings of mother Britannia.

It won’t be much of a vote winner amongst the electorate who are concerned about the direction the criminal justice system is currently moving in if the government finally has nothing left to resort to other than mimicking UK Foreign Secretary William Hague’s recent remarks by saying that an inquiry wouldn’t be in the public interest. Nor will it enhance the SNP’s democratic credentials if the government is seen to give the SPPPC the brush off. The SPPPC has the potential to become one of the most democratic developments in recent UK political history. What petitioning in Scotland needs is more power; such as would bind the government by statute to the holding of referenda when a petition attracts a given percentage number of signatories, for example.

Ultimately, should the government produce no legislative support for not opening an inquiry into a wholly Scottish legal case, JFM’s position will be vindicated and, by dint of this, the question of endorsing an inquiry held by some body with international authority will automatically be rendered totally redundant as the ping pong ball that has been batted backwards and forwards between Edinburgh and London finally comes to rest at the doors of Holyrood. The only straw which will then remain for the government to grasp on to will be its satisfaction with the safety of the conviction. JFM’s position on the verdict has been widely and comprehensively disseminated throughout the public domain since it commenced campaigning for an inquiry. JFM has itemised in considerable detail its reasons for having doubts over Lockerbie/Zeist, the government has yet to reciprocate.

It could be a mistake though to come away with the impression that the dead hand of the Crown might not have been making its presence felt in all of this. In fact, through both their actions and inaction, the government and the parliament have been instrumental in providing the High Court of Justiciary, and, therefore, the civil service, with unprecedented and final powers to accept one application for appeal and reject another. Not only does this introduce a dangerous conflict of interest into the justice system, but it also disposes of the essential independent scrutiny that is provided by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) and clearly poses a new and significant obstacle in the path of anyone considering the reopening of Mr al-Megrahi’s second appeal in the interests of justice.

Moreover, the government seems quite reluctant to lift the legal consent requirements which are hindering the publication of the SCCRC’s statement of reasons for referring Mr al-Megrahi’s case back to the court of appeal.

Our legal system may well have its imperfections, one of the reasons we have a court of appeal is to try to address possible shortcomings in the system and in its functioning. The SCCRC’s grounds for Mr al-Megrahi’s second appeal have yet to be tested in law. Until the question marks which continue to hover over this case are cleared openly and independently, there will always exist the suspicion that the actions of the civil service and governments are more concerned with the protection of the reputations of individuals in preference to the reinstatement of the reputation of Scottish justice.

One particularly sobering thought resultant from Zeist must surely be that if anyone ever manages to establish that Mr al-Megrahi was in fact a victim of a miscarriage of justice, and had he been tried by an American court, he would almost assuredly not be alive today.

So, to return to our friends in Washington, what’s the beef? Many wonder what can be so important that you need to invade a private day of grief and mourning for individuals who have become random victims of fate with your speculative theories. After all, it’s not as if the hegemony of those who uphold the safety of the Zeist verdict is losing the battle. Except, of course, for the moral one, where the more draconian their actions (see section 7 of the ‘Cadder Case’ Legislation) and the more vapid their excuses (see the Scottish government’s reasons for not opening an independent inquiry), the more suspect this whole affair looks. Perhaps it might be a good idea to have an inquiry into the safety of the conviction before we sound off too much about investigating the compassionate release of Mr al-Megrahi. Just a passing thought.

Robert Forrester (Secretary, Justice For Megrahi).

"Justice Undone"

Comments on the U.S. Senate Report
December 21 2010
last update December 23

I've been not posting much here in recent days, but being the 22nd anniversary of the destruction of Pan Am 103, it's a day to say something. I didn't know what until I just saw this report from MSNBC regarding the long-awaited U.S. Senate report on al-Megrahi's release. This was issued today, to mark the anniversary for maximum effect. Senator Memendez and crew are playing hardball here, with the title also meant to be punchy: Justice Undone: The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber. (report PDF link)

I'll have to read the report before critiquing it (space reserved below for a later update). But the release of Megrahi was not "Jusice undone." Even if you call the verdict "justice," which might be legally true if not really, the legal technicality of his conviction still stands and serves its key purpose for U.S. foreign policy of keeping the real truth legally barred from beiing followed up on.

Justice was undone many years ago, when at an unclear date (sometime in 1989) a decision was made to deny the truth of the attack and pursue strange new clues that started appearing. The injustice of framing a different nation, nd two men within it in particular, was set in stone in November 1991 with indictments against al-Megrahi and "accomplice" Fhimah - charges laced with what we now know are lies (brown suitcase on Malta, explosives at the airport, 1986 report on bombing a plane, at least, all legally dismissed). The final nail in Justice's coffin was hammered in a decade later at Camp Zeist, when the judges accepteed enough of the bogus case to convict one of the two accused.

Commentary
For now I'll just pass on my comment at the MSNBC article, modified slightly for better effect

"Unrepentant terrorist" is apparently code for someone who maintains his innocence, which is in turn strongly supported, not by the verdict, but by the facts - both the ones before the judges and withheld from them.

Megrahi is an "unrepentant terrorist" not on Malta November 23, the day the clothes in the bomb suitcase were purchased there by man 4 inches taller and 14 years older and of different appearance from himself (so says Tony Gauci's only reliable evidence). Only one questionable scrap of paper, with no corroboration and contradicted by everything else, even suggests there was a bomb on Malta Dec 21, while Megrahi was there under an alias. If one accepts the court's judgment on Megrahi's guilt, why ignore their ruling that he had no legally accepted accomplice, when one was clearly needed? There was a dismissed star witness (Giaka) with a handful of juicy clues found "unreliable," and a back-up star witness (Gauci) whose stories changed in all key regards by trial (since the suspect changed). There are questions over the most crucial physical evidence, at least two multi-million-dollar pay-outs to liars, and a string of bollocks stories from Bollier. And finally, a heap of clues still pointing to an Iranian hand, not a Libyan one, behind the attack and to an English, not Maltese, point of departure for the bomb. (see around the site for details on these underreported facts)

If legal technicalities of conviction or acquittal were all that mattered here, I could see being upset by the early release. But knowing what I do of the actual facts, and that the release only happened after his appeal was safely surrendered, I'm still too mad about other things.

Menendez: ""God forbid there should be another terrorist attack."

Hey, dummy! Megrahi had just gotten in jail when 9/11 happened (ironic side-note - with Libya the first nation, even before this, to target bin Laden and al Qaeda as a dangerous element). Megrahi's accepted guilt stops nothing except the truth about Lockerbie coming out (so far). You of all people are probably aware of that, and hence will never stop your crusade to keep the hex on Libya. Unless...

Mad that a convicted terrorist is free? Then help us revive that appeal and clear his name so an innocent man can die in peace and his family can move out from under that shadow. Sound good?

Review of the report
forthcoming...

No, never mind. I'm too busy to read through this piece of crap. I'll let a few others speak on it, via these articles linked on Professor Black's blog The Lockerbie Case.
This Lockerbie bomber nonsense shows US senators have lost the plot
excerpt:

...the cause of the bereaved would have been served better had the senators steered clear of this elaborate conspiracy theory.

'Bonkers' US claim on bomber
excerpt:

[SNP] MSP Stewart Maxwell said: "It is bonkers. It is an absolute work of ill-informed fiction.

"They started off making wild claims about BP lobbying for the release of Megrahi and end up making the most bizarre allegations about the Sainsbury's buyout.

"This report is a piece of politically motivated propaganda that lets down all those who worked long and hard to see justice done in the Lockerbie case."

And "Blogiston's" comment from the second one:

Having now read the report - the subtext is really, ageing imperialist nation on the verge of bankruptcy accuses small friendly nation of corrupt practices and attempts to override its internal judicial process.
Meanwhile, it is impotent to curtail a real and growing threat from emerging east Asian countries with global ambitions who ARE making corrupt deals, refusing to acknowledge human rights, ignoring undemocratic regimes, disregarding environmental issues, on EVERY continent.
American foreign policy (which is governed solely by its own domestic expediency including global commercial interests) does not project overseas to become local domestic policy, anymore - but they ain't assimilating the new data yet, are they?
We should just ignore them now, and move on, because they would hate that - but internal cat-fighting locally will stop that happening, of course.