There are strong reasons in favour of releasing Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the former Libyan intelligence officer convicted of killing 270 people when Pan AM Flight 103 exploded over the skies of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988. However, to my mind, there are more compelling reasons for keeping him in prison.
The two strongest arguments for releasing him have been that he is innocent, and that he deserves some compassion as he is apparently close to death from cancer.
The case for Megrahi’s release have been well articulated elsewhere (see The Independent). Three of the major arguments in that case are as follows. First, Megrahi was convicted largely on the evidence of Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, who sold some of the clothing that was in the suitcase that contained the bomb. However, Gauci had previously seen pictures of Megrahi in a newspaper. A four-year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission concluded last year that Gauci’s evidence against Megrahi was questionable enough to warrant an appeal which would have gone ahead had Megrahi not dropped it this week.
Secondly, as noted in The Independent:
As the trial closed, fresh evidence emerged that suggested the bomb could have been placed directly on to Flight 103 at Heathrow rather than at Malta where Megrahi was head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines. In September 2001 Ray Manley, a former security guard at Heathrow, said in a sworn affidavit that he had told anti-terror police that one of Pan Am’s luggage rooms had been broken into on the night of the bombing. Manley was surprised his evidence had not been presented in court.
Thirdly, many people believe that there is no connection with Libya at all and that the destruction of Pan AM Flight 103 was a revenge attack by Syria for an American ‘accident’ . As The Independent explains:
Two years before Lockerbie, PFLP-GC’s Syrian leader Ahmed Jibril had called a press conference warning that there would be “no safety for any traveller on an Israeli or US airliner”. Intelligence agencies took this to mean that Tehran had given Jibril the go-ahead to carry out a revenge attack for the shooting down of an Iranian Airlines passenger jet by the US warship Vincennes. Iran Air Flight 655 had been carrying 290 pilgrims to Mecca for the hajj but the captain of the USS Vincennes, who later received a medal from the US government, fired upon it believing it was a hostile Iranian jet fighter. Two years later the very threat that Jibril had promised to carry out had happened. The PFLP-GC hastily called a press conference in Beirut denying any involvement but many believed Jibril’s organisation carried out the attack on behalf of Iran in revenge. Those who do not believe the official verdict say Libya was placed in the frame three years later because the US could not afford to alienate Iran and Syria during the build up to the first Gulf War, which had been sparked by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.
There is a feeling in some quarters that American pressure to keep Megrahi in prison is seriously misdirected and should be firmly resisted. It is argued that because, until recently at least, the US had a very hawkish administration, having a terrorist enemy be seen to be punished was more important than truth. More sympathetically it could be argued that because of the experience of 9/11 there is in the American psyche an emotional pressure to have a culprit convicted and this may be causing errors of judgement.
Not everyone is convinced of Megrahi’s innocence, but the second major argument put forward for his release has been that of compassion for a dying man.
Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion be available. In his statement on Lockerbie, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said: “Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown.” MacAskill felt that Megrahi’s release enables the people of Scotland to remain true to their values as people.
Despite the strong case for release, I am personally not persuaded by it.
First, Megrahi’s hypothetical innocence is just that - hypothetical. He has been convicted of mass murder. If he is innocent then due process needs to be followed to prove that. A decision about his release cannot be based on hypotheticals. And the fact that he may not have enough time left to follow due process is sad, but it still should not become a factor in the decision process. Justice has to deal with the evidence before it, not what might be there.
Secondly, I find myself questioning MacAskill’s view that compassion should be shown to Megrahi and his family in his final days because it would be denying humanity to do so. The majority of the 270 murder victims will have died in terror, and the families of those victims have lived with that knowledge for over 20 years. Part of the purpose of the justice system is to punish for a crime on behalf of society, and it is an insult to the victims’ families (and arguably to humanity) to say that this crime was not serious enough to merit full punishment. By keeping him in prison until either death, or the end of his sentence, MacAskill would have enough respect for humanity to say: “We wish to maintain certain values in our society, and the full execution of a court’s sentence enables us to do that and to respect the feelings of the victims’ families.” He would not be tortured. He would not be denied medical treatment. He would be treated with due respect as a human being. Keeping him in prison is not in conflict with the values of the people of Scotland.
It may be true that justice allows compassion. However, in this case, I feel there are many factors which argue against that. Allowing compassion does not mean it has to be carried out in every case. Megrahi’s crime was mass murder. He showed no compassion to his victims or their families. If ever there was a case where the feelings of those affected by the crime should be taken into account, surely this is one.
My third reason for wanting Megrahi to stay in Scotland is because that is what was promised to the victims’ families and the American government in the pre-trial negotiations. As MacAskill stated:
The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, was in fact deputy Attorney General to Janet Reno at the time of the pre-trial negotiations. He was adamant that assurances had been given to the United States Government that any person convicted would serve his sentence in Scotland. Many of the American families spoke of the comfort that they placed upon these assurances over the past ten years. That clear understanding was reiterated to me, by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Megrahi’s release just adds further to the sense of betrayal and shows a further lack of compassion.
There is a sense in all this that things are happening behind the scenes. Despite objections in Scotland, Jack Straw, when Home Secretary, brought in a prisoner exchange scheme with Libya, even though there was only one Libyan prisoner in Scotland at the time. Rumours abound of diplomatic processes taking place to get access to Libyan oil or to the truth about Gaddafi’s weaponry. If the truth is ever known, it is only likely to be when documents are released in 50 years time, and that will be far too late for those who desperately want to know why the people they loved were killed and why the man convicted of those murders was released.
What do you think?
Instinct says guilt or innocence needs to be put to one side, that just confuses the issue which is I think should a dying person be released from prison on compassionate grounds?
As a general rule I’m sure that the answer is yes however I did find the news footage of a triumphant/victorious return to his homeland somewhat distressing; so what that must have done for the minds of the victims relatives I can only guess.
Did I hear Obama suggest release to house arrest in Scotland? With hindsight it seems to me this middle way would probably have been preferable.
Neal O
Thanks for dropping by. I agree, it is a difficult and finely balanced decision. I can see that there may be cases where release on compassionate grounds could be justified. However, I personally also feel that some cases would make such a decision a bad one.
I still see Megrahi’s release the right one in the circumstances. OK MacAskill slightly milked his inappropriate moment in the spotlight but for me he put forward a justifiable case to release of a dying man albeit one who may possibly not have been the man who placed the bomb on the fateful flight but no doubt had a connection to the tragic event. Yes pictures of a pseudo triumphalist homecoming for Megrahi sours the gesture for Britain and the US (Libya no doubt need to show politically that the road they have taken by renouncing the state sponsorship of terrorism and violence was the right one that pays dividends and is worth consolidating even if from the outside this gesture sticks in the throat).I know it’s hard for the families who lost loved ones to witness but as in Northern Ireland sometimes such gestures need to be made for the greater long term good.Only time will tell if this decision was folly ,brave compassion or just cynical politicking that’s part of a larger murkier grandstand view of things.
These are two separate issues.
If he’s innocent then he should have been released whatever his state of health. He was found guilty; end of story unless an appeal found otherwise.
As to the ‘compassionate’ grounds for release. I agree with you. Just where would you draw the line? He supposedly has 3 months to lve. What if he had longer? And what would people have said if some of the Nazi war criminals had been released on compassionate grounds owing to ill health? Do we release ALL criminals who are old or ill enough to be somehwere near death?
The compassion is in proper the medical treatment of the man and that should be enough.
Emsquared It is difficult, isn’t it? I agree that there may well be a case for gestures for the greater good on occasions. As human beings we need to interpret and break our rules as well as create them. My problem with the Northern Ireland parallel is that there we are talking about large numbers of people being released early for the sake of healing a community. Here we are talking about the release of one man and it is hard to see the greater good.
awriteblog I agree. I think that prison could be argued to be uncompassionate and a violation of human rights. But surely that is one of the points of it. As a society we have made decisions to treat people humanely but to deprive them of certain rights on occasions. I think ‘compassion’ fudges the issue and is misunderstood.
I can see why there might be speculation of cover-ups or conspiracies with regards to the bombing (there always are, aren’t there ..), but I fully agree with you that these are hypothetical questions, and until proven (not likely) cannot come into play when discussing this issue. We should not forget, however, that Libya signed an agreement to compensate the relatives of the Lockerbie victims only just last year. That to me heavily indicates acceptance of responsibility for the act and diminishes the value of the above mentioned speculations.
With regards to the question at hand - should Megrahi be released on compasionate grounds - I personally think that even contemplating the possibility borders on the surreal.
However, as we age we come to realise that decisions are not made based on moral grounds, although this is what parents and teachers tried to teach us when we were growing up. That is particularly true when it comes to political decision making. This discovery causes desillusion leading to frustration and anger and sometimes blogging …
Surely nobody but the most blue-eyed believes that the release took place on compasionate grounds. But precisely because politicians are the main propagators of our frustration it is always fun watching them twist and turn and perform oratory acrobatics in order to convince us and dispel our “suspicions”.
They know that we know that they know we know and yet …
@Niklas
“Surreal” I don’t think. Where is your idealism? Where is your humanity?
@athinkingman
I think the greater good is clear here. The more morality, compassion and caring we show by our actions the higher we set the standards for others to judge themselves. If we release on compassionate grounds we can argue, and if necessary fight on ethical issues from a position of strength based of our deeds.
The more I listen to the debate on this here and elsewhere the more I come to the conclusion that the right decision was taken, even if the reasons and process may be questionable.
Oh Neal,
Following your thought through to the logical end punishment should be abandoned altogether. I do see your point, of course, but we would inevitably end up showing compassion to perpetrators of crimes rather than victims and their mourning relatives.
You talk about “more morality” as if it were a clearly defined and universal measure, but surely that is not the case.
Thanks Niklas.
You are of course right on punishment… I do have to admit I see sanctions as all about prevention and cure, not punishment.
I have to preface my next comments by saying I’m a very fortunate person in never having suffered the great tragedy in my life of say the loss of a relative or similar from a terror attack and hence need to listen to others who have. However references to victims and mourners as if our punishments will either bring back loved ones, ‘put it right’ or take the pain away don’t help. Surely memories are best served and prevention best achieved by moving forward with compassion. I think of say the work on truth and reconciliation in South Africa as a model here.
On absolute morality you are of course also correct. However I do think in real life a broad consensus exists on basic morality. See Dawkins God Delusion Ch 6 and related references, in particular p254 “A case study into the roots of morality”. In precis studies show a high level of agreement across cultures on simple and not so simple moral dilemmas. Just because it is a grey issue does not mean we should not always try and do the next right thing. I guess I’m just advocating a line which is the palest shade of grey I can come to.
Neal,
I admire humanitarian idealists, being a closet one myself. Come think of it most people probably are if we probe deeply enough, which is what I assume Dawkins refers to although I admittedly haven’t read his book.
But when a humanitarian comes up against against a fanatic he has some very hard choices to make. It is very hard to be tolerant in the face of non-tolerance. That is what I consider to be the main dilemma in the current schism between western humanitarian values and Islamic doctrinal values.
With regards to the punishment versus pervention/cure issue, I think it is similar to the discussion about legalisation versus non-legalisation of drugs.
History has clearly shown us, that punishment does not work as prevention. Otherwise why would we have a more or less constant percentage of prison population regardless of time and social condition. Punishment is just revenge, and satisfies one of the basic human needs.
The parallel I want to make to the drugs issue is, that no matter how much money we throw at “wars on drugs”, people will always look for, and get their high, at a huge cost to society in collateral damage. I say: let them have their drugs, tax the the drugs and spend the money on cure reducing the collateral damage to society. (There are furthermore vast benefits involved in denying druglords money to fund wars, and therefore I consider my point of view to be humanitarian, although I allow for individual suffering)
I therefore advocate that the individual must take responsibilty for his own actions, knowing the cost/punishment involved. That goes for the addict ruining his own life and for the perpetrator, knowing the sentence that awaits him if caught. “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime”.
Whenever we attempt to negate human needs, we start moving into dangerous and potentially authoritarian waters. The various ideals of creating a better human race, has only led to great suffering, destruction and animosity that lingers for centuries.
I am not sure if I make sense here, but in my own mind I do…
Al Megrahi was released so as to circumvent an ‘Appeal’ process. Had it taken place, all HELL would have been let loose! Read from The United Nations Official Observer Professor Hans Koechler. There is absolutely no doubt at all that Al Megrahi is totally innocent of the fabricated charges made against him. This was probably the most shamefull episode in the history of Scottish Jurisprudence!
“In a statement released today, Dr. Hans Koechler, who has followed the Lockerbie proceedings since the beginning of the trial in the Netherlands in May 2000, highlighted basic aspects and questions of this new revelation that appear to be of relevance not only in connection with the upcoming second appeal of the convicted Libyan national, but also for new prosecutorial action ex officio by the Scottish authorities.
In his affidavit Mr. Lumpert implicitly admits to have committed perjury as witness No. 550 before the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. He states (Par. 2) that he has stolen a handmade (by him) sample of an “MST-13 Timer PC-board” from MEBO company in Zurich and handed it over, on 22 June 1989 (!), to an “official person investigating the Lockerbie case.” He further states (in Par. 5) that the fragment of the MST-13 timer, cut into two pieces for “supposedly forensic reasons,” which was presented in Court as vital part of evidence, stemmed from the piece which he had stolen and handed over to an investigator in 1989. He further states that when he became aware that this piece was used for an “intentional politically motivated criminal undertaking” (vorsätzliche politisch kriminelle “Machenschaft”) he decided, out of fear for his life, to keep silent on the matter.
The rather late admission of Mr. Lumpert is consistent with an earlier revelation in the British and Scottish media according to which a former Scottish police officer (whose identity has not yet been disclosed to the public) stated “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan” for the bombing of the Pan Am jet (Scotland on Sunday, 28 August 2005).”
THIS IS BEYOND REFUTE & BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT!
Go to -
http://www.freewebs.com/fbiblog/
‘FBI CHIEF TERRORIST’
Read paragraph 2).