Lockerbie Bomber and the White House

UPDATE: The State Department released the letter sent by Richard LeBaron to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond on August 12, 2009.
_________________

From The Australian:

THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.

Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.

The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.

The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.

Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.

The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments.

In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.

The note added: "Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."

When Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was released last summer, it made me sick.

I didn't get why Megrahi should be allowed to return home to die.

Is deteriorating health reason to release a terrorist, a cold-blooded killer?

Get terminally ill and get your freedom?

Megrahi really lucked out.

I didn't like the reaction of the Obama administration to the travesty.

Publicly, the White House expressed regret and disappointment.

Its statements did not indicate zero tolerance for terrorists.

I thought last August that the release of the Lockerbie bomber was a defining moment for the Obama administration.

WEAK ON TERROR.

Now, we learn that the White House was OK with Megrahi being released. And of course, we also know now that the terrorist was NOT dying. It was a ruse.

This is a monumental screw-up for the Obama administration.

Compassion?

Where's the compassion for the loved ones of the victims of the bombing?

For the family and friends of the 270 people who lost their lives over Lockerbie, the bombing was a life sentence of sorrow and grief.

Imagine the pain they're experiencing now, given Megrahi's "recovery."

Megrahi was given mercy and it was a horrible mistake. The Obama administration made a horrible mistake. I'm so tired of Obama's lies.

Being WEAK ON TERROR is always a horrible mistake.

Lockerbie Bomber Missing?

UPDATE: British Officials Speak to Lockerbie Bomber, Thought to Be Missing

Fears over the whereabouts of the Lockerbie bomber have been put to rest after British officials spoke to him at his home in Tripoli.

From Sky News:

Staff from East Renfrewshire Council were able to contact Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi today at his home in Tripoli.

...A council spokesman said: "We have now spoken to Mr Megrahi, who is in his house. There is no cause for alarm, he is in his house."

"He wasn't able to speak to us yesterday but he was able to do so today. We have spoken to him and we don't have any concerns. He is definitely at home in Tripoli."

Megrahi would have breached his licence conditions if he had changed his permanent address without informing the council.

The council spokesman said if staff had been unable to contact Megrahi today, they would have reported the situation to the Scottish Government.

The council also received the latest medical report on the state of Megrahi's health at the end of November.

But the spokesman said: "We cannot divulge what was in in these reports. They are confidential."

The mystery of the missing Lockerbie bomber is solved.

That doesn't change the fact that his release was a mistake.
___________________

Last August, when the Scottish government released convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds based on his terminal illness, there was outrage among elected officials, family members of the victims, and anyone who has a sense of right and wrong.

That outrage has been more than justified.

The dying al-Megrahi wasn't too sick to go missing, violating the terms of his release.

From TimesOnline:

Mystery surrounded the Lockerbie bomber last night after he could not be reached at his home or in hospital.

Libyan officials could say nothing about the whereabouts of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, and his Scottish monitors could not contact him by telephone. They will try again to speak to him today but if they fail to reach him, the Scottish government could face a new crisis.

Under the terms of his release from jail, the bomber cannot change his address or leave Tripoli, and must keep in regular communication with East Renfrewshire Council.

Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic and relatives of the 270 people who died in the 1988 bombing expressed anger about al-Megrahi’s disappearance. Richard Baker, Labour’s justice spokesman in the Scottish Parliament, said the whole affair was turning into a shambles and putting Scotland’s reputation at risk. “This flags up just how ludicrous it is that East Renfrewshire Council, a local council thousands of miles away from Libya, is responsible for supervising al-Megrahi’s conditions of licence,” he said.

Eliot Engel, a New York congressman, said: “I think it was a tremendous mistake to let him out in the first place. I don’t think a convicted terrorist has any integrity to abide by any type of agreement.”

It was crazy to release al-Megrahi.

Some moves you know are wrong.

Obviously, freeing him and allowing him to return to Libya was an enormous mistake.

He was supposed to be dead by now.

Madeleine Albright: Lockerbie Bombing a 'Terrible Accident'

Let's get this straight.

Pan Am Flight 103 being blown out of the sky was NO accident. It was an intentional, murderous, evil act.

Madeleine Albright doesn't see it that way. On MSNBC, Albright referred to the terrorism as an "accident."

Video, from Breitbart.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think we have to take the British and the Scotch at their word, that there were no deals. Uh, the issue itself is most unfortunate, because so many Americans and other nationals died in that terrible, terrible accident.

How could a former secretary of state call the intentional slaughter of hundreds of innocents an accident?

Disgraceful.

Obviously, Albright has problems recognizing terrorism.

If she does recognize it, she apparently doesn't have the spine to call it what it is.

Kenny MacAskill: "A Sentence Imposed by a Higher Power"

Kenny MacAskill continues to face criticism over his decision to release Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, convicted in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, exploding over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988, and killing 270 people.

From the Associated Press:

Scottish legislators gathered Monday for an emergency meeting on the government's decision to release the Lockerbie bomber as critics claimed the act could severely damaged relations with the United States.

The government of First Minister Alex Salmond has faced unrelenting criticism from the both the U.S. government and the families of American bombing victims for freeing Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.

The Libyan — the only man convicted of killing 270 people in the 1988 airline bombing — was released last week on compassionate grounds because he is terminally ill with prostate cancer. He has returned to his native Libya.

In a strongly worded letter to the Scottish government, FBI director Robert Mueller said al-Megrahi's release gave comfort to terrorists, while Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said releasing the bomber was "obviously a political decision."

Lawmakers want to question Salmond's minority government about the decision, with some calling for Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to resign. MacAskill has said the decision was his alone, followed all the correct procedures under Scottish law and was not influenced by political considerations.

Some Scottish lawmakers want to distance themselves from the decision by Scotland's nationalist administration, which advocates full independence from Britain.

"Today is about showing the world that Kenny MacAskill did not speak for Scotland in making this decision," said Richard Baker, the Labour Party's Scottish justice spokesman.

More, from the BBC.

Needless to say, the release of Megrahi has resulted in a lot of political posturing.

There's outrage aplenty.

But MacAskill also has his supporters.

From the Telegraph:

Nothing in his experience of life or politics could have prepared Kenny MacAskill for the walk towards that podium last Thursday and I wondered if he would endure the ordeal ahead. Scotland's justice minister, an honest journeyman in the minority part-government of a relatively unimportant country, had nothing beyond a desire to see that natural justice must prevail as he pondered his decision to show compassion to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.

This is the man whom Scots justice had found guilty of the biggest terrorist atrocity committed on these islands, the bomb aboard Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. He knew that his decision was being scrutinised on four continents and that his character would be trashed before the hour was spent. Yet he emerged from his trial with his stature increased and Scotland woke up on Friday with its reputation for decency and fairness enhanced.

MacAskill could have washed his hands of this issue and simply had a terminally ill man spend the few remaining days of his life in a Greenock prison cell. Few, beyond the masters of the British petroleum industry, would have demurred. Certainly not Downing Street, whose haunted incumbent would have been praying for such a verdict, and certainly not America whose default position on justice is: "When in doubt, hang them from the neck… especially if they are poor, black and uneducated." In the Arab world, there would have been desultory protests but nothing more. Baghdad, Helmand, Kabul and the West Bank are of far more pressing concern than the final resting place of a man they all wished to forget.

But this unprepossessing minister of justice sought to ignore all the serried interests of the global supermen. Instead, he found refuge in the fundamental principles of a judicial system that has served Scotland soundly for more than 400 years. For 16 years now, our statutes have given us leave to release from prison anyone who is deemed by competent medical authority to have three months or less to live. It was a concession rooted in compassion, pity and forgiveness. Few in the United Kingdom have ever taken issue with it. It is a good and just law. MacAskill simply applied it. In this case, he used it merely to allow a murderer go home to die. Before Megrahi, 23 other prisoners had been shown a similar mercy in Scotland. It was also a decision buttressed by two oncologists and two urologists who provided written documentation that, in their opinions, the Libyan prisoner was in the very last stages of his final agony.

Nor had MacAskill been party to any quid pro quo deal that involved Megrahi dropping his appeal against his original conviction in return for compassionate release. The desired outcome for the Scottish government was for Megrahi to die in a Scottish jail and for his appeal to proceed.

...One senior SNP politician I spoke to last night stated categorically that no deal had been struck with Megrahi: "Politically, the worst option for us was the one chosen by Kenny MacAskill. But it was also the right and proper one and consistent with the principles this nation strives to govern itself by. What no one could have foreseen two years ago was the onset of the prisoner's aggressive prostate cancer and this changed everything."

So did MacAskill do the morally right thing? Was it a selfless act on his part to free Megrahi?

A piece in the Telegraph by Stephen Hough highlights the Christian overtones of MacAskill's words, speaking of "compassion" and "mercy."

However, he uses MacAskill's terminology against him, concluding that MacAskill overstepped his authority, acting unilaterally to grant Megrahi mercy.

Hough writes:

‘Justice’, in practical legal terms, is in the hands of the courts, and I am amazed that one man could make such a sweeping decision to hold or release someone like this; but ‘mercy’ (in MacAskill’s terminology) can only come from God. I dearly hope for unlimited mercy for all people from God, but I think it was misguided and inappropriate for the Justice Secretary to take on that task himself on behalf of those who were so deeply affected personally by that Pan Am plane’s plunge to the ground in 1988.

A piece that was published on the New York Times website on August 20, includes remarks from MacAskill that strike me as profoundly misguided and offensive, and not the least bit compassionate or Christian.

Scotland’s justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, announced that Mr. Megrahi, “convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die.”

With his release, Mr. MacAskill said, Mr. Megrahi “now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power.”

“It is one that no court, in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule,” he said. “It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die.”

I strongly object to MacAskill's assertion that Megrahi's illness is a "sentence imposed by a higher power."

This supposed man of compassion is seriously lacking, in my opinion.

So according to MacAskill, being terminally ill is Megrahi's punishment for his role in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, meted out by God, and that should satisfy those wanting and deserving justice?

What does that suggest? What does that say to all those suffering from dreadful illnesses? That they are being punished by God?

Are we to equate a terminally ill child with Megrahi?

What did the child do that would condemn him or her to "[face] a sentence imposed by a higher power"?

I fail to see any compassion in MacAskill's statement that Megrahi is being punished and justice is being done by virtue of the fact that he's ill, facing a death sentence that he believes is imposed by a higher power.

If MacAskill thinks that terminal illness takes the place of a sentence handed down by a court of law, that it's the ultimate punishment from God, then I think he should explain why those who are innocent, who aren't terrorists, are afflicted with devastating illnesses.

MacAskill's remarks were terribly callous, lacked compassion, and showed no mercy.
___________________

Related:

Here's an interesting piece written by John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations:

Outrage was the uniform American response to Scotland's release last week of Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of blowing Pan Am 103 out of the sky over Lockerbie in December, 1988. Two hundred and seventy innocent people died in that act of terrorism, of whom 189 were Americans, many of them students on their way home to celebrate Christmas with their families.

Outrage also greeted the public celebration of Megrahi's arrival in Libya and his warm reception from Muammar Gaddafi. These manifestations of insensitivity only highlight the shamefulness of Britain's fundamental mistake in letting Megrahi go free, regardless of his condition. "Compassion" has no place here. Releasing him to die at home means that he has spent less than two weeks in jail for each of his 270 victims. They never made it home.

The justifiable disgust over Megrahi's release sadly underlines what amounts to a spectacular failure of American diplomacy. "Obamamania" overseas is a dominant theme of the media, endlessly recounting how the US position in the world has
improved since President Bush's departure. "Engagement" with friend and adversary alike is the Obama administration's hallmark, with diplomatic advances expected to flow like wine.

So what happened? The state department said on Friday that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked "for weeks and months" to persuade Britain not to release the murderer. Both Washington and London all but begged Gaddafi not to hold public celebrations on Megrahi's arrival in Tripoli. Yet Britain, the other half of the "special relationship", ignored Clinton's efforts, as did Libya, which only recently resumed full diplomatic relations with America.

This is effective US diplomacy? This is one of the tangible benefits of Obamamania? The purported "decision" by Scotland (under whose laws America, Britain and Libya agreed Megrahi would be tried) was almost surely taken at the behest of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Government. Even worse, Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, and Lord Trefgarne, president of the Libyan-British Business Council, have both essentially confirmed that Megrahi's release was intended to facilitate enhanced commercial relationships between Britain and Libya. Gaddafi said the release "will be positively reflected for sure in all areas of co-operation between the two countries". Is there any doubt of his meaning?

Cabinet protestations to the contrary are increasingly hollow, as inconvenient new evidence, such as Foreign Office minister Ivan Lewis's letter to Scotland's justice secretary, demonstrates. For sure, there was no "deal" between Brown and Gaddafi or their underlings, no signed contract, no express quid pro quo between Megrahi's release and business for Britain. In reality, of course, that is not the way it's done. All denials of such an explicit transaction are probably "the truth", but not the whole truth. Sequencing the release and the subsequent contracts was designed to enhance official deniability, but the linkage is palpable to all concerned.

Expert Cabinet spin cannot hide the emerging reality. Some say Brown listened to those British victims' families who still doubt Megrahi's guilt. Why does he have so little faith in Scottish justice? And if Scotland (birthplace of two of my grandparents) can't get mass terrorism right, what does that tell foreigners thinking about visiting?

In fact, this is merely the latest example of a fundamentally flawed American approach to international terrorism, begun in the Clinton administration. Although rejected by the Bush administration in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Clinton philosophy that terrorism was simply a law-enforcement matter is again in vogue in full force under President Obama. Both the first President Bush and President Clinton should have treated the destruction of Pan Am 103 as an attack on the US and responded accordingly. This mass murder was not simply a bank robbery writ large; it was an act of state aggression almost surely directed by Libya's government, then, as now, in Gaddafi's hands.

Bolton makes some legitimate points about Obama-mania, "'engagement' with friend and adversary alike," and treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter.

Lockerbie Bomber in Libya: Hero's Welcome

Libyans defied Obama's warning not to give the freed Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, a hero's welcome.

Watch the convicted terrorist's arrival in Libya.



Yes, that looks like a hero's welcome to me.

TRIPOLI, Libya -- The only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing returned home Thursday to a cheering crowd after his release from a Scottish prison — an outrage to many relatives of the 270 people who perished when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded.

President Barack Obama said the Scottish decision to free terminally ill Abdel Baset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds was a mistake and said he should be under house arrest. Obama warned Libya not to give him a hero's welcome.

Despite the warning, thousands of young men were on hand at a Tripoli airport where al-Megrahi's plane touched down. Some threw flower petals as he stepped from the plane. He wore a a dark suit and a burgundy tie and appeared visibly tired.

He was accompanied by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, who was dressed in a traditional white robe and golden embroidered vest. The son pledged last year to bring al-Megrahi home and raised his hand victoriously to the crowd as he exited the plane. They then sped off in a convoy of white sedans.

International photographers and camera crews — along with most Libyan broadcast media — were barred from filming the arrival at the airport, which decades ago had been part of a U.S. air base.

Al-Megrahi's release disgusted many victims' relatives.

"You get that lump in your throat and you feel like you're going to throw up," said Norma Maslowski, of Haddonfield, New Jersey, whose 30-year-old daughter, Diane, died in the attack.

"This isn't about compassionate release. This is part of give-Gadhafi-what-he-wants-so-we-can-have-the-oil," said Susan Cohen, of Cape May Court House, New Jersey. Her 20-year-old daughter, Theodora, was killed.

At home, al-Megrahi, 57, is seen as an innocent scapegoat the West used to turn this African nation into a pariah. At the airport, some wore T-shirts with his picture and waved Libyan and miniature blue-and-white Scottish flags. Libyan songs blared in the background.

"It's a great day for us," 24-year-old Abdel-Aal Mansour said. "He belongs here, at home."

Moammar Gadhafi lobbied hard for the return of al-Megrahi, an issue which took on an added sense of urgency when al-Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year. He was recently given only months to live.

I'M SHOCKED.

Obama said that al-Megrahi shouldn't be given a hero's welcome, but he got one anyway. The Libyans didn't listen to Obama.

Even after global citizen Obama went around the world and dissed the U.S. and apologized that "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive," Libyans dismissed Obama's warning.

I'M SHOCKED.

Abdel Baset al-Megrahi

For some, the December 21, 1988, bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 is a very distant memory.

For some, it's not even that. "The Lockerbie bombing? Never heard of it."

For others, those personally touched by the terrorism, the family and friends of the 270 people who lost their lives, the bombing is a life sentence of sorrow and grief.

In short, the significance of the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, one of the terrorists responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, isn't the same for everyone.

Naturally, the people who actually lost loved ones in the bombing experience the release of al-Megrahi in a very personal way. Their perspective is that of a participant, not someone watching from the comfort of afar.

But what about the rest of us?

Should it be significant in our lives? Should al-Megrahi's release elicit a strong reaction in us?

I think it should.

Al-Megrahi, merciless murderer, was granted mercy. Today's terrorists, al-Megrahi wannabes, were granted a victory.

From the New York Times:

Despite strenuous American opposition, the Scottish government on Thursday ordered the release on compassionate grounds of the only person convicted in the Lockerbie bombing, permitting Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, a 57-year-old former Libyan intelligence agent, to return home after serving 8 years of a 27-year minimum sentence on charges of murdering 270 people in Britain’s worst terrorist episode.

He qualified for compassionate release after medical evidence showed he would die within months of prostate cancer, the Scottish authorities said.

...Scotland’s Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill, said it was his decision and his alone that Mr. Megrahi “be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die.”

“I have followed due process,” he said.

Mr. MacAskill acknowledged that Mr. Megrahi “did not show his victims any comfort or compassion” and that they were not allowed to go home to their families. “No compassion was shown by him to them,” he said. “But that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him.”

Why should al-Megrahi be allowed to return home to die?

Is deteriorating health reason to release a terrorist, a cold-blooded killer?

Get terminally ill and get your freedom?

I guess al-Megrahi really lucked out.

I don't like the reaction of the Obama administration to this travesty.
The White House expresses regret and disappointment.

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration said Thursday it regrets Scotland's decision to release the Libyan man convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the United States had repeatedly asked Scotland to keep Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in custody. Gibbs said: "On this day, we extend our deepest sympathies to the families who live every day with the loss of their loved ones."

The State Department released a brief statement by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is on vacation, saying she is "deeply disappointed" by the decision to release al-Megrahi.

...Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement saying he was "extremely disappointed" with the release.

...Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said the order to release al-Megrahi grew out of the convicted bomber's deteriorating health. He has prostate cancer and is not expected to live much longer.

He had served only eight years of a life sentence in Scotland for the December 21, 1988, bombing over the town of Lockerbie.

These expressions of regret and disappointment are woefully inadequate.

These are not statements indicating zero tolerance for terrorists.

I think this is a defining moment for the Obama administration.

WEAK ON TERROR.