Civitas
+44 (0)20 7799 6677

One Small Step for a Convicted Terrorist, One Giant Blunder for a Country

Civitas, 25 August 2009

Last week’s release on ‘compassionate grounds’ from Scottish jail of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdul Ali al-Megrahi must surely go down as one of the most disgusting acts of political ineptitude ever perpetrated by anyone to hold any kind of ministerial office in Britain.

Because the former Libyan agent supposedly has only months to live, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill believed himself not only entitled but obligated to exercise clemency and to release him to a hero’s welcome in Tripoli. He did so admitting the convicted bomber never to have shown any remorse or compassion for the victims of the atrocity.

“That alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days”, the Scottish Justice Minister is reported to have said.

Why on earth should lack of contrition for such a heinous crime not be thought a sufficient reason not to show compassion to someone convicted of it, especially given the grief and anger still felt by many of bereaved relatives of victims?

Of course, many, including Megrahi himself, protest the former prisoner’s innocence. But apparently MacAskill was not among them. Nor seemingly did he release Megrahi because of any doubts he had about the trustworthiness of his conviction.

Maybe, however, the real reasons for Megrahi’s release lie beyond considerations of his guilt or innocence and of justice or mercy. Maybe, the real reason lies in the murky realms of oil.

For despite all public protestations to the contrary by MacAskill, as well as by SNP leader Alex Salmon and Number 10 Downing Street, it remains possible that Megrahi’s release from jail was engineered as part of some shady oil deal with Libya. Certainly, there is substantial circumstantial evidence to suggest such a deal may have been struck.

Colonel Gaddafi’s son Saif has reportedly claimed to have discussed al-Megrahi’s release with Peter Mandelson twice within the last four months, and Mandelson confimed he may briefly have done. Also, upon his return to Tripoli, Saif Gaddafi is reported to have said to Megrahi:

“You were on the table in all commercial, oil and gas agreements that we supervised in that period. You were on the table in all British interests when it came to Libya.”

If the Labour Government was complicit in Megrahi’s release that only makes the entire affair still worse.

Either way, MacAskill is a fool or a knave. He is a fool if he genuinely acted entirely from misplaced compassion. He is a knave if he was part of some wider political conspiracy which has undermined the rule of law for the sake of economic expediency and deeply offended Britain’s staunchest ally.

Either way, Megrahi is not the only one who should now be bidding good-bye to his former abode. So too should the Scottish Justice Secretary.

2 comments on “One Small Step for a Convicted Terrorist, One Giant Blunder for a Country”

  1. I have always read Mr. Conway’s articles with great interest and have regarded him in the hightest esteem. However I am most surprised that he should comment on the subject of ‘Lockerbie’, and further that he should be convinced that Megrahi alone caused the atrocity.
    One should compare the Lockerbie terrorist act with other terrorist acts in the past, e.g. with ‘9/11’, the Madrid bombings (2004), London bombings (2005), the Gunpowder plot (1605) and others. All terrorist acts, as far as I can see, had many participants, each with his own particular role. And Lockerbie – one conspirator! Just one?! And his motive? That has never become clear to me. Surely the observation above alone should convince one that *something* is wrong with the conviction, and that it would be understandable for Megrahi not to show “any remorse or compassion for the victims of the atrocity” (as Mr. Conway wrote) – because he had no reason to do so.
    For further reading, I suggest the insightful investigative report “Lockerbie – The Flight From Justice”, downloadable from…. http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&issue=1243

  2. I hope you’re not suggesting the risk of offending “Britain’s staunchest ally” should’ve been one of the things that Justice Secretary took into account when reaching his decision.

Newsletter

Keep up-to-date with all of our latest publications

Sign Up Here