I had big doubts at first, but now I do have to seriously wonder whether this release wasn't about compassion at all, but about striking a deal with Libya about oil deals:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/w....html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Wow, just wow!
As there is more than one active thread on this I'm not sure if I posted it before. Not in this thread, as far as I remember.
First, good luck with persuading scissorhands to accept that part of the story. When I made reference to it in the other thread to point out that Labour party outrage over Megrahi's release was entirely synthetic, he refused to believe it had happened at all. However, as those of us who were paying attention to politics in 2007 remember, in May of that year Tony Blair (Labour prime minister in London) met Gadaffi and signed a deal which included provisions for Libyan prisoners in Britain to be transferred to Libya. "Hours" later (according to the BBC), BP signed a multi-million-pound deal with Libya in relation to oil exploration and extraction.
This deal caused all sorts of complications, principally because it was not up to Tony Blair whether or not Megrahi was transferred - this is a devolved matter, and the decision of the (then) Scottish executive. Another little wrinkle was that the original deal between Britain and the USA explicitly stated that anyone convicted at Camp Zeist would serve out his sentence in Scotland.
The Libyans declared that this deal had of course been referring to Megrahi, what else would it have been about, there were and are no other Libyans in prison in Britain. They were aware that the decision was one for the Scottish Executive, but Tony Blair had assured them that wouldn't be a problem.
However, it was. Unfortunately for Blair's plans, at the beginning of May the Labour party had unexpectedly lost the Scottish general election to the SNP. For a little while it was uncertain just who would form the government, but by the time the Deal in the Desert was signed, the SNP were the government and Alex Salmond was First Minister. Which of course meant that Blair couldn't just call up Jack McConnell and tell him to grant the prisoner transfer, as he'd obviously intended.
When details of the deal emerged, Salmond was furious. Blair told a different story every day, but had to concede that the matter was one of Scottish jurisdiction. And the SNP government was in no mood to roll over and wave its paws in the air. It seems likely that Libya was displeased by this, because it had granted the oil exploration rights, and it hadn't got Megrahi. It may well be that Libya now sees the compassionate release as the belated completion of that deal, and so in its view is telling the truth about the release being linked to a trade agreement.
At the time there was a lot said in the media to the effect that Megrahi's conviction was a miscarriage of justice and he should be released, but that wasn't the point, keep out of our affairs Blair. However, a few weeks later the SCCRC published the results of its enquiry into the case, which found six grounds for appeal, and Megrahi had an ongoing appeal. The existence of this appeal meant that prisoner transfer was off the agenda. (Actually, it now appears that the existence of a Crown appeal against sentence which had been outstanding for some time also forbade a transfer, but nobody mentioned that at the time.) Megrahi said then that he did not wish to forego his appeal in order to get back home, he wanted to prove his innocence.
The appeal proceeded with glacial speed (although I believe it did have priority over the Crown appeal), and a year later nothing had happened when Megrahi was diagnosed with cancer. At that time it was stated that this didn't change anything and as his condition wasn't immediately life-threatening, the appeal would proceed and he wasn't eligible for compassionate release. But even then, the subtext that compassionate release would probably be granted if his condition became terminal was clearly present.
The events of last week were just the culmination of all this. The Scottish government was always going to prefer compassionate release to prisoner transfer, partly because that's what it was, Megrahi wouldn't have been going anywhere if he hadn't been ill, partly because prisoner transfer would have been in breach of the original agreement with the USA, and partly because it didn't want to do it Blair's way on principle.
The current Westminster denials regarding a trade deal sound sincere to me, for what it's worth. The catalyst for all this was Megrahi's illness. But bear in mind that if there were any trade deals, they were not done with the Scottish government but with
Westminster. Westminster has been fairly silent during all this; obviously they want Megrahi back in Libya, that's what they were trying to achieve two years ago, but it suited them to let the SNP take the flak.
So maybe a lot of what Libya is saying is mischiefmaking and simple stirring it. Could well be. But they may feel themselves justified in linking the release to a trade agreement, because they see it as Britain finally delivering on the agreement made with Tony Blair in 2007, which was linked to the BP contract.
Rolfe.
that sounds almost too crazy to be true. The link isn't working for me though... where is this info from? Libya itself?
