Inquiry Urged Into Lockerbie Bomber Release
THE INDEPENDENT: A UK public inquiry should be held into the release of the Lockerbie bomber, a backbench Tory MP said today.

Daniel Kawczynski, who chairs the Westminster all-party group on Libya, also called on Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to apologise for the "huge error" in releasing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi almost a year ago.

David Cameron is expected to face criticism from American politicians over claims that BP lobbied for the release of Megrahi to secure an oil deal, as the Prime Minister flies into the US today for his first official visit since taking office.

Mr MacAskill has already said he would be prepared to assist any inquiry held into circumstances surrounding Megrahi's release.

But Mr Kawcynski, the MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, told BBC Radio Scotland today: "Clearly Mr MacAskill has made a huge error which has impacted on British foreign policy. Continue reading and comment >>> Scott Macnab, Press Association | Monday, July 19, 2010

LE POINT: Attentat de Lockerbie - La libération de Megrahi a été une "erreur complète", pour Cameron : La libération, en 2009, du Libyen Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, condamné pour l'attentat de Lockerbie, a été "une erreur complète et totale", a affirmé lundi le Premier ministre britannique David Cameron, avant de s'envoler pour sa première visite officielle aux États-Unis. >>> AFP | Lundi 19 Juillet 2010

Related articles here and here

It’s Not Independent to Cosy Up to the Colonel
TIMES ONLINE: Lockerbie was a plot against American lives. Of course the US has every right to be outraged by the bomber’s release

Yesterday the Bishop of Musselburgh somehow tricked his way into the Scottish Parliament in the guise of Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary. How else to account for the transcendent moral tone of the statement made concerning the release of the convicted bomber of Pan Am Flight 103?

Scotland was, the Right Rev MacAskill implied, a superior place where “we define ourselves by our humanity”, a humanity obliging the Justice Secretary to show compassion to Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, in the form of letting him fly home, the occasion being the supposed proximity of the prisoner’s death.

And nothing else, note. The utterly unrepentant al-Megrahi, according to Mr MacAskill, who had by now switched to high sanctimony, was facing a “sentence imposed by another power ... He is going to die.” The word “soon” was of course implied.

So these are the new “laws and values of Scotland” — if you’re going to snuff it within a reasonably short time (let’s say months, or a year or so) you are thought to have been transferred into the custody of God and you get let out. How could one not agree with that?

Easily. One wonders how widely Mr MacAskill would like to see this form of humanity applied. Let us imagine that Robert Black, the Scottish serial killer of young girls, or Ian Brady, the Scottish-born Moors Murderer, were discovered to be on their last knockings. Like al-Megrahi, they, too, have shown a resilience in their refusal to help the authorities to uncover the full extent of their crimes, and have thus made matters worse for the victims’ families.

But surely they will soon be beyond the capacity to inflict harm, their maker’s finger beckoning to them, so wouldn’t it be best to return them from England to Grangemouth and Glasgow respectively, to die in the bosom of whatever families they can discover there? >>> David Aaronovitch | Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Britain's New Royalty -- The Oil Potentates
”And I say to my friend Brown, the prime minister of Britain; the Queen of Britain, Elizabeth; Prince Andrew, who all contributed to encouraging the Scottish government to make this historic and courageous decision, despite the obstacles.” – Colonel Qaddafi

THE HUFFINGTON POST: Where British Tradition once mandated subjects to genuflect before their royals, Britain is now busy instructing itself on how to properly render homage by prostrating themselves nose to ground before their new potentates, the oil barons of Araby.

There he was, Libyan Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi who had been found guilty of the murderous Lockerbie air disaster that took the lives of 270 people, stepping off his specially chartered Libyan aircraft to a cheering crowd upon his arrival at the airport in Tripoli. Eichmann being received by a cheering crowd in Germany would have been the same, not in dimension, but certainly in principle.

Al-Megrahi's release was being trumpeted by Mr. Kenneth MacAskill, Scotland's Justice Secretary, as an act of compassion for a man said to be diagnosed with prostrate cancer and having but three months to live. It was a decision met with outrage by family members of the victims, and a general outcry of disgust throughout much of the world ranging from President Obama to FBI Director Robert Mueller, "makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21, 1988".

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said that the act of releasing al-Megrahi had been the the decision of the Scottish Secretary alone. But was it?? Or as commented in the Financial Times, politicians are now prepared to go to extra lengths to maintain good relations with his country -- the richest in North Africa and an important supplier of energy to Europe. Even more pointedly according to Lord Trefgarne, Mr. al-Megrahi's release had opened the way for Britain's leading oil companies to pursue multibillion dollar oil contracts with Libya which had demanded Mr. al-Megrahi's return in talks with British officials and business executives.

Scandalous? Perhaps. But then again maybe not if this has become Britain's new norm. Kowtowing to moneyed Middle Eastern/North African oil interests may not be new but it does assume a singular level of malice when it is dealt with in such a brazen manner trashing tradition and principles of law, in the lust for lucre or responding to outright intimidation and blackmail. >>> Raymond J. Learsey* | Monday, August 24, 2009

*Scholar and Author of 'Over a Barrel: Breaking Oil’s Grip on Our Future'

The Libyan Ultimatum
THE SUNDAY TIMES: Despite denials, talk persists of pressure and plots behind the freeing of the Lockerbie bomber

They are expecting a magnificent party in Tripoli a week on Tuesday when Libya marks the 40th year in power of Muammar Gadaffi and pays tribute to the deft diplomatic footwork of Saif al-Islam, his son.

The only man convicted for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 is finally home; and the suave, shaven-headed Saif, whose name means “sword of Islam”, is credited with a key role in making it happen.

An agreement struck long ago between Tony Blair and Gadaffi had threatened to fall apart with potentially catastrophic consequences for Britain: it has emerged that Libya threatened to freeze diplomatic relations if Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, said to be suffering from cancer, was not released under a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya.

In the end, he was freed by Scotland on “compassionate” grounds and escorted home to Tripoli by Saif, who thrust Megrahi’s hand into the air as they came down the steps of Gadaffi’s airliner to a hero’s welcome that has outraged the families of Lockerbie’s victims.

Yesterday the protests were undimmed, but the official responses were evasive — unsurprisingly, because behind Megrahi’s release lie weeks of intrigue between Westminster, Tripoli, Edinburgh and Washington.

Apart from the unfortunate Lockerbie families, everyone seems to have got what they wanted. Gadaffi and his son have their man. Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, who signed the release order, has burnished his humanitarian credentials. Gordon Brown has preserved Britain’s politically and economically valuable new relationship with Libya while avoiding any blame for the release. And American politicians have been able to bluster in protest while exercising none of their considerable clout to stop it happening.

The whole exercise reeks of realpolitik and moral evasion.

The reality is that Megrahi’s freedom is a product of the effort to bring Libya out of dangerous isolation. This is as much to America’s advantage as Britain’s, but Washington has too much baggage to be openly involved; it bombed Libya in 1986 in punishment for supporting terrorism, and Gadaffi remains a bogeyman to many Americans. So Britain takes the lead — except when it can devolve the dirty work onto a Scottish politician. >>> Matthew Campbell | Sunday, August 23, 2009