Gordon Brown is really going to have to make a statement about the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, because, despite his best efforts to ignore it, the story is not going to go away.
This morning’s Times leads with a report quoting “a source close to Jack Straw” (wonder who that might be?) who says that the 2007 decision to include al-Megrahi in the prisoner transfer agreement, after attempts had previously been made to exclude him, was not made at his sole discretion:
“It wasn’t just Jack who decided this. It was a Government decision. Jack did not act unilaterally.”
Mr Brown’s refusal to comment on the case, on the ground that the decision was one for a Scottish minister, looks increasingly laughable. There is an obvious factual matrix to the al-Megrahi affair that was developed at national level. Whilst the final decision to release al-Megrahi was indeed made by Kenny MacAskill in Edinburgh, the British Government was clearly heavily involved, from Tony Blair’s meeting with Gaddafi in the tent in the desert to the letter that Ivan Lewis wrote to MacAskill shortly before the release.
Mr Brown was a senior member of the Government at all relevant times and is its head now. The longer he remains silent, the more the British people will conclude that he is treating them, once again, as fools. And their conclusion will be entirely correct.
While this issue is a political one with different parties attempting to use it to damage Brown, the action itself is largely supported by the British people. Showing compassion is rarely a sign of weakness and in this MacAskill is seen as a particularly brave and decent person.
What compassion did the perpetrators of the Lockerbie murder show?
Why are the British people the only ones to show compassion.
If we “show compassion” to ease trade restrictions is it true compassion? If it is not true compassion what message does that give to the families of those murdered by al-Megrahi.
People are being asked if they support the demonstation of compassion by the Minister. Many support it but if they do not know what they are supporting, is it true support?
So many questions are raised by this issue and there are so few answers; just the statement that he was released on compassionate grounds because he is near death; but is he?
I try to answer your queries in the order to ask them:
The compassion we show as a people is part of what defines us. Our compassion is not based on the lack of it in others. You could just as easily argue that the monstrous behaviour of anyone in history justifies any other atrocity, because one steals all should steal. That way is clearly nonsensical.
I am sure the British people are not the only ones to show compassion. They just have done so in this case.
You can put whatever rationale you want on the reason for the release of al-Megrahi. Normally, such rationales will be based not on truth but on bias. Much of these reasons are irrelevant as we only need consider the action itself. Was it right? I think the answer to that is clearly “Yes”.
I am not sure you or I can claim to know what others do or do not know. It is a little arrogant to assume that your or my level of knowledge of ourselves is greater than others of themselves.
From what i have read, a number of doctors have stated unequivocally that he has less than 3 months to live. I have also heard more than one family member of the victims of Lockerbie state that they do not think al-megrahi had anything to do with the Lockerbie murders. Of course, all these things could be false but at some point living becomes all but impossible if you decide everyone around you is lying or has bad intentions all the time.
If this man is really dying, of course the decision was right to release him. What has clouded the issue is the lying, scheming and mutterings behind closed doors over two years and the pathetic efforts to cover tracks. The evil thing here is the possible use of compassion in order to secure profit.
So much for New Labour’s promise of transparency in 1997.
Which of the two looks the most disreputable above, Brown, or Gaddaffi? Is it possible for honest people to rise to the top in politics?
It is clear, that before any sign of Megrahi’s illness emerged the British Government had shown that they were duplicitous in their dealings with Gadaffi. That they signed up to the PTA clearly shows that they were content to use Megrahi as part of their trade negotiations. Make no mistake, the British Government would have contrived to have Megrahi released through a PTA. That this was overtaken by events hardly absolves them from blame.
The British Government do not come out of this at all well. Indeed, in my view, things will get decidedly worse for Brown and his cohorts over the next few weeks. As Megrahi said “Truth never dies” and it won’t.
As an aside, what nonsense is this:
“I am sure the ‘British” people are not the only ones to show compassion. They just have done so in this case.”
I didn’t witness much British compassion coming from the British Press or the British people after Megrahi’s release. Quite the opposite in fact.
There was compassion, but it came from Kenny MacAskill and the Scottish Government. You would do well to remember this.
In seeking to answer my queries Solartap assumes that I was asking questions of him, I was not. I was stating my views in answer to David Jones blog.
I stated that questions were raised by the whole issue.
I am not arguing that we should not have shown compassion. It is compassionate to care well for someone in prison while he serves his prison sentence for a barbaric crime.
Solartap thinks that the answer to the question should Al Magrahi have been released is clearly “Yes”. That is a view supported by others and is not a wrong view.
I think that the crime was barbaric and that the answer should have been clearly “No”. That is my view and I stand by it. If that makes me a bad person then so be it.
From what I have read, one doctor has stated that al Magrahi has less than 3 months to live, others disagree.
If there are those who do not believe that al Magrahi committed the atrocity then that is a matter for the Criminal Court process not Ministers and their compassion.
Steve: My comment about the British people showing compassion was a direct response to David Curtis’s question: “Why are the British people the only ones to show compassion.”? You are correct that it was not the British people showing compassion and I probably should have corrected Mr. Curtis but as it was fairly clear what he meant, I thought it was petty for me to do so. I simply answered his question in the form he asked it.
David Curtis: I did not assume you were asking the questions of me, just that you were asking the questions. As David Jones has already indicated that he does not respond to queries directly, I thought it ok to weigh in.
FWIW, I do not think that you are a bad person for your views. I just think your are wrong. The primary purpose of prisons is to protect society. They do not exist to exact revenge. The barbarism of the act, and I do agree it was barbaric, does not make him more or less dangerous to society at this time as he approaches the end of his life.
As for your last comment re the jurisdiction for releasing Al Magrahi, please note that “Compassionate Release” is part of the system of regulations set out in the Prisoner and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. If you do not like the regulation, perhaps you should lobby to have it overturned.
Thanks for clearing that up Solartap.
Was it true compassion or was it out concern for British business interests with Libya if al Magrahi died in a British prison? that is the question.
Nobody really knows the answer to that one at present.
I suspect that compassion had little to do with it, it may just have been an excuse.
Is there such a thing as altruism, and could this release be classified as such? Discuss.
Or is the answer above, until history tells us otherwise?
Pingback: Straw’s clarification raises further questions « David Jones, MP