Oliver Miles (pictured above), a former UK ambassador to Libya, said that there was "something fishy" in the coincidence that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi's lawyers filed his application to the Scottish court to drop his appeal on 12 August, the same day that the BBC broke the story of his imminent release. "I cannot know what exactly happened but I believe that the UK and Scottish government wanted the appeal to be dropped and somehow it was dropped," said Mr Miles. Mr Miles doesn't appear to be saying anything of substance which makes me wonder if he why the Times bothered to quote him. Maybe he has a book in the offing.
The Scotsman is reporting Whitehall is prepared to publish, later today, 'all relevant' correspondence with the Scottish government in regard to the release of Al Megrahi. More background papers are also due to be published by the Scottish government, before tomorrow's debate on the issue. Let's hope the redacting is not excessive.
I must draw your attention to this excellent post by Calum Cashley. Calum has taken a serious interest in this subject and explains the reasons why Kenny MacAskill's meeting with Megrahi was legal as well as being right.
Posts
15 comments:
Compassion and realpolitik, as a commenter argues at mine, are easy bedfellows. I happen, perhaps naively, to disagree. Still you have to start somewhere.
The truth is out there (allegedly) http://tinyurl.com/mefhlq
I'm hoping the debate tomorrow will reveal something which will clarify matters for me OR.
Others have posted on the legalities but I would like to get the full picture.
Thanks for the link Dougie. I had heard a whisper that Christine Grahame was to be naming an American. Wonder if she will.
Of course a shabby deal was done.
It constantly amazes me that some people still seem to believe that ANY politicians have ANY integrity.
Labour - SNP - Tory - Liberal - whatever. They're all the same. Liars.
I'm also looking forward to the debate, however, if the quality of contributions is as poor as during the MacAskill statement we might be in for a rough time. I saw Tavish Scott on TV yesterday still whining on about MacKaskill visiting Megrahi, I fail to see the importance of this, In MacAskills shoes I think I'd have liked to have looked Megrahi in the eye.
One problem which Miles has ignored is that the current SNP Government had nothing whatsoever to do with the Justice System at the time Megrahi was tried. As a matter of fact they could castigate the then authorities for having an inadequate justice system and legal procedures.
Caledonian Jim,
Have you any evidence to back up that sweeping statement?
Me too Dougie. I'm quite sure MacAskill has himself covered from top to toe as he has the experience of stitch ups from his previous life.
Not holding my breath for a quality debate and that's sad really. I'm afraid it will be the level of the mundane comments thus spoken by opposition parties.
Brownlie, I don't think Mr Miles has much knowledge about this but was wheeled out to give his judgement because all others were relaxing over the bank holiday.
As I said, it wouldn't surprise me if he has a book coming out or they paid him double fees for a holiday appearance.
Brownlie,
Yes, 40 years of listening to politicians !
As well as Calum's excellent blog -I would strongly recommend reading the expert legal opinion from Jonathan Mitchell QC on his blog or website which sets out in clear and robust terms the legal issues relating to the FBI letter from Mr Mueller (26/8/09) and the decision by Mr McAskill to release Mr al-Megrahi(24/08/09). There are further links on JM's site to Professor Hector McQueen who gives further clarification.
Well Subrosa, I don't like the implication of "all relevant" correspondence much either. Seems to me that the fateful, ever moving Laundry Marker of the Black Redact is at this very moment slashing its way through the "relevant" papers like the sword of Zorro.
Rather than "fishy" as Mr Miles suggests does it appear to be more of a quasi-Catch 22 situation. It would appear that any choice Mr McAskill could make would all result in in squeals of "deals!" - following our Scots Law legal precedent was surely the proper course of action for our Justice Secretary of whatever Scottish political persuasion?
Caledonian Jim,
You are, obviously, forgetting the transparent honestry of such as Jonathan Aitken, Lord Archer, Tony Blair and Lord Mandelson. Shame on you.
SR,
Big Eck on Ch4 News tonight gave Jon Snow a good thrashing tonight, he ran circels around him and because it was live he corrected the previous news article - you have to hand it to him he is the master of the media - no matter how hard they try and trip him up or smear him.
I can recommend BT's Blog from friday read his BBc bias then read post 427 - classic.
Crazy D
I watched it too CD and I was pleased to see he just wouldn't be interrupted. Sometimes interviewers are so desperate for the answers they want they're just downright rude.
And Snow tried about the 'agitated' bit but of course Alex just repeated what he'd said initially. (I rewound it to check), so Snow's attempt at the dramatic backfired.
I'll go and read comment 427 right now.
Post a Comment