the worst convicted terrorist?

Correspondence with Johann Hari concerning his article about Megrahi...

Dear Johann
You may be interested, if you don't know it already, in Gareth Peirce's analysis of the Megrahi case at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n18/gareth-peirce/the-framing-of-al-megrahi. I know you mention in your article that 'there are some serious commentators who argue that Megrahi was framed', but it seems fairly clear that you don't go along with that. I'd be interested to know how you feel confident enough to dismiss it - which is effectively what you do by referring to Megrahi as 'a convicted terrorist - the worst in modern British history'. (You also say that 'Megrahi was sent home to Triploli to be greeted by cheering crowds after serving eleven days for each person murdered'.)

I also think that for those few people who still don't acknowledge that Iraq was about oil (and surely they're relatively few by now, aren't they??) I'm not sure that what I understand to be your main argument will be all that convincing. You seem just to be saying that Blair is unscrupulous (which we knew), that he was prepared to trade a convicted terrorist for oil, therefore he must have been prepared to go to war for oil. (A simplification, of course, of your words, but isn't that the essence?). In a way, I think that by linking this single example of Blair's duplicity and self-interest to the Iraq war, you are almost less likely to convince detractors: what is important in the case of Iraq (and indeed Megrahi) is surely the context, including the history of US and British actions in the Middle East, rather than the intentions and actions of one individual.

If one does accept that Megrahi was almost certainly framed, then it seems to me that there are far more important issues than those addressed in your article. These include:

- that Thatcher and the CIA blocked the original investigations (against Iran) for political reasons, at a time when it was necessary to keep Iran on board. They then ensured that the charges were diverted from Iran towards Libya - and this individual. (See John Pilger's article for this at http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=547)

- that the chief suspect (Iran) until the investigation was blocked by Thatcher and the CIA, had warned that they would retaliate for the USS Vincennes blowing up one of their civilian airplanes. In other words, if Iran was indeed the terrorist in the Lockerbie bombing, isn't the US' role as precursor to that bombing important too?

- that a man was almost certainly framed for a terrorist offence, and has had to suffer the consequences of that, in order to satisfy the big players' need for oil and geopolitical influence

- that Megrahi dropped his appeal against the conviction just a few days before being released - something he never even needed to do since the release was meant to be on 'compassionate grounds'. He has continued to maintain his innocence (see Hans Köchler's statement for this point and the next http://www.i-p-o.org/IPO-nr-Megrahi-release-investigation-21July2010.htm)

- that Megrahi withdrew the appeal on 12 August 2009, just a few days after his meeting with the Scottish Justice Secretary (4 August). A few days later (20 August), he was repatriated to Libya. That meeting with the Justice Secretary was unecessary, and unheard of, given the fact that Megrahi was still technically a convicted terrorist ('the worst').

- that hundreds of pages of information which led to the decision to grant an appeal are to remain a secret. The Crown Office, the Foreign Office and police have all failed to give their consent to an official request to disclose the material. (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/megrahi-appeal-documents-)

Of course, if you don't accept the argument that he was framed - these issues fall away. But I don't see how anyone who has read around the trial could dismiss that argument so easily - and I don't see how a journalist could write about the Megrahi case without first reading round the trial.

Thanks very much for any thoughts

[*]

His first reply:

Thanks [*] - I'm still going through the v large number of emails from that article so hadn't got to your first one yet.

As I said in the article, it's possibly Megrahi was framed, and there are serious people who make that case. But BP and Blair were not leading a crusade against a miscarriage of justice. They wanted access to Libya's oil. That's what the article was about - their priorities. In a 1200 word article, you can't debate every nuance of an issue. I was making a point about the factors that drive our governments' behaviours. If I'd been writing a book, I would have gone into the details of the Megrahi conviction - but I was writing a column about what drove Blair and BP, and the implications of that. I could've just refused to write a column, on the grounds this can't be condensed into 1200 words, but then I think people would've missed out an important dimension of this.

Obviously, if Megrahi was framed, the way to expose that was to have an appeal: many people convicted of terror offences have been acquited at appeal in Britain's courts, like the Birmingham Six (although of course they should never have been convicted int he first place, and the appeal shouldn't have taken so long).

The solution wasn't to release him without a trial so BP could drill in Libya, surely?

best wishes
Johann x

My response:

Johann - many thanks for your response. But you don't seem to have answered the key questions I put in my first letter:

1. Why are you able to dismiss so easily the possibility that Megrahi was set up (I am aware you mention it in passing, but I gave 2 examples of your style, which pointed to your real belief that he is a murderer 'of the worst kind'. )

2. For people who take seriously the framing charge, your story seems a bit of a side issue, compared to the story about why a man was framed for an act of terrorism. That story was also about government motivations for their actions, and also about government policy being dictated by energy interests. But it explains much more adequately the deep structural forces driving foreign policy (as opposed to the greed and corruption of one man, as identified by you)

I don't fully understand the question you put at the end of your letter - about 'the solution' (? to what?) But the fact that Megrahi withdrew his appeal, thus denying himself the opportunity to prove his innocence is one of the most puzzling - and potentially corrupt - elements of the entire story. Your throwaway comment in the article almost seems naive: why do you think the appeal did not go ahead?

Thanks for any further thoughts
[*]

A second reply from him:

Thanks [*].

I didn't dismiss it. I said they may be right. You are misreading me when you keep saying I think he is guilty; I am genuinely agnostic, because I haven't looked into it deeply enough. But the reason Megrahi was released had nothing to do with guilt or innocence: it had to do with BP wanting access to Libya's oil, and Blair wanting to secure it for them. So the whole point of the article was to show that these are the dirty factors that drive our governments' decisions - not the desire to ascertain guilt, or to correctly punish the worst terrorist act in our history. That's not a "side issue" - it's astonishingly revealing about our governments and why they act.

That's the point I was making, and I think it's a good one. You're asking me why I didn't write a different column with a different point. But that could be said about any column I ever write: why didn't you highlight this thing instead? You have to pick issues, I don't have infinite space in the newspaper or infinite time and energy I'm afraid.

Best wishes

Johann x

My response:

OK - thanks for a second reply, and we'll agree to disagree. The message that comes across from your article is that you are content with the label 'the worst convicted terrorist in modern history', and content to use emotive comparisons between the days he served in prison and the deaths he caused. I don't think one does that if genuinely agnostic, and I still fail to understand how you can write an article about his release without researching and coming to a view on whether he should be there in the first place.

But you are right: because I have come to a different view on his guilt, on the reasons he was put away, and on the reasons he was released but made to drop his appeal, I do think you should have written a different article, or at least an article which acknowledges those issues. The rest seems like a side issue, tagged onto an incorrect narrative desperately in need of being corrected - not least, because it points up the very dirty politics you are anxious to reveal. And the 'real' story, it seems to me, is not about one corrupt individual (though he features strongly) but about a corrupt system which draws in numerous individuals, extends to cover the political, business, and legal structures, and has more victims than we are able to count.

Finally, you are certain that the release was about oil, and only about oil. But by failing to take into account the politics behind his probable framing, you fail to take into account another possible reason for why he was released. You may be interested in the former Ambassador to Libya's comments on this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6816334.ece

Thanks again.
[*]