Snap

Archive for August, 2009

Scotland is at the forefront of international politics this week as weakly convicted and terminally ill “terrorist” Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi is released on compassionate grounds from Greenock prison and allowed to return to Libya to die. The Lockerbie bombing was the worst terrorist attack to ever take place on/ over British soil. It sort of shook the Scottish psyche as we’re firmly of the belief that no one would ever attack us or commit terrorism in our country, the target would always be England and therefore all terrorism in the British mainland would be confined to England. Obviously it was never an attack on us but we were shocked that any atrocity would ever happen here again (after Culloden).

I know I posted here before about conspiracy theory but I think one of the most ludicrous conspiracy theories is that Megrahi was the sole responsible party for Lockerbie. It is entirely convenient that the appeal against conviction has been scrapped to allow the wheels of justice to turn and enable this compassionate release. I think though we have separate all of the issues in this case. Was he even guilty? If he was did he act alone? If not who else is responsible? Was his trial sound, just and legal? If we assume the trial was just, he was guilty and his imprisonment was entirely correct and legal, should have been afforded a compassionate release? For the sake of argument we’ll break this into two parts, should he have been convicted and should he have been released regardless of whether he should actually have been there.

Legal professionals have argued that the conviction was unsound; UN observers called the trial in camp Zeist a miscarriage of justice. My thoughts as a lay person bring up two questions. Why was the trial held under Scottish Law on foreign soil? Why was verdict reached by five judges and not a jury? One of the greatest pieces of legislation we have is the European Convention on Human Rights and I feel that it addresses a few issues in this case. Firstly the trial, Article 6 states

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

I feel that five judges are not an independent and impartial tribunal; I feel that conducting court in a foreign country is far from a public hearing. Regardless of guilt or innocence, which of course can’t be decided without a fair trial, Megrahi was denied his human rights as set out in the convention. Some may argue wrongly that as a Libyan he shouldn’t be afforded those rights but they are expressly granted in article 14

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

The conviction can no longer be contested, so the argument is purely academic. If he was innocent, then there was a grave injustice and not just for Megrahi but for the victims and their families who will never see the culprit brought to justice. If there were co-conspirators again the victims and their families are being cheated out of justice as others go free. If he acted alone and was entirely guilty then he still should have been released, not just based on decency and humanity but as prescribed by law. The United Kingdom and Scotland with its’ independent legal system is still bound by, all laws are super-ceded by European law. Again i turn to the convention and article 3.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The argument that he should be made to die alone and in pain, that he “deserved it” is not only morally wrong but legally wrong. I don’t want to “America-bash” but most objections to the absolutely correct decision to release on compassionate grounds by the Scottish justice minister seem to be coming from across the pond. When a country responsible for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and who still allow a death penalty vent their moral outrage at you for making a sound moral and legal decision it is bordering on the absurd. More hilarious is the call to boycott Scotland and Scottish products, I hope we see our outraged cousins from across the Atlantic give up all Scottish inventions and innovations, televisions, telephones, pneumatic tyres, penicillin, anaesthetics, the U.S. navy. Perhaps they should remind themselves of what Woodrow Wilson said…………

“Every line of strength in American history is a line colored with Scottish blood.”