Harry's Place

Mr. Brown really has crewed the poosh on this one. Every look at this makes it seem more and more squalid.

I’m not at all surprised that Gene, back in 2004, took at face value Joe The Biden’s glowing report of his meeting with Qaddafi.

And I said, ‘That’s easy. You’re a terrorist. You killed people we like. And I said, ‘For example there’s 35 kids in the school I went to [Syracuse University in New York] you blew up over Lockerbie.’ And he looked at me and he said, quote, ‘That’s logical.’”

Who knows? Maybe that’s how the meeting “went down.” But maybe it’s the garrulous Biden mouthing off to a reporter and doing some self flackery.

This really is a re-run of the Munich folly of “Peace in Our Time”.
When you think that Brown & Co. cannot bring Britain lower in the world, they go ahead and prove you wrong. Really both British and Scottish govts should go ahead and announce they are converting the UK to a Muslim country. At least that would make more acceptable their desire to lick Kaddafi, the Saudis and all the other oil Arab Sheiks’ boots.

I’m not at all surprised that Gene, back in 2004, took at face value Joe The Biden’s glowing report of his meeting with Qaddafi.

I’m prepared to believe to believe that’s approximately how it went down, just as you’re prepared to believe otherwise. But at least Biden didn’t say anything as cringe-worthy as the conservative Congressman Smith did.

Mesquito, I agree with you. This is one champion screwing of the pooch by Brown & Co. It is frightening to think of what new folly they will come with next. The replacement of this govt. by one with some steel in their spine can not come soon enough.
As was said in May 1940 of the Chamberlain govt:
“In the name of God – Go and let better men take your place!”

Gene, it is a fact of American public life, that when a conservative decides to play up to an unfriendly ruler, they usually do so much more disgracefully than any liberal would do. I suppose it is a combination of their desire to front for American business interests along with a belief that they can do so without being attacked as “soft” or “cowardly” by their political opponents at home.

These are the reasons for the old Vulcan saying:
“Only Nixon can go to China”

David All -never mind steel; I’m prepared to settle for some common or garden vertebrae!
I wonder what Her Maj thinks about all this.

Is this supposed to be British humour?

We should certainly send Prince Andrew to Libya. There are extraordinary commercial advantages to be gained from Libya’s current friendly attitude to the UK.

Armaros: Unfortunately, No.

We should certainly send Prince Andrew to Libya.

Can we persuade them to keep him?

How can Biden get cross over Lockerbie with a straight face? America murdered Qaddafi’s daughter. If anything, Qaddafi acted with the greatest restraint, and that’s if the Libyan intelligence actually did the bombing.

The release of al-Megrahi helped Qaddafi no end, it took the focus off of 40 years of dictatorship,wasted oil wealth and the real poverty that exists in Libya.

It is part of Qaddafi’s bread and circuses. The timing of these events is unlikely to have been chance.

Actually the disgusting terror and murder overlord Gaddafi is telling the truth, even if it is not the whole truth. He is being more truthful about this business than Gordon Brown &his govt, the Scottish administration and especially the Obama administration.

The Treaty that allowed for Megrahi to be transferred to Libya was tailor made for him. It is for exchanging UK & Libyan prisoners. There was only one Libyan prisoner in a UK jail–Megrahi. It was agreed & signed by the UK govt in Nov 2008. It was ratified by the Brown govt in May 2009. The Queen would have had to agree it, but she has to do as she’s told by Gordon Brown. No way could Megrahi have been returned to Libya without Gordon Brown’s agreement==there was a clause stating each prisoner release had to be agreed by both national govts. Brown was and still is very conveniently away on holiday and all the UK govt statements about it’s being Scotland’s call are pathetic quarter truths. All Scotland did was unlock the prison door.

Scotland is enjoying playing Brave Nation Puts Finger Up to US in Name of Compassion. It is so much rubbish. Scotland has no power over passports or international exits & entry. It has no diplomatic or foreign policy powers. It had no powers to let Megrahi board the plane that flew him off to Libya. Brown had the power to insist he was kept in a secure hospital till he died–as has happened to mass murderer prisoners here like Myra Hindley and the Yorkshire Ripper.

And how about your beloved Obama and his administration? They are not fools or ignorant of international laws and Treaties, least of all lawyers like Obama and Clinton. So they’ve been playing up to Scottish posturing when they are the monkeys dancing on Gordon Brown’s organ. Why the silence about Brown’s central and decisive role?

Worst of all and so hypocritical is the righteous raving of the Obama admin about the welcome given to Megrahi on his return to Libya. Yes, it is disgusting as they said. But then how come the very eloquent defender of the oppressed and the comforter of sufferers Obama and his admin had absolutely nothing to say about the role of Gaddafi himself–the murder overlord, who commissioned, planned, financed and despatched his distant relative Megrahi as his legman. And who then spent some years springing him by paying blood money to relatives and giving the UK huge oil and gas contracts. Obama the great moralist is silent about all this. Yeah, change we can all believe in.

The usual hysterical nonsense form Judy. One thing we can be sure of; if Brown or HMG generally had tried to interfere in an issue that was the sole preserve of the Scottish Justice Secretary, then Alex Salmond would have let us know by now. It’s not as if he’s known to pass up opportunities to put the boot into Labour.

[Scotland] had no powers to let Megrahi board the plane that flew him off to Libya.

In the absence of intervention from HMG, yes it did.

Brown had the power to insist he was kept in a secure hospital till he died–as has happened to mass murderer prisoners here like Myra Hindley and the Yorkshire Ripper.

Only if he wanted to ride roughshod over devolution. Criminal juistice matters north of the border do not fall within the remit of Westminster. You’ll be lucky to find a single Scotsman or Scotswoman who, whilst objecting to the relaese of Megrahi, thinks Brown should have effectively rolled back devolution to ensure Megrahi stayed behind bars (not even sure this is constitutionally posislbe given Scotland’s independent justice system even before devolution).

You can guess, if you like, at what Brown thinks of Megrahi’s release. But there is a difference between Judy guessing and Judy’s confued notion of what a devolved Scotland is entitled to do with prisoners in Scottish jails.

Not sure, but Judy’s argument and facts, etc seems rather plausible.

The usual hysterical nonsense form Judy.

Hysterical? You are Jean-Martin Charcot and I claim my 5£

The British have always been in the underpants of the Arabs. This is nothing new. The British royal family even more so.

Of course, trade is part of the deal, our government has no standards of decency & is a lickspittle to the arabs.

However, the release of Megrahi is for SNP political benefits.
Although traditional, naive, scottish nationalists vote SNP, it is subject to heavy leverage from muslim groups who are noted for their vigorous voting techniques.

Salmon regularly attends muslim events & the SNP has given hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ cash to muslim groups. This is of dubious legality, & one muslim brotherhood front group had to return £200,000 + of taxpayers’ money recently. Since Scotland is largely dependent on English cash to function, I’d like the lot back.

Not sure, but Judy’s argument and facts, etc seems rather plausible.

Which “facts”? It’s a hotch-potch of innuendo against Brown and an ignorance of legal jurisdiction with the UK.

The second Megrahi was released after a decision taken by the only person with the relevant legal authority (i.e. the Scottish Justice Secretary), HMG had no more right to detain him than they do any other foreign national looking to leave the UK.

You don’t have to like it, but that’s the reality.

Brown had the power to insist he was kept in a secure hospital till he died–as has happened to mass murderer prisoners here like Myra Hindley and the Yorkshire Ripper.

The British Prime Minister can intervene in the Scottish legal system, just like that?

And as Brownie says, since when has Salmond ever missed an opportunity for squabbling with the Labour Party? The idea that the SNP government does what Gordo tells them to do is completely ridiculous.

Brownie
25 August 2009, 10:09 am

Not sure, but Judy’s argument and facts, etc seems rather plausible.

Which “facts”? It’s a hotch-potch of innuendo against Brown and an ignorance of legal jurisdiction with the UK.

———

Seems something of a coincidence that the Treaty referred to above was passed into law only recently. Qaddafi’s thanks to Gordon Brown etc also suggest more than mere acquiescence on the part of HMG.

Brownie, if you could just lay off the insults, and especially the “hysterical” as invariably directed at assertive women WhoseViewsWeDon’tLike, it looks to me as if you don’t fully get the fact that the “devolution” accorded to Scotland neither makes it a nation-state nor gives it competence to control entry and exit at airports.

I take it, having labelled me as ignorant, despite my spending some years doing PhD level research into EU and UK Treaty provisions and how they enable political policies to be implemented and frequently finessed, you have either legal qualifications or you are a qualified expert in the analysis of the powers of Treaties and the powers of regional and national authorities in EU countries? And by the way, in the course of doing that research I was actually commissioned by the then DES to write an analysis for them of the implications of EEC law and Treaties (as the EU then was) for education provision in the UK. But you think I’m ignorant, so you must know all about what I know, and presumably you’re more competent in these areas.

Scotland is a regional authority with some limited powers to raise taxes and make budgets, but they cover things particularly like health and education spending. Scotland had its separate legal system long before devolution, but it remains more or less as it was since devolution.

The Transfer Treaty is a fact. The clause which requires the two nation states and not the provincial administration to agree any prisoner transfer is another fact. The reference to the responsibilities of Scotland with the status of commentary rather than actual legal force which is put into the preamble is a fact.

Treaties are signed between states. If you read the Treaty clause I’ve referred to, that’s specific about the agreement of the two states being required by any transfer into the other country. Scotland’s devolution does not give it the power to agree to transfer a prisoner convicted under its own legal system into another country under terms agreed with the UK without the consent of the UK. That’s a fact.

Of course, you could argue an alternative interpretation which would go something like this. Gaddafi wanted Megrahi released. So he got Brown to set up a Treaty, but Brown said, of course regardless of this Treaty and all the trouble we’ve taken to set it up, we don’t have any power at all to release Megrahi. If the Scots release Megrahi, then we have no powers of any sort to prevent him from leaving the United Kingdom. Once the Scots do that, we’ll automatically have to rubber stamp any decision the Scottish government will take to release him further to agreeing to transfer to Libya, even though the Scots do not have border transfer legal competence. Even though he’s still a convicted multi-murderer terrorist, even if released on compassionate grounds and we the government of the UK do have border transfer competence.
I’ve satirised that take on it here.

You’ll note that Tom Marshall, who has posted twice on HP about this issue, and who’s about to bring out a book on the extent of Scotland’s real degree of autonomy, did not trash my analysis in the way you’ve attempted to do here. He queried the preamble reference as potentially giving powers to the Scottish provincial administration, but accepted my explanation about the difference between a Treaty preamble statement (no legal force) and a Treaty legal provision (full legal force binding both countries).

So why did Megrahi spend so much time going to Gordon Brown and not Alex Salmond? Why Brown and Gaddafi not set up a Treaty which inserted a legally binding provision clause which specifically put the requirements for the Scots rather than the UK to give permission for Megrahi to be transferred to Libya (which is a separate issue from the one thing Scotland does have legal power over, that of opening the jail door). Why did they insert the clause requiring the agreement to the transfer between the two nation-states?

You can also of course decide that there is absolutely no relationship at all between all that negotiating and tailor-made for Megrahi Treaty drawing-up as just a wholly disinterested act by the British government out of a wish to help their Libyan friends and the devolved Scottish administration sort out that little business of the imprisoned mass murderer, on which they take the view that it’s entirely Scotland’s affair, it’s merely for them to draw up the Treaty and do all the negotiations.

And of course you can take the view that the lucrative oil and gas contracts signed with British (not Scottish) companies by Libya and the UK just a few months ago are entirely coincidental and nothing to do with the prisoner issue. And so we must conclude that Gaddafi is lying completely in attributing the British government (and his self-proclaimed friend Gordon Brown’s) role in this as so important.

Fine, if you think that’s more plausible and that the Scottish provincial administration has all those powers. That’s your prerogative. On the balance of evidence and probabilities, I’d say that’s very far-fetched and quite inconsistent with what we know of Gordon Brown’s approach to the control of matters as so extensively documented in Tom Bower’s biography of him.

“If representatives of democratic countries need to meet with Qaddafi, they could at least do what now-Vice President Joe Biden did in 2004.”

If we managed to send democratically elected representatives, it would make the point more coherently.

Things you should know, when you deal with Qadaffy´s Libya:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6808551.ece

One point I need to stress more strongly. A convicted criminal on release for compassionate grounds remains a convicted criminal. A convicted criminal released, not pardoned, on this basis, particularly for terrorist mass-murder crimes like Megrahi’s does not have the automatic right to leave the country. They count as being on parole. In order to leave the country, permission has to be given by the competent authority. In the case of the whole of the UK, including the provincial administrations, that’s the UK government’s responsibiity.

As I’ve explained in both the posts I’ve written on the subject, Salmond has always sought to brag up and exaggerate the degree of Scotland’s independence. He has obviously revelled in using that to present himself as a statesman on the world stage (oh, you have to laugh), and of course to present himself as telling truth to the power of the US. And of course under the “it was all up to Scotland” take on what’s happened, he had no power over Mr MacAskill’s decision, because of the theoretical separation of powers between the executive and the legal side. And MacAskill was clearly overjoyed by his opportunity to present himself as the decision maker on completely apolitical and purely uniquely Scottish human values of compassion (which of course are absent from the legal system of the USA, because as we know, no-one in the USA has ever been pardoned for reasons other than miscarriages of justice.

In terms of what did for their individual egos and their political aspirations, it’s like the local SmallTown Rangers football team suddenly getting the chance to play a Premier League game against Manchester United based entirely on penalty shoot-outs in which they’re the only ones allowed to take the kicks.

Judy, your explanation / analysis is masterful, that Scotland only ever had a right of ‘commentary’, and it also fits closely with the picture from the Gaddafi side: ‘I thank my friend Gordon Brown for putting pressure on the Scots’ and from the narrative slowly being pieced together.

Gaddafi had applied on 5 May for the transfer of Megrahi but was apparently blocked by MacAskill…

… until on 24 July Megrahi successfully applied (under Scottish law) for ‘compassionate release’ because his medical team had apparently revealed he had less than three months to live… (doubt was cast on this diagnosis yesterday in the Scottish parliament by a sceptical MSP who is also a neurosurgeon – Megrahi could live for years).

Let me run this one past you: Suppose MacAskill had REFUSED to release Megrahi, would Gordon Brown have been forced to act to over-rule him?

Can we please send Prince Phillip to Libya? Please?

Sorry to keep being boring, devorgilla, but I’ll just refer you to Tom Bower’s biography of Brown’s methods of dealing with anyone standing in his way. The shorthand pointer is to mention the methods used by Whelan, Macbride and the other destabilizers etc etc.

When I did my EU (it was then) EEC research, it was the most fantastic revelation to go and interview EU bureaucrats. You could get the easiest of access to all the heads of Directorates and if you asked them a quesition like, what are you beginning to develop as your future spending programmes? Jaw droppingly, they would then pull open the relevant filing cabinet and say, have a look for yourself. I would then be allowed to look at the earliest drafts of new policiies and who was proposing what about them. They would always be quite open about which government was opposing what, and what quid pro quos would be given to them, or they thought might have to be ceded to them in order to get them to agree; it ranged from ceding a policy or grant in another area, to adding sometiing to the preamble that would enable it to be sold into the local national political concerns, watering down a clause, or agreeing that nations x or y would not have to come into line till three years after everyone else. They were completely frank and open about these negotiations and inducements. I was used to talking to Permaneent Secretaries and the next ranks down who would never let you get anywhere stuff in the works like that. Though they would tell wonderful stories about the attitudes or behaviour of this or that minister. My favourite was the assistant secretary who told me how he’d saved Margaret Thatcher’s life (she was Minister of Ed at the time) by noticing that the petrol cap had not been put back onto the private plane she was about to fly off on. She was most grateful to him for that, but some slightly out of order upinion he expressed led to him being exiled to some remote corner (as is a classic Brown method) and as being labelled Not One of Us. He said of the petrol cap incident, of course I always wonder whether I was…..(and left me to complete the thought)

So from that I learned (as if it was not obvious) that there are always positve and negative inducements that can be offered. One does not get to be Prime Minister (or come to that a dictator such as Gaddafi) without being outstandingly skilled at the use of both. What if MacAskill refused? Refused all possible positive and negative inducements? You think he’s that sort of character? I don’t. And, as I’ve said, that opportunity to posture on the world political stage, do his Academy Award announcement and stick it verbally to the US whilst bragging about the Compassionate Values of Our Nation? You could hear the ecstacy in his voice. He didn’t either come across as a particularly bright chap. He would hardly have been a match for Gordon & Co in persuasive mode. I would think it likely he was ecstatic at the vision offered him at the role he did actually play out.

All that’s pure speculation.

The Treaty also provides for prisoners to be moved against their will. The nuclear option would be if there were some reason why Megrahi had to be moved to his home country because of some terrorist threat. MI5 and MI6 are not accountable to the Scottish provincial administration.

Almost no politicians and ministers ever resist every possible inducement. They would never have much of a career if they did. David Davis was an interesting example of someone who went off the deep end on the basis of an attack of overinflated ego.

And think about the fact that our former Speaker was eventually induced to resign though he was determined not to. He announced that it was his personal choice. Influenced by pressures and inducements–the position of Speaker is theoretically impregnable– perish the thought

MacAskill was no doubt His Master’s Voice for Salmond or Brown or both wanting a better bargain. That’s my view on the basis of my knowledge of EU style politicking. Still the Pure Scotlanders amongst us will probably feel it was something to do with medical opinions, compassion tipping points or some other form of deep, penetrating independent and utterly disinterested thought.

The Duke of York has no plans to visit Libya. The visit has been cancelled. Come on, guys – get up to date!

The Duke of York has no plans to visit Libya. The visit has been cancelled.

Gosh, what a relief for poor old Gaddaffi. I wonder what stellar inducements he had to offer Brown to get that done? Maybe an oilwell or two?

And apart from the melodramatic MI5/MI6 option, if you have a minister or official who says no, they can be replaced either as part of the next reshuffle (which you can time to your convenience) or by promoting them to somewhere where they no longer have the power to impede your desired end. You can then appoint a new minister who you know has your way of looking at things. In fact, it can be part of the brief for the basis on which you appoint them.

Again, Bower is full of examples of how Brown used that not only to control the Treasury but other ministries as well. He wrecked an awful lot of careers of both politicians and civil servants on his way. Bower’s book was called Gordon Brown Prime Minister, although it was published originally while he was still Chancellor. Tom Bower’s thesis was that in all but Foreign policy Brown was the real Prime Minister. He certainly ended up shifting a lot of programmes across all the ministries from what Blair wanted to what he wanted. Blair did manage to secure a small number of victories. But I reckon once he was involved with Iraq, war on terror etc that was where he needed tp focus his energies, and he did not have a strong enough independent power base in the Labour Party for sacking Brown to be a real option, because of the damage Brown could have done–and which Brown ultimately used to force Blair to resign before he wanted to.

I remember a documentary on the US-Libyan hostilities in the 80’s and I have to say that Reagan came across as far more raving bonkers than Gaddafi. I agree that he is a dictator but to caricature him as mad or you can’t believe anything he says is propagandist.

Judy,

My use of “hysterical” with regard to your contribution was an observation not of your interpretation of law, but your additional commentary that has, for example, Obama the monkey dancing on Brown’s organ. As for your suggestion I used this term because you are an “assertive woman”…nice try but I’m not biting. You’re certianly “assertive”, though.

The Treaty that allowed for Megrahi to be transferred to Libya was tailor made for him. It is for exchanging UK & Libyan prisoners. There was only one Libyan prisoner in a UK jail–Megrahi. It was agreed & signed by the UK govt in Nov 2008. It was ratified by the Brown govt in May 2009. The Queen would have had to agree it, but she has to do as she’s told by Gordon Brown. No way could Megrahi have been returned to Libya without Gordon Brown’s agreement==there was a clause stating each prisoner release had to be agreed by both national govts.

The treaty was based on a memorandum of understanding signed not by Brown, but by Blair in 2005, long before the onset of Megrahi’s aggressive prostate cancer that is going to kill him. It would have been politically impossible and I imagine unprecedented for Brown not to have followed through on this. The same memorandum of understanding is what led to additional treaties on extradition and mutual assistance on criminal matters. This is the sort of stuff that countries with improving diplomatic relations do.

You paint a picture of govermental machinations a year before Megrahi’s release and after he’d been diagnosed with cancer as though this was all being done to smooth the way for an inevitble release, when in fact it was the result of years of diplomatic work well before Megrahi fell in and therefore well before grounds for compassionate release even existed.

Maybe Blair knew Megrahi was going to get cancer? Maybe Mi6 gave it to him?

The only option available to HMG once MacAskill had released Megrahi was to block his release into Libyan custody. The existing treaty may require the consent of both signatories before a priosner can be transferred, but realistically any intervention by the UK government at this point would have rendered the treaty meaningless and, far more importantly, destroyed devolution and enboldened Scottish nationalists who claim devolution is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Imagine the outcry in Scotland if London had stepped in, even amongst those who disagreed with MacAskill’s decision. And there’s the small matter of what HMG would do with Megrahi if they had blocked his release into Libyan custody. Megrahi was tried under Scottish law. There is no legal basis for taking a Megrahi released from a Scottish jail and thorwing him in an English one. So Brown refuses to let Megrahi leave the UK…and then what?

Why Brown and Gaddafi not set up a Treaty which inserted a legally binding provision clause which specifically put the requirements for the Scots rather than the UK to give permission for Megrahi to be transferred to Libya (which is a separate issue from the one thing Scotland does have legal power over, that of opening the jail door)?

Becuase the treaty, which has its roots in a signed agreement between Blair and Qaddafi back in 2005 that also covered extradition and cooperation in criminal matters, was a never designed to deal with Megrahi specifically. Without his illness and absent any appeal leading to a subsequent pardon, there was no basis for early release from his prison term. There is nothing in the treaty eventually signed by Brown’s govt that provides for such a thing either. So why should there be any special provision relating to the role of Scotland in any future prisoner transfer? You question why this provision doesn’t exist when its existence would prove the collusion, plotting and scheming that you claim took place anyway…even though it doesn’t exist!

Why did they insert the clause requiring the agreement to the transfer between the two nation-states

“Insert”? I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that most/all prisoner exchange treaties we have with other countries include identical or very similar clauses. It stands to reason that each party would want to have a say in whether transfers should take place. I’d find it unusual in a stroky beard sort of way if such a provision did not exist.

Can we cut to the chase? Do you think Brown connived in the release of Megrahi, or are your criticisms that he didn’t intervene when he should have done?

America murdered Qaddafi’s daughter.

Quaddafi’s daughter was killed in an attack targeting Quaddafi, following the murder of Americans during the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, the attacks on the Rome and Vienna airports,and the disco bombing in Berlin. So, stuff it.

What’s disturbing is not that the plans are being reconsidered, but rather that there were plans in the first place.

Oh please. In 1957 and 2007, the Queen travelled to Virginia to celebrate the 350th and the 400th anniversaries of the Jamestown settlement. That settlement brought race war, mass murder, cannibalism, and (probably) coerced interracial sex — all the exciting things unsuitable for a general audience. Things have improved since those unpromising beginnings, but that probably isn’t why I missed your complaint at the time of the Queen’s visit.

The Colonel’s dabs are certainly on the Berlin bomb, somewhat tangentially on Rome and Vienna, but I’m not sure what he might have to do with the Achille Lauro. If you were going to hold a government accountable for that, it would be Iraq.

Oh please. In 1957 and 2007, the Queen travelled to Virginia to celebrate the 350th and the 400th anniversaries of the Jamestown settlement. That settlement brought race war, mass murder, cannibalism, and (probably) coerced interracial sex — all the exciting things unsuitable for a general audience. Things have improved since those unpromising beginnings, but that probably isn’t why I missed your complaint at the time of the Queen’s visit.

Well, if I had been blogging in 1647, and King Charles I had visited the Jamestown settlement to celebrate its 40th anniversary, I might have complained. I also might have lost my head.

That settlement brought race war, mass murder, cannibalism, and (probably) coerced interracial sex

You’re just picking out the bad bits.

Well, if emmanuelgoldstein wants to reduce the chances of future mass murder somewhat, I would recommend that the USA annex Libya. That would take one player on the terrorist side off the board and at the same time give the west a healthy source of oil not dominated by the Saudis, Iranians or Russians, meanwhile giving the west a great new base area in the land of Roman architecture from which we have been so long exiled by the present settlers. After all, there’s only 5.7 million Libyans there. Taking it would be a piece of cake. It would also be effective pour encourager les autres. Let’s get real gentlemen. Pay back time.

Brownie– I radically disagree with your statements on the origin and utlirmate development of the Treaty. There has never yet been a Transfer of Prisoners Treaty created for just one prisoner. Brown could certainly have stopped, refused to go further or simply evaded action on the Treaty. Bower gives ample examples of his track record in that respect in the case of every type of legislation–including entry to the Euro, Treaty based, which Blair passionately wanted, and which he covered by inventing the so called Five Tests==wholly subjective and cooked up between Balls and himself on the back of an envelope in order to provide a figleaf for their “Just Say No” position–that’s Bower, not me.

There is no historic inevitability about the completion of Treaties about which negotiations start up. Hence the famous statement by Jonathan Aitken that he would “hesitate for an eternity” before signing up to the Treaty provisions that created the Euro. If you think it was just about some generalised extradition treaty for prisoners at large, I think you are really stretching credibility.

My view is that it’s true that Gaddafi has been trying to get Megrahi released for years. But I believe Blair, emollient as ever, appeared to be ready to offer the possibility, but never committed to going ahead on it. It would have been entirely consistent with his consistent and passionately expressed opinions on terrorism and terrorists about which he has been making speeches for years, both during and after his PM years. Brown has never chosen to make anything other than required ritual utterances, and as far as I am aware has never voluntarily addressed the issue in the way that he has with, say, African aid.

Yes, each Treaty would include a provision that whatever’s legally agreed must be agreed on implementation by the nation states. Which just underpins my knowledge (from what i know about Treaties and how they operate) that Brown had to have agreed the transfer to Libya. As I’ve previously said, convicts of any sort on release cannot just leave the country without express permission from the national border authority. Which in the UK’s case is the UK government — including for Scotland.

I am sure that Brown set up and took responsibility for the transfer of Megrahi. Note that the answers he’s just given this evening refer only to “release”, not transfer. Whilst the commentators and the politicians are noting the evasiveness and the silences, no-one has picked up the difference between convict release from a jail and overseas convict transfer. Incidentally MacAskill’s answers to the Tory MSP who asked why Megrahi couldn’t have been transferred to a Scottish hospice were pathetic, and a measure of what a political minnow the man is. His answer amounted to–he would have frightened the other patients and needed too much security–the security guards would also have freaked out the other patients.

Of course, this Minister of Justice was apparently entirely ignorant of the existence of secure hospital facilities such as exist in the UK. In fact it probably would have been cheaper to keep him in a specially rented secured nursing home as the sole occupant (plus guards) than it was to keep him in the prison he was in.

As for my views on whether he played a part in the release, see my answers to devorgilla above on the “What if MacAskill disagreed” question.

Brown would of course meticulously ensure that he knew what would happen, and I have given clear enough indications of the incentives at his disposal even if the Scots were hostile which, given the grandstanding and unprecedented self-aggrandisement options presented by the release decision announcement charade, they had no reason to be.

“Nothing to do with me. A matter entirely for the Scottish government”. True deadpan Brown plausible deniability. They appear in great numbers in parallel situations in Bower.

He’s not called Macavity just because he has a habit of physically not being there when the brown stuff hits the fan.

Go look at the Eliot poem. Favourite quotes: “he’s called the Hidden Paw”

and

Macavity, Macavity, there’s no one like Macavity
There never was a cat of such deceitfulness and suavity
He always has an alibi and one or two to spare
Whatever time the deed took place, Macavity wasn’t there!

The one public thing we have is the polite letter from very junior dogsbody Ivan Lewis asking them to agree to the release. That could not have been done without G Brown’s express agreement. But of course it appears to come a long way away from Brown.

I note your continuing contemptous opinion of me. I think that reflects more on you than me. Other readers can make up their own mind on the basis of the analysis and links I’ve provided, as well as to my constant references to Bower.

I’m delighted that Brown’s announcement this evening is so close to the satire in which I predicted what he would say about the Megrahi affair. Release–entirely Scotland’s affair. Transfer to Libya — silence.

Scotland had no power to command Brown to send Megrahi off to Libya. And anyway, the Ivan Lewis letter shows he was requesting the release.

I think you have to be pretty credulous to believe that a release of this degree of political controversy was left to minnows like MacAskill and Ivan Lewis.

And I don’t believe it’s at all over the top to describe Salmond and MacAskill as the monkeys dancing on Brown’s organ. Because in the matter of foreign relations and ultra-controversial releases of terorists, Brown is definitely the organ grinder and the one who feeds and houses the monkeys.

Like Obama, Brown showed his righteous anger side harmlessly by condemning the welcome but studiously avoiding any reference at all to Gaddafi’s role as the terror master who sent out the leg man. Bit like condemning a convicted ram-raider whose actions resulted in multiple deaths for the choice of flashy car he used.

And, Brownie, I am sure that Brown “produced” the decision to release that MacAskill claimed he took independently. Prime Ministers dealing with ultra controversial stuff in high profile international relations don’t resort to-sorry can’t possibly do anything about it. My provincial authority/local education authority has the power here. I am powerless. tel

Even a moderately competent Chair or Chief Exec will make damn sure by careful preparation and prior negotiation what the outcomes will be where significant matters are to be decided, even though the vote is apparently open. He or she will do that through careful prior lobbying, briefing, offering incentives, offering apparently neutral but actually slanted towards the desired end documentation, creating a sense of crisis unless the proposal is agreed etc etc.

.Brown is the most control-freak democratic politician I have ever studied.

I’m not sure why you place such importance on the prisoner transfer treaty when al-Meghrahi was not released under the treaty.
And I don’t see what purpose it would serve, once the decision had been made to release him, to make him live out his final weeks in Scotland rather than allow him to go back to Libya. I hardly think it would have mollified those who were offended by his release.

Andrew, if you really think Megrahi would have been released had he been a terminally ill Scots born UK terrorist who blew up a plane with 270 people rather than a very high profile Libyan terrorist for whom an entirely unprecendented special court declared to be Scottish territory was set up in Holland for the trial because that was Gaddafi’s condition for turning him over for trial–what can I say?

Absolutely the whole point of the Treaty and the letters was as Gaddafi said to respond to his constant lobbying and inducements to turn over Megrahi as he consistently sought.

Alternatively, he is a total liar and fantasist and the signing of all those huge oil and gas contracts with British companies was entirely coincidental and unrelated. I’m sure Gordon Brown would tell you that it was a terrible and deplorable slur to make such a suggestion as a connection between the release & transfer and the contracts.

People like the Yorkhire Ripper and Brady will never be released however sick they are. They’ll die in a secure hospital unit like Hindley did (may she rot).

If the Dunblane massacre man had lived rather than committed suicide, and was dying of cancer, do you really think MacAskill would have released him? If you do think that, I’d like to offer you some very fine opportunities to bank some ten miilions of money on behalf of the late Idi Amin in thanks for which you get to keep a million for yourself. Just send me an email with your bank and credit card details and I’ll do the rest.

And the fact that Straw suddenly released Biggs having previously said he’d refused him just a few weeks earlier was in my view and the balance of probablities meant to create a precedent which would make the release of Megrahi less totally unprecedented than might otherwise appear the case. But you may find it easier to believe that was pure coincidence, and that Biggs’ increasing illness suddenly melted the previously frozen Heart of Straw.

Of course he wasn’t released under the Treaty. But the whole point for Gaddafi was his transfer

Absolutely, Judy.

Oh, what am I saying … Brown, Straw and that Scottish clown could never be guilty of cynical lying, could they …

Judy,

I note your continuing contemptous opinion of me.

Nope. I tihnk you are monumentally cynical and sometimes patronizing in the extreme, but I’m certainly not contemptuous of you. And none of us is perfect.

On the treaty, of course it would have been within Brown’s power to ensure the treaty that resulted from the MOU signed by Blair was never ratified. But he couldn’t have done this without suffering huge political fallout both at home and abroad. The treaties on extradition and cooperation in criminal matters were only signed in 2008. Any indication that Brown was not going to ratify the prisoner transfer treaty would have spelled the end for those. It’s clear you think there was always a cynical motivation behind the prisoner transfer treaty; how cynical would it have been for Brown to hole below the waterline improved relations with Libya just so he could avoid the possibility in the future of having to grapple with the question of Megrahi’s transfer?

On the powers of transfer, I think you’re perfectly correct that Megrahi’s transfer to Libya requires the nod of approval from HMG and I accept that Brown is being conveniently quiet about that. But again, whilst it may have been legally posisble to ensure Megrahi never made it to Libya following his release on compassionate grounds, Brown’s realistic options in this regard were virtually non-existent. Above, I described an attmept by Brown to block Megrahi’s transfer as “politically impossible” and indeed it was. Given a prisoner transfer treaty exists between Britain and Libya, any refusal to allow Megrahi to leave would have been seen as abrogation of that treaty (even though there is no compulsion on either party to the treaty to accede to any specific request for transfer) and interference in Scottish due process. The first would likely see an end to cooperation with Libya on all other matters and the second would cause a domestic shitstorm of immense proportions. Brown may be happy for politically expedient reasons that Megrahi is now in Libya, but that’s not nearly the same as claiming his hand guided the process. To believe this is to believe first that arch-nationalists MacAskill and Salmond were and are prepared to do the bidding of Westminster, and second that they’d keep quiet about interference from London when the decision to relase Megrahi started to blow up in their faces. Hardly likely.

Also, you haven’t answered the question of what could be done with Megrahi in the event Brown had refused to allow his transfer? I don’t see any legal basis for detaining him given the relevant legal authority has approved his release. So HMG can refuse to transfer Megrahi and…what then? Where does he go? Where does he live?

And of course there’s very little reason to suppose Brown has ever been over-keen on returning Megrahi to Libya. Given his ongoing travails, he and his government will have their politcal sights set on the near horizon. I’ll wager the far-term benefits of improved trading relations with Libya are a long way down his list of priorites right now. Balanced against the inevitable backlash from at least some quarters following a Megrahi release, including the predictable criticism from a new US administration and the accusations of scheming and backroom double-dealing from people like, well, you, it’s difficult to see why Brown would ever have favoured a release. Not now. And most of the political commentators I’ve heard seem to agree. Those who don’t buy into a SNP-New Labour conspiracy think, all things considered, Brown was secretly hoping that MacAskill would deny release on compassionate grounds. Problem solved for Brown. No case to answer. Assuming he wanted to keep in with Qaddafi, he could reasonably claim there was nothing he could do to persuade a hostile Scottish government to do the right thing.

I just don’t see why Brown, 25% behind in the polls, would have a dog in this fight.

Also, I’m not entirely sure that everyone holds Bower in the same high regard that you clearly do. I’m not especially antipathetic where he’s concerned, but this “Bower said” argumentation is not as convincing or forceful as you appear to think it is.

Similarly, you cite Qaddafi’s thanks to Brown and evidence of HMG’s connivance in Megrahi’s release. The alternative reading of Qaddafi’s remarks – that he must be a “total liar and a fantasist” to say such things if no thanks are due to Brown – is not nearly as unbelievable for many of us as it seems to be for you.

“And the fact that Straw suddenly released Biggs having previously said he’d refused him just a few weeks earlier was in my view and the balance of probablities meant to create a precedent which would make the release of Megrahi less totally unprecedented than might otherwise appear the case.”

This is genius. Judy should write an airport thriller.

Well, either Judy has a point (and I think she does), or we are led to believe that this happened for the best possible reasons and nothing untoward was done with a nod and wink?

I suppose in 3-5 years we’ll find out the real reasons and then people can reflect on their own naivety concerning this topic.

One othe thing…

Ive seen several times now a reference to the fact that there was only one Libyan prisoner in British jails at the time this treaty was signed (in other words, it was – wink-wink – a Megrahi treaty).

Well, the treraty was signed in 08 and ratified in 09. At 31st Dec 08, there were 25 Libyan nationals in UK jails.

Just thought I’d mention it.

modernity,

My take:

MacAskill/the Scots Nats itdecided it would be great to play the international statesman role for a bit and simultaneously flex Scottish muscle on the world stage, cocking a snook to Westminster into the bargain. “We’re Scotland – we do what we like”. They clearly misread the public mood.

Brown wanted Megrahi in jail. There is minimal politcal capital he can grow from a release (he cares about Libyan relations right now?) and it was always going to make things rough for him at home and with the Yanks.

A release forces him to answer questions: Did you pressurize the Scots? Why didn’t you step in to prevent Megrahi’s transfer? Isn’t this all about trade? The ritual hounding of Mandelson, etc..

Megrahi’s detention was just a continuation of the status quo and, save a few bleeding hearts who want the terminally ill freed, it’s not as though there was ever a groundswell of public sympathy for Megrahi that Brown could tap into.

I don’t tihnk Brown will come out of this particularly hurt, as it happens, but there was always far more risk attached to a release for Brown.

“save a few bleeding hearts who want the terminally ill freed,”

Hmmm. Just a few straws in the wind that suggest he might not be as “terminally ill” as believed. One on the BBC this morning.

But lets consider – I imagine health care in Scottish prisons is prretty good. As a “man with a problem” myself (not cancer – yet) I knowthe routine on this. They have a scheme when you get an enlarged prostate called “watchful waiting” which means you get regular blood tests to check what is called your PSA. You can have a biopsy if the rate is high enough to warrant further checking. If you do all this and still get cancer there are various means to deal with it. The point is, I am told that it is prostate cancer caught early enough is unlikely to become terminal. If health care in Scottish prisons is good, it is likely to be detected and dealt with. We should be told more about the exact course of Al Megrahi’s diagnosis. I am not saying its impossible – just that it is unlikely and I am suspicious about all aspects of the man’s release as well as “repulsed” by it – though I used differnt language from the PM – and earlier!

My understnading is that he has an agressive form of prostate cancer and Scottish doctors confirmed to MacAskill that he has less than three months to live (notmally the trigger for compassionate release). I suppose we’ll know in few months whether there has been any skullduggery when Megrahi either dies or doesn’t.

Mark2
“The point is, I am told that it is prostate cancer caught early enough is unlikely to become terminal.”

That’s mostly true. In many ways, it’s a disease all us are men programmed to get. Some clinicians believe that if all men lived to 150, we’d get it in some form. But there are some thankfully rarer forms of the disease that will metastazise before you have an inkling. By the way Al Meghari was walking with a stick, I’d venture a very crude layman’s guess that it’s got into his bones now, and he doesn’t have too much longer

I would stress that it sounds very, very different to what you have. I’m glad your doctors are onto it early, but it sounds like it’s sort they’ll be able to manage relatively easily. Good luck anyways.

Sorry meant “something”, not “sort”.

Brownie,

agreed with you about the Scots Nats, and you put a fair case for absolving Gordon Brown, I can see your reasoning.

Equally, someone might have miscalculated and hoped that the SNP would get all of the blame? We’ll see.

In many ways, it’s a disease all us are men programmed to get.

What are symptoms for prostate cancer? Thanks for ruining my day, Mike S.

Yeah, good luck Mark2.

It was certainly reported in the Scottish press that the cancer was now in Megrahi’s bones, but can we believe this? It emerged that the medical opinion recommending release was granted by one doctor, who may not have been NHS. It could have been Megrahi’s Libyan doctor.

…….. or even Megrahi’s Libyan “Doctor”.

Sorry Brownie. It’s just a hypothesis though.

http://www.prostate-cancer.org.uk/info/prostate_cancer/cancer_symptoms.asp

Devorgilla and Mark2. I suppose it is possible that it’s all an elaborate hoax, but the (alleged?) progress of his disease isn’t incompatible with what we know about it.

Mike S, my broader point was really the lengths MacAskill had gone to in order to establish medical grounds. Since the status if the disease is the vital consideration for granting this kind of release.

My suspicion is that he seems to have been a bit hasty, and blamed it on the rapid progress of the disease. A bit too convenient, IMHO.

He never took the time to consul the US relatives about the compassionate release option. Or brief the US administration.

The relatives of 189 US citizens who died at Lockerbie also agreed to submit themselves to the probity and standards of Scottish justice in 2001. Since this was a volte face, they deserved better treatment.

Dr Richard Simpson, MSP, an urologist, asked about this. And was stonewalled.

He doubted enough medical advice had been sought.

Well it’s undoubted that the SNP have made a dog’s breakfast of this one, but al-Meghrai’s (alleged?) symptoms are compatible with aggressive prostate cancer. I guess we’ll never know for sure. Even if he’s reported dead by Xmas, people will doubt the veracity of the claim.

Slightly OT, but I thought Richard Simpson was a GP.

You can’t believe everything in print but it was reported he was a urologist.

Brownie – the trouble with prostate cancer is that it’s often almost symptom free in the earlier (treatable) stages. I make sure all my male patients over 45 do a PSA test annually, but that’s not infallible either and I don’t know if the NHS provide it at such frequency. If you have any family history of breast or ovarian cancers on the female side, you should be extra aware because they are genetically related. In the UK they don’t recognise this genetic link yet, but because of the high incidence of the BRCA1 gene in Israel lots of research into these links has been done there. My family on my mother’s side is riddled with all three of those types of cancer -the males get prostate and the females breast or ovarian. Fortunately the other side only have heart disease!