okay while i don't agree with mr robertson on some things i have a lot of respect for his view and i think generally he is a very switched on guy. here is the only opinion that was written during this period that categorically takes a stance against scotland's move. lybia headed the un human rights councils and still contributes along with several other dictator state especially if it means the un get to put the boot in to israel, which they do every chance they get. what is remarkable is the last comment below. it indicates why the left wing are so fucked up. and so popular. because people generally are trapped in moronic political moral mazes that cannot distinguish a good move from a bad one.


'Compassion' for a mass killer is a coup for Libya's dictator
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON
September 12, 2009 Comments 6
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi may be the worst man left in the world but last week many heads of state visited Libya to pay tribute to his 40 years of vicious dictatorship. On September 23 he pitches tent in New York to address a United Nations session chaired by Barack Obama.

His victories continue: the Swiss Government has made a grovelling apology for daring to detain one of his sons for brutally assaulting servants. His finest coup, other than that which brought him to power, has been to celebrate the Lockerbie atrocity by welcoming home from a Scottish prison the man who committed it - undoubtedly, at Gaddafi's instigation.

By what perverse process has the godfather of modern terrorism been allowed such a triumph?

At one level, the low parochial level of a Scotland recently "devolved" so it can administer its own criminal laws, Gaddafi's triumph may be put down to human error and indeed to human stupidity.

Al-Megrahi was convicted of the cold-blooded mass murder of 270 innocents on Pan Am 103. Eight years into his sentence he began a fresh appeal, and contracted prostate cancer. He made an application for bail so he could live under "house arrest" in Scotland while preparing his appeal but this application was rejected by the Scottish appeal court last November. It pointed out his condition was "very unpredictable" and "his life expectancy may be in years". A few months later an egregious politician intervened. The Scottish Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, an undistinguished lawyer, freed al-Megrahi in the name of "compassion", a virtue he claimed to be specially embedded in Scottish law.

There is a place for mercy in every justice system. Primitive countries offer arbitrary pardons to celebrate the ruler's birthday but more advanced systems require "compassion" to be rationally related to the mental state of the particular offender. It is extended either because he can be forgiven or because he is genuinely to be pitied.

Al-Megrahi, as an unrepentant and cold-blooded mass-murderer, is unforgivable. The notion he could be pitied, allowed to end his days in Libya as a national hero, was ridiculous. The pardon bestowed by MacAskill was not, in law or in logic, an act of compassion. It showed kindness to nobody and rewarded the wrongdoer.

The Justice Secretary visited the killer in prison (he did not visit relatives of his victims) and relied upon a promise from Libya that his reception there would be low-key. What sensible minister would believe the promise of an unpredictable terrorist regime? He acted with unseemly haste, making his decision less than four weeks after Libya's application. It must have been blindingly obvious that the release of Megrahi would coincide with Gaddafi's 40th-anniversary celebrations, and be hailed a triumph. It must have been equally obvious it would be an act of cruelty to all those who have suffered from Libya's terrorist crimes.

The decision was supported by a few soft-hearted and soft-headed Edinburgh clerics, entranced by the idea that it reflected forgiveness. But Bishop Joseph Butler warned against hasty and uncritical compassion, irresponsible because it compromised important Christian values such as self-respect and respect for the moral order.

MacAskill's "compassion" was irresponsible because he bestowed it on an unrepentant perpetrator of what Immanuel Kant termed "radical evil," at a time and in a way that enables him to be honoured as a national hero.

The Scottish Parliament desperately attempted to regain its reputation by condemning MacAskill's decision. But the damage has been done, especially to the worldwide campaign to abolish the death penalty for international crimes. This relies upon the validity of assurances genocidaires and torturers and terrorists will never be released. Now, such assurances cannot credibly be given because MacAskill's action so vividly illustrates the risk that, within a few years, politicians will breach them.

Was this simply an irresponsible decision by parish-pump Scottish politicians, or was the British Government really pulling their strings? There had been long-running negotiations between British ministers and Gaddafi and his son, Saif, over trade, in particular British Petroleum's access to untapped Libyan oil deposits. Al-Megrahi's release was always, as Saif admitted, "on the table", so there was suspicion it may have become the quid pro quo for the success of BP's contract bid.

If the British Government really had been orchestrating the release behind the scenes, using the Scottish National Party as cut-outs, this would have been an astounding breach of faith, since, in 1999, the then foreign secretary, Robin Cook, promised Madeleine Albright that al-Megrahi would serve his full term (27 years) in custody in Scotland.

The stakes must be extremely high before Britain will defy the US. The Labour Government shows inordinate servility. It has, for example, accepted a bullying US extradition request to put a Scotsman suffering Asperger's syndrome in prison for up to 60 years for hacking into Pentagon networks (he was searching for evidence of UFOs and left a message "Your security is crap"). No decent person in Britain believes he should be extradited and the Government has made itself extremely unpopular by insisting American wishes are its command.

Would the British Government really incur US displeasure to help British Petroleum to 590 million barrels of crude oil?

Up to a point. After a week's astonishing silence it emerged Gaddafi and son were assured, during trade talks, that although it was a matter for the local Scots, the British Prime Minister did not want him to die in prison. This wink seems to have secured the Libyan nod, and the trade deal went ahead.

The Foreign Office, always anxious that commercial interests should prevail over ethical concerns, was well aware Gaddafi was consumed with guilt over his decision to send al-Megrahi to trial, a sacrifice necessary 10 years ago for the lifting of UN sanctions crippling the country, and dangling even a possibility of al-Megrahi's release would sweeten the deal.

The British Government walked a verbal tightrope, telling the White House al-Megrahi would die in prison while secretly assuring the Libyans it did not want him to. Then, when he contracted prostate cancer, it tipped the wink to the Scots there was no national interest at stake if he were released.

The "useful idiots" in Scotland did the rest. It might have gone down in the twisted annals of British diplomacy as a great success, if only the Libyans had kept it "low key". But you cannot trust international criminals and you cannot trust Gaddafi.

Anyone who has studied Libyan governance knows if al-Megrahi's guilty, Gaddafi gave him the order. There is no way a decision to commit an atrocity of this magnitude would have been taken by his intelligence services (run by his brother-in-law) without his knowledge and approval.

For more than 30 of his 40 years in power, Gaddafi has run a terrorist state, initially sponsoring and training the most violent terrorist groups and supplying the IRA with much of the semtex it used to bomb British citizens. He ordered the assassination of Libyan opponents of democracy (calling them "stray dogs") at home and abroad. Al-Megrahi's colleagues have been convicted, by a French court, in absentia of the bombing of a UTA passenger jet. And Gaddafi has encouraged mayhem throughout Africa.

So how did he come in from the cold? Quite simply, he became afraid of al-Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalists who despise as blasphemous his "green book" version of Islam. To preserve his dictatorship and his dynasty (Saif will succeed him) he allied himself with the West after September 11, providing intelligence about nuclear trafficking and disclosing all his dealings with the IRA.

The Bush administration decided his isolation must end. But because the US could not be seen to deal immediately with a terrorist, Tony Blair was dispatched in 2004 to welcome the colonel into the Western fold.

Blair met Gaddafi in his tent. The colonel pointed his bare feet at the prime minister (an Arabic sign of contempt) and then broke wind loudly (a sign of even greater contempt). Gaddafi's fart went unreported by the loyal Blairite press ("We were writing for family newspapers") but it lingers on as a symbol of his true sentiments towards the West and his insouciance about his past crimes.

These crimes are too distant to permit the attention of the International Criminal Court, which can only consider atrocities after 2002. But the prosecutor of the UN's war crimes court for Sierra Leone may take an interest: Gaddafi is accused as a co-conspirator with Charles Taylor, who trained in Libya along with Foday Sankoh, the leader of the rebels who razed Freetown in Operation No Living Thing. That court has held that sitting heads of state have no immunity from prosecution, so an arrest warrant might validly detain him in New York.

There are other legal possibilities. Unruly rulers (like Karadzic, Mugabe and Marcos) have been subjected to civil actions under the US Alien Tort Claims Act, although they cannot be obliged to wait around for the verdict.

There are other prosecution possibilities, yet Gaddafi struts the world invulnerable, not because of his strength but because of the weakness of international law and those who have a duty to apply it.

Geoffrey Robertson, QC, is a member of the UN Internal Justice Council and the author of Crimes against Humanity.Peter Hartcher is on assignment.



As a person who vividly recalls the day of the Pan Am crash, living in The States, who watched the collapse of the airline as a result, the loss of so many innocent lives and the aftermath, the recent decision in Scotland (no doubt not reflected by its people or by that of any in Englad for that matter) is a disgrace of massive proportions. Where is justice I ask? But more importantly, where is the outrage? Where are the people asking more of their government and of those 'allies'? We should all be taking action, if, in no other means than just voicing your opinion. Hope this new website takes off so voices can be heard, read, but more importantly, action taken as a result
Pan Am | Gold Coast - September 12, 2009, 1:34PM
Exactly...how is it that Lybia has enjoyed such relative anonymity, such passive engagement with the world, yet world leaders will not step up to the plate to acknowledge their role in such atrocities. Yes, the damage has been done with the Scottish ruling, but the damage was done years earlier, and so many families suffered as a result
Lock-er-bee | Sydney - September 12, 2009, 1:38PM
Thank you for the above comments. I too can remember the awful day. It seemed the worst thing that could happen...but then 9/11 happened...and now it is September 12, 8 years later...and the Scottish government made their ruling. I find myself asking, "how"? But then again, how was Bush RE-elected?
Li--bee-a | Northern Territory - September 12, 2009, 1:42PM
"Celebrate his dictatorship." Disgraceful, isn't it? Seriously, can you please name the 40 world leaders who visited after the Scottish ruling? I think we all deserve to know.
Fred 45 | VIC - September 12, 2009, 2:02PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for forgiveness, but AFTER an apology, which, correct me if I'm mistaken, we (the world) never got. Sure some millions of dollars from Libya to the victims (some years later), but no guilt, no apology, no acknowledgement of association and now, the guilty party welcomed home a hero. Can you name the heads of state that went to visit...and celebrate his dictatorship?
Stephen | Surry Hills, NSW - September 12, 2009, 6:22PM
why is smh censoring any criticism of this article? there were 8 or so comments this morning- most of which were critical (including mine :) - now i see, some 8 hours latter, there are only 5 comments, all of which support mr.robertsons stance- this has got to be news worthy.
hello mr censor