August 21, 2009
The Honorable Kenny MacAskill, MSP
Cabinet Secretary for Justice
Scottish Government
St. Andrew's House
Regent Road
Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom
EH13DG

Dear Mr. Secretary:
Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision.
Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because I am familiar with the facts, and the law, having been the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991. And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of "compassion."
Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law. Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man's exercise of "compassion." Your action rewards a terrorist even though he never admitted to his role in this act of mass murder and even though neither he nor the government of Libya ever disclosed the names and roles of others who were responsible.
Your action makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy: the medical personnel who first faced the horror of 270 bodies strewn in the fields around Lockerbie, and in the town of Lockerbie itself; the hundreds of volunteers who walked the fields of Lockerbie to retrieve any piece of debris related to the breakup of the plane; the hundreds of FBI agents and Scottish police who undertook an unprecedented global investigation to identify those responsible; the prosecutors who worked for years--in some cases a full career--to see justice done.
But most importantly, your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21, 1988. You could not have spent much time with the families, certainly not as much time as others involved in the investigation and prosecution. You could not have visited the small wooden warehouse where the personal items of those who perished were gathered for identification--the single sneaker belonging to a teenager; the Syracuse sweatshirt never again to be worn by a college student returning home for the holidays; the toys in a suitcase of a businessman looking forward to spending Christmas with his wife and children.
You apparently made this decision without regard to the views of your partners in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy. Although the FBI and Scottish police, and prosecutors in both countries, worked exceptionally closely to hold those responsible accountable, you never once sought our opinion, preferring to keep your own counsel and hiding behind opaque references to "the need for compassion."
You have given the family members of those who died continued grief and frustration. You have given those who sought to assure that the persons responsible would be held accountable the back of your hand. You have given Megrahi a "jubilant welcome" in Tripoli, according to the reporting. Where, I ask, is the justice?

Sincerely yours,

Robert S. Mueller, III
Director

Yeah. I know, Blends are for wimps. Good old Kentucky Bourbon is just going to have to suffice for now on.

The guy's going to die a painful death from pancreatic cancer. Nothing's going to stop that. If he's in jail at the time or elsewhere, it doesn't really matter. His sentence has been given down by god. It is final, and no one can take that back.

I find the notion of giving this man unspeakable compassion to be quite touching. His being or not being in jail for a few months isn't going to bring anyone back, isn't going to make terrorists more or less likely to commit their atrocities, it isn't going to make things "right" in any way. It only shows that people are capable of turning the other cheek, of showing not forgiveness, for his actions will never be forgiven, but human decency, even in the face of the greatest evil.

I also find it deeply hypocritical for any Christian to question the release of this prisoner. Releasing this man is basically the central tenet of Christ's teachings.

The guy's going to die a painful death from pancreatic cancer. Nothing's going to stop that. If he's in jail at the time or elsewhere, it doesn't really matter. His sentence has been given down by god. It is final, and no one can take that back.

I find the notion of giving this man unspeakable compassion to be quite touching. His being or not being in jail for a few months isn't going to bring anyone back, isn't going to make terrorists more or less likely to commit their atrocities, it isn't going to make things "right" in any way. It only shows that people are capable of turning the other cheek, of showing not forgiveness, for his actions will never be forgiven, but human decency, even in the face of the greatest evil.

I also find it deeply hypocritical for any Christian to question the release of this prisoner. Releasing this man is basically the central tenet of Christ's teachings.

The guy's going to die a painful death from pancreatic cancer. Nothing's going to stop that. If he's in jail at the time or elsewhere, it doesn't really matter. His sentence has been given down by god. It is final, and no one can take that back.

I find the notion of giving this man unspeakable compassion to be quite touching. His being or not being in jail for a few months isn't going to bring anyone back, isn't going to make terrorists more or less likely to commit their atrocities, it isn't going to make things "right" in any way. It only shows that people are capable of turning the other cheek, of showing not forgiveness, for his actions will never be forgiven, but human decency, even in the face of the greatest evil.

I also find it deeply hypocritical for any Christian to question the release of this prisoner. Releasing this man is basically the central tenet of Christ's teachings.

The guy's going to die a painful death from pancreatic cancer. Nothing's going to stop that. If he's in jail at the time or elsewhere, it doesn't really matter. His sentence has been given down by god. It is final, and no one can take that back.

I find the notion of giving this man unspeakable compassion to be quite touching. His being or not being in jail for a few months isn't going to bring anyone back, isn't going to make terrorists more or less likely to commit their atrocities, it isn't going to make things "right" in any way. It only shows that people are capable of turning the other cheek, of showing not forgiveness, for his actions will never be forgiven, but human decency, even in the face of the greatest evil.

I also find it deeply hypocritical for any Christian to question the release of this prisoner. Releasing this man is basically the central tenet of Christ's teachings.

To be clear, I don't think that releasing this guy was the right thing to do, but I certainly sympathize with the sentiment. I think we could have made him comfortable in jail and held on to our moral integrity and been all right (by we, I don't mean we, I mean the Scots, but I like saying "we").

But to have so much outrage over his release is a lot of overkill. It's just people trying to paint the Scottish justice minister as a scapegoat for the atrocities that this man committed. I think the would would be a better place if people were a bit less vengeful and, like the minister, were compassionate to a fault.

Also, I'm confused by the charges that the release was done for "political" reasons. It seems that the release will most likely end the career of the minister and possibly may bring about a change in Scottish government. It is a horrible move politically and will only make those involved incredibly unpopular. No, this is only about morality, maybe misplaced morality, but morality none the less.

It is completely within Christianity to allow this man to die in prison, or even be killed by the state.

The direction the Bible gives is that as an individual I am to forgive, but it is completely acceptable that the state conduct itself in a manner that serves the common good. Which is why I am also commanded to obey those placed in authority above me and render unto Ceaser etc.

Of course, you have studied Christianity a lot more than I have, but I don't fully agree with your interpretation here.

To me, the Ceaser quote isn't saying that we should obey those in authority above us. He was asked whether it was okay to pay taxes to Ceasar and if doing so would be putting the Emperor above God. Jesus' response is, more or less, "If Ceasar wants you to give him material things, then give him material things. If he's going to print coins with his face on them, give them out, decree that they have value, and then demand that we give them back to him, then do so. They only have value in the eyes of Ceasar, not in the eyes of God. They are rocks. If he wants rocks, give him rocks. But give your love and your devotion to God and your fellow man."

I think, in general, Jesus doesn't want us to be obedient to a government nor does he want us to be rebellious. He didn't see politics as the way to bettering the would. To him, all politics was local. We make the world better by treating those around us with love, respect, and compassion. We are generous to our friends and even more so to our enemies. And, if doing so means that we remain poor and humble, then so be it, for ours is the kingdom of heaven.

To be clear, I don't think that releasing this guy was the right thing to do, but I certainly sympathize with the sentiment. I think we could have made him comfortable in jail and held on to our moral integrity and been all right (by we, I don't mean we, I mean the Scots, but I like saying "we").

But to have so much outrage over his release is a lot of overkill. It's just people trying to paint the Scottish justice minister as a scapegoat for the atrocities that this man committed. I think the would would be a better place if people were a bit less vengeful and, like the minister, were compassionate to a fault.

Also, I'm confused by the charges that the release was done for "political" reasons. It seems that the release will most likely end the career of the minister and possibly may bring about a change in Scottish government. It is a horrible move politically and will only make those involved incredibly unpopular. No, this is only about morality, maybe misplaced morality, but morality none the less.

Of course, you have studied Christianity a lot more than I have, but I don't fully agree with your interpretation here.

To me, the Ceaser quote isn't saying that we should obey those in authority above us. He was asked whether it was okay to pay taxes to Ceasar and if doing so would be putting the Emperor above God. Jesus' response is, more or less, "If Ceasar wants you to give him material things, then give him material things. If he's going to print coins with his face on them, give them out, decree that they have value, and then demand that we give them back to him, then do so. They only have value in the eyes of Ceasar, not in the eyes of God. They are rocks. If he wants rocks, give him rocks. But give your love and your devotion to God and your fellow man."

I think, in general, Jesus doesn't want us to be obedient to a government nor does he want us to be rebellious. He didn't see politics as the way to bettering the would. To him, all politics was local. We make the world better by treating those around us with love, respect, and compassion. We are generous to our friends and even more so to our enemies. And, if doing so means that we remain poor and humble, then so be it, for ours is the kingdom of heaven.

Bit of a side-bar but I think everyone would benefit from reading this:

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/God-No...+not+great%2527

It may show to you that there are many sides to the good book(s).

The guy's going to die a painful death from pancreatic cancer. Nothing's going to stop that. If he's in jail at the time or elsewhere, it doesn't really matter. His sentence has been given down by god. It is final, and no one can take that back.

I find the notion of giving this man unspeakable compassion to be quite touching. His being or not being in jail for a few months isn't going to bring anyone back, isn't going to make terrorists more or less likely to commit their atrocities, it isn't going to make things "right" in any way. It only shows that people are capable of turning the other cheek, of showing not forgiveness, for his actions will never be forgiven, but human decency, even in the face of the greatest evil.

I also find it deeply hypocritical for any Christian to question the release of this prisoner. Releasing this man is basically the central tenet of Christ's teachings.

Wasn't he give a life sentence?

Isn't he supposed to die in prison?

Edited for being a little mean.


I think Hitchens makes a lot of poorly thought our arguments, and as such feel his book is nothing more than a way to make money for himself on the current trend of books following the really foolish book/movie DaVinci Code.

In Scotland, they have something called a "compassionate release" where, when a prisoner is certain to die, they will release him back to his family so he can die with them. This is what happened here.

Compassionate release is an established feature of the British and Scottish judicial systems when a prisoner is near death. According to officials, there have been 30 requests for release on compassionate grounds in Scotland over the last decade, 23 of which were approved.

Libyan officials have claimed al-Megrahi's fate had formed part of trade talks in recent years, while the country's leader Moammar Gadhafi on Friday thanked British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Queen Elizabeth II for "encouraging the Scottish government" to take their decision

From where I am sitting, the release was an act of arrogance, not compassion. This Judge decided on his own that he knew what was "Right". He didn't get any international input, nor input from victims' families, nor (apparently) any other input. He sounds defiant in his interviews on this matter and comes off as an arrogant prick.

In Scotland, they have something called a "compassionate release" where, when a prisoner is certain to die, they will release him back to his family so he can die with them. This is what happened here.

Oh, then they should have given him "Life, but not really life because when you get close to life we'll let you out", compassionately of course.

Truth in sentencing?

They have granted it 23 out of 30 times. Obviously, it is their policy to normally do this. The fact that it happens rarely is meaningless. Obviously, there are not enough Scottish prisoners where this situation comes up a lot.

The Justice Minister who decided to release him obviously felt Scotland would look anti-Muslim if he refused to grant a legitimate request for this type of release (the 7 denials were always due to the medical reasons.....they do not decide this based on heinousness of the crime committed).

I don't agree with the policy in general but I do agree with applying the policy equally. The fact that applying this policy equally has led to such a disastrous result should make Scotland think about adopting a different policy.

I don't agree with the release really but it was the Scottish Justice Secretary who made the decision not a judge. I also believe he claims to have talked to families of the victims before hand.

Is there any chance that this was done as a covert attempt to get him to implicate his co-conspirators? Like, the Scottish CIA or whatever has an inside man in Libya?

Regardless of how standard his release is or how quickly he will die anyways, this is pretty obviously a case where compassionate release is a huge mistake. Which makes me think that perhaps they have ulterior motives in releasing him. I probably watch too many movies though.

Also though, the authorities could see his impending death as the end of their chances to find his co-conspirators, so they're using compassionate release as a method to do so.

C'mon dude.

Is it that unreasonable??

Not exactly.

MacAskill apparently had two things to consider. A Prisoner Transfer Agreement request from Libya, and a request for Compassionate Release. During the decision regarding the PTA, he did get input from Families and the US Government - and as a result rejected the PTA Request.

But then when reviewing the Compassionate Release request he determined that a Minister of Justice alone had the power to release a prisoner on the basis of compassionate grounds. And even though there are no established criteria for making the decision regarding Compassionate Release - the Minister just needs to be satisfied that there are grounds for compassionate release - he somehow determined that this case met the non-existent criteria for immediate release. He also determined that the Security would be too expensive to allow him to be released to reside elsewhere in Scotland upon release, so he decided that the murderer should return to Libya.

So - ultimately he declined a transfer of the scumbag as a prisoner to Libya in deference to the wishes of the families of victims and the US Government, but then unilaterally decided to grant him a full compassionate release and the ability to return home as a hero.

How nice.

MacAskill concedes that this guy showed neither comfort nor compassion to his scores and scores of victims and their families. But that alone doesn't mean that he and his family do not deserve compassion from Scotland. He claims that his decision is reflective of who the Scottish people are. He says that Judgment must be imposed, but compassion be available. He doesn't even claim that he HAD to release the guy. He stands fast that it was HIS decision to release the prisoner and return to his family in Libya to die. His decision is pure arrogance.

Think I am making this up or misrepresenting his point of view?

Listen to his own statement here:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/2...rss&emc=rss

Edinburgh is one of my favorite cities anywhere. I really do like a little JWB. And I do joke a little about my views. However I will not knowingly spend any of my disposable income on any product from Scotland until someone high up in their Justice system publicly and loudly denounces this decision.

if they granted it for everyone else who medically qualified then he should have done it here. a judge or justice minister is supposed to apply the law....isn't that right Conservatives? We don't want to change how we apply the laws based on who the person in question is do we? Because that would be using empathy.....that would be judicial activism. And we know from the Sotomayor hearings that judges are supposed to be robots that apply the law with no regard to who the parties are.

Is it that unreasonable?? Don't you think he's probably their best lead? I mean, I think they've probably hit quite a dead end with the investigation, considering that it happened 20 years ago and they still haven't caught anybody else.

First of all, MacAskill states that there are no formally established criteria for determining the grounds for Compassionate Release. And 2 cases a year isn't exactly a huge history of precedence to apply. The Act is vague and relies on the Justice Minister to decide how it will be applied. By your logic anyone who applies should therefore be granted release - or at least 76% of applicants should be. I find it completely impossible to believe that no one dies of Cancer in Scottish Prison.

...but where do you get the notion that Conservatives and Conservatives alone are interested in following and applying nothing but the 100% letter of the law? Because of Sotomayor?!? -Are you therefore implying that it is the hallmark of a Liberal to be compassionate and impercise in application of the Law?

So you're one of those who think that conspirators have both the ability to perfectly plan and execute a rather complex conspiracy which requires the 100% involvement of high level Ministers of Justice and politicians and perfectly placed inside spies to track the actions of a dying man to determine his accomplices while never leaving a trail of their planning and no one speaking to the media or on-line, but at the same time they must be be so inept as to be unable to unearth another lead or anticipate or care about the international response from Governments and families of Victims.

no I'm saying that if you follow the law you let the guy go which is what conservatives say the want in a judge or justice minister. it is no more complicated than that.

everyone who medically met the criteria in the past was granted a release. the bomber medically met the criteria. therefore, the bomber should be released. this is the end result of a bad policy. and I'm implying that if conservatives truly believe what they said they do during the Sotomayor hearings than they would support the Justice Minister. He applied the law as it had always been applied without considering any outside criteria. This is the exact reason why 100% adherence to the letter of the law is a bad idea.

Wakefield, you saw that TV episode about the JFK assassination and went a little crazy. Put down the tinfoil hat.

You don't seem to want to accept this for some reason - perhaps out of your overpowering desire to debate or take a contrary view - in this case there simply was no letter of the law. There is no established criteria defining the grounds for Compassionate Release. MacAskill admits this. He applied his view of the "Right" thing to do based on his interpretation of morality. You cannot believe that no one of the remaining tens and tens of thousands of prisoners in UK prisons have a terminal disease.

I have no idea why my suggestion was so distasteful to you, but no, that is not the scenario I imagined. And I only imagined it as a slight possibility, and even said that I probably watch too many movies.

But no, it would not need to be a large operation, and you shouldn't use the word 'conspirators' because I am talking about government officials who are tracking down the conspirators who planned the attack. So calling those (hypothetical) government officials conspirators is not only incorrect, but confuses them with the people they are chasing.

It would not need to involve 100% of anybody. It could be like 6 people. Like, his request for release came up, maybe they were even gonna release him anyways, but then they also have an agent or even just a CI or multiple CIs in Libya tracking him, just in case he somehow gives something away. I don't see how that is terribly far-fetched, or why it makes me a conspiracy-theorist or anything. This isn't a theory about a conspiracy at all - at best it is a very-thin theory about a covert operation, nothing more.

Re: Bush, Cheney, etc, if you were involved in or even just read those 9/11 threads back when, do you not remember that I spent pages arguing against the conspiracy theories and pointing out their flaws?

Because of your history around here was why I posted the mildly incredulous "C'mon Dude".

lol interpretation of morality. you are the one who cannot accept things here. there are no criteria so he followed precedent.....the precedent was EVERYONE who passed the medical criteria has been granted compassionate release. every single applicant.

this is also a Scottish law not a UK law. I am assuming the # of prisoners in Scotland who have a terminal disease and know about it in time to apply for this provision is smaller than you believe it to be.

it's vague so he followed precedent. keep pretending this is about me wanting to be contrary. I already stated in more than one post that this is a stupid law/policy and this event is the proof. dont get mad at the justice minister for enforcing a crappy policy. you should be mad at the Scottish legislature. all the minister did was the same thing that has been done for every other person in that situation. He did not do anything based on his interpretation of morality. Thats what you obviously want him to do though (decide that this prisoner is such a piece of shit that he should not be granted what everyone else has been to this date) which is what makes your argument so wonderfully ironic.

Fair enough. Canebrain was probably somewhat right about the JFK conspiracy stuff influencing me, but I think I was also just looking for a positive spin on this story. There probably isn't one though.

So you DO believe that over the past decade FEWER than two dozen people in Scottish Prison have had terminal disease that could have granted them IMMEDIATE release from Prison, but they just forgot to apply for unconditional automatic rubber stamp release?

Do you have a link to the criteria by which 25% of past applicants over the past decade were declined? I haven't been able to find anything regarding that.

Did you listen to MacAskill's statement which I linked?

He admits that there are no established criteria defining the grounds for compassionate release. He doesn't claim that he acted on precedence. He states that he made a decision based on his view of the morality of compassionate release that was "consistent" with Scottish law. That is very different from the claim that precedent somehow forced the decision. Based on his statement it is very clear to me that there was plenty of grey area and room for decision.

He wasn't enforcing a crappy policy - he was making a crappy decision.

Just say No to blends. Unless you're mixing...

Teacher's is a decent blend, actually. 40% of it is from a single distillery. It makes a fine Rusty Nail.

the cnn article I read said that 30 people had applied and 7 had been denied on medical grounds. The other 23 were granted. Where is the grey area? To deny his claim would have been to do the opposite of what they had done every other time. This is why the law should have a provision that prohibits certain offenders from being considered for compassionate release.

As to the point about terminal patients in Scottish prison.....I really have no idea why you are pressing this. How do I know how common this situation is? America has a quarter of the world's prison population. Maybe there are just not that many people in Scottish prison? Maybe the medical care in prisons is sub-standard so many terminal conditions are not caught until the autopsy? Maybe life sentences are rarer in Scotland? I really don't know and I don't think it is remotely relevant either. But I gave you some theories since it is important to you clearly.

scotland always releases prisoners for compassionate reasons, they only refuse when it is not medically clear that they are terminally ill. so this is normal.

"Kenny MacAskill reiterated that the decision to free Abdel Basset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds was made in accordance with Scottish law and was not influenced by politics, diplomacy or trade.

"In Scotland we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. The perpetration of an outrage ... cannot and should not be the basis for losing sight of who we are," he said on Monday."
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2...1339595745.html


americans were not the only ones to die, many other families agree with this decision.

there are also issues with how this guy was convicted. he was put away mainly on hearsay:

"Al-Megrahi was charged after he was identified by a Maltese shopkeeper as the man who bought clothes that were found in the suitcase carrying the bomb planted on the aircraft."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2...3226391461.html


Hear is this guy's full statement:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2...6359962688.html

He was convicted by the same laws which released him. I am not saying he was illegally released. I am saying it was a bad decision to do so.

He was convicted by the same laws which released him. I am not saying he was illegally released. I am saying it was a bad decision to do so.

...and I didn't mean to be rude to you. Sorry if I came across that way.