![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fpbThere may be some among my American (and even Canadian!) friends who will not like the story I set out. If you do, please try to disagree politely and without accusing me of all sorts of moral turpitudes.
What we have seen in Scotland in the last few weeks has been a sorry and familiar sight: the incompetent and self-regarding British ruling classes in full cover-your-arse mode. As they so often do, they have managed to turn an embarrassment into a disaster. The first point to be made is this: whether or not al-Megrahi was guilty (and there are serious doubts about that, as we shall see), he should never have been convicted on the evidence presented in court. His whole conviction hinged on dubious technical evidence and recognition evidence by a Maltese shopkeeper who is said to have benefited by his testimony to the tune of one and a half million pounds. Whether or not the man's recognition was genuine, had I been a juror I would never have voted to convict.
The result was predictable. In spite of having every legal obstacle thrown in their way, al-Megrahi's lawyers had managed to schedule an appeal, and there was every reason to believe that if that appeal ever took place, al-Megrahi's conviction would be found unsafe. People who concern themselves with miscarriages of justice in this country (and I take an amateur interest in such things) were looking forward to the appeal; and, in classic and unregenerate fashion, a bureaucratic panic exploded between Edinburgh and London. Our masters, whose position is largely based on a monumental superiority complex towards anyone, regard the Americans as bloodthirsty savages who have to be appeased with human sacrifices, and no doubt dreaded the reaction across the Pond if and when the so-called "Lockerbie bomber" were declared not guilty. (In the end, the motivating power of all this nonsense was the British ruling class' subserviency to America - a subserviency underlain with contempt, like that of a bad servant.)
At this point, and very conveniently, rumours began to circulate about al-Megrahi's health. About these rumours, two things are possible: that they were true, or that they were false (or exaggerated). If they were true, the owners of Britain must have breathed a great sigh of relief - if the man died in jail, the appeal would never take place. At which point, I suspect, another voice was heard: Colonel Gheddafi, now no longer everyone's monster, informing his new friends in London that to have a Libyan citizen who proclaimed his innocence die in a foreign prison without appeal was not acceptable. If, of course, the rumours were false, that means that the British Establishment was already busy creating the excuse to send the man home without any embarrassing appeal.
As always happens when morons think themselves clever, everything that they hoped would not happen punctually did happen. Gheddafi, a plasticine Caesar everlastingly in search of victories to be trumpeted, treated the release of al-Megrahi as a Libyan triumph. (His original arrest had certainly been a low point in Libya's standing in the world - when, in the wake of the second Iraq war, Libya had more or less abjectly begged to be let in among the friends of America, and America had set the terms.) The Americans, whatever might have been their reaction to a court of law, were outraged at the evidently sneaky and disgraceful behaviour of the Scottish government in the matter of a man who was accused and convicted - Americans were under no obligation to know how flimsily - of 273 murders. Compassion? Compassion what? And the Scottish government, left to take the rap by a London leadership which actually belonged to its own political enemies, caused it to be known that it had been pressured from London to do so. And the public embarrassment that the scum-on-top had been desperately trying to dodge fell upon them with hundredfold force. Well done, chaps.
There is much more to be said about the matter, but it is more dubious, and I only hint at it. It is my belief not only that al-Megrahi is innocent, but that Libya itself is innocent, and that the crime was orchestrated by those nice guys, Iran, Syria and the late Georges Habash. However, that cannot be proven and remains in doubt, and such an eminently sensible and courageous person as the journalist Nick Cohen (whom I recommend in most things not to do with religion) disagrees. What I can say for certain is that, if I had been a juror at al-Megrahi's trial, I would have found him not guilty, not necessarily because he is innocent beyond reasonable doubt, but because the evidence to convict him was pathetic. There can be little doubt that the British Establishment played every dirty card it had to obtain a conviction; and that probably at least in part because of the same superstition I mentioned - the convinction that their American masters were a bunch of uncivilized barbarians who had to be appeased with human blood. Not to have anyone rotting in jail for the Lockerbie bombing was, in Whitehall minds, not an option.
The ultimate irony is this. Britain has tried for decades to keep away from the growing pull of the EU, largely by being America's one reliable friend in an increasingly independent-minded and independently powerful continent. The European Union is a rising power in the world, and anyone who does not understand that simply has no idea how international politics work. That it is a torpid, indolent, even cowardly power is less important than the immense, unmatched economic power it holds. Anyone anywhere in the world who wants to sell anything has to do it to European standards, because a considerable amount of anything that is bought and sold in the world will be bought and sold in Europe. Nothing in British foreign policy in the last thirty years makes sense without this long-term attempt to avoid the gravitational pull of the Continent.
However, the price to be paid for avoiding European supremacy was subserviency to America. Against its historic tradition, Britain became in everyone's eyes - including its own - America's poodle. This generated a great deal of underlying anger; right now, there is more, and more violent, contempt in Britain for America than even for the detested EU. It lives both in the unwarranted superiority complex of the ruling classes and in the furious media and popular hostility against Bush II and the Republican Party in general.
Now, suddenly, whole flocks of chickens are coming home to roost. In a few weeks, two major international incidents have dug a pit across the Atlantic. First, ignorant and fear-mongering American politicians have seen fit to make an issue of the most respected department of the British state, the NHS; and second, vain and ignorant British politicians have seen fit to try and dodge the possible bad repercussions of a trial that risked getting the "wrong" result. As a result, there is more animosity between the two so-called historical allies than there has been since 1914. If things go on as they seem to be going, the Anglo-American friendship is history.
What we have seen in Scotland in the last few weeks has been a sorry and familiar sight: the incompetent and self-regarding British ruling classes in full cover-your-arse mode. As they so often do, they have managed to turn an embarrassment into a disaster. The first point to be made is this: whether or not al-Megrahi was guilty (and there are serious doubts about that, as we shall see), he should never have been convicted on the evidence presented in court. His whole conviction hinged on dubious technical evidence and recognition evidence by a Maltese shopkeeper who is said to have benefited by his testimony to the tune of one and a half million pounds. Whether or not the man's recognition was genuine, had I been a juror I would never have voted to convict.
The result was predictable. In spite of having every legal obstacle thrown in their way, al-Megrahi's lawyers had managed to schedule an appeal, and there was every reason to believe that if that appeal ever took place, al-Megrahi's conviction would be found unsafe. People who concern themselves with miscarriages of justice in this country (and I take an amateur interest in such things) were looking forward to the appeal; and, in classic and unregenerate fashion, a bureaucratic panic exploded between Edinburgh and London. Our masters, whose position is largely based on a monumental superiority complex towards anyone, regard the Americans as bloodthirsty savages who have to be appeased with human sacrifices, and no doubt dreaded the reaction across the Pond if and when the so-called "Lockerbie bomber" were declared not guilty. (In the end, the motivating power of all this nonsense was the British ruling class' subserviency to America - a subserviency underlain with contempt, like that of a bad servant.)
At this point, and very conveniently, rumours began to circulate about al-Megrahi's health. About these rumours, two things are possible: that they were true, or that they were false (or exaggerated). If they were true, the owners of Britain must have breathed a great sigh of relief - if the man died in jail, the appeal would never take place. At which point, I suspect, another voice was heard: Colonel Gheddafi, now no longer everyone's monster, informing his new friends in London that to have a Libyan citizen who proclaimed his innocence die in a foreign prison without appeal was not acceptable. If, of course, the rumours were false, that means that the British Establishment was already busy creating the excuse to send the man home without any embarrassing appeal.
As always happens when morons think themselves clever, everything that they hoped would not happen punctually did happen. Gheddafi, a plasticine Caesar everlastingly in search of victories to be trumpeted, treated the release of al-Megrahi as a Libyan triumph. (His original arrest had certainly been a low point in Libya's standing in the world - when, in the wake of the second Iraq war, Libya had more or less abjectly begged to be let in among the friends of America, and America had set the terms.) The Americans, whatever might have been their reaction to a court of law, were outraged at the evidently sneaky and disgraceful behaviour of the Scottish government in the matter of a man who was accused and convicted - Americans were under no obligation to know how flimsily - of 273 murders. Compassion? Compassion what? And the Scottish government, left to take the rap by a London leadership which actually belonged to its own political enemies, caused it to be known that it had been pressured from London to do so. And the public embarrassment that the scum-on-top had been desperately trying to dodge fell upon them with hundredfold force. Well done, chaps.
There is much more to be said about the matter, but it is more dubious, and I only hint at it. It is my belief not only that al-Megrahi is innocent, but that Libya itself is innocent, and that the crime was orchestrated by those nice guys, Iran, Syria and the late Georges Habash. However, that cannot be proven and remains in doubt, and such an eminently sensible and courageous person as the journalist Nick Cohen (whom I recommend in most things not to do with religion) disagrees. What I can say for certain is that, if I had been a juror at al-Megrahi's trial, I would have found him not guilty, not necessarily because he is innocent beyond reasonable doubt, but because the evidence to convict him was pathetic. There can be little doubt that the British Establishment played every dirty card it had to obtain a conviction; and that probably at least in part because of the same superstition I mentioned - the convinction that their American masters were a bunch of uncivilized barbarians who had to be appeased with human blood. Not to have anyone rotting in jail for the Lockerbie bombing was, in Whitehall minds, not an option.
The ultimate irony is this. Britain has tried for decades to keep away from the growing pull of the EU, largely by being America's one reliable friend in an increasingly independent-minded and independently powerful continent. The European Union is a rising power in the world, and anyone who does not understand that simply has no idea how international politics work. That it is a torpid, indolent, even cowardly power is less important than the immense, unmatched economic power it holds. Anyone anywhere in the world who wants to sell anything has to do it to European standards, because a considerable amount of anything that is bought and sold in the world will be bought and sold in Europe. Nothing in British foreign policy in the last thirty years makes sense without this long-term attempt to avoid the gravitational pull of the Continent.
However, the price to be paid for avoiding European supremacy was subserviency to America. Against its historic tradition, Britain became in everyone's eyes - including its own - America's poodle. This generated a great deal of underlying anger; right now, there is more, and more violent, contempt in Britain for America than even for the detested EU. It lives both in the unwarranted superiority complex of the ruling classes and in the furious media and popular hostility against Bush II and the Republican Party in general.
Now, suddenly, whole flocks of chickens are coming home to roost. In a few weeks, two major international incidents have dug a pit across the Atlantic. First, ignorant and fear-mongering American politicians have seen fit to make an issue of the most respected department of the British state, the NHS; and second, vain and ignorant British politicians have seen fit to try and dodge the possible bad repercussions of a trial that risked getting the "wrong" result. As a result, there is more animosity between the two so-called historical allies than there has been since 1914. If things go on as they seem to be going, the Anglo-American friendship is history.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Megrahi Gets Off Scot Free?
Date: 2009-08-23 03:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-23 07:19 pm (UTC)Good post. Food for thought.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-24 06:49 am (UTC)Is this the same America who not only fully supported the release of convicted terrorists in Northern Ireland, but who have invited (and continue to invite) their political representatives to the White House?
The key sentence in your piece was "informing his new friends in London that to have a Libyan citizen who proclaimed his innocence die in a foreign prison without appeal was not acceptable"
A very difficult sentement to disagree with.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-24 07:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-24 10:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-26 01:26 pm (UTC)America's behavior toward the IRA was and is wrong, but releasing al-Megrahi would hardly be a sane method of retaliation, because the Lockerbie bombing was also an attack on Great Britain. Assuming, of course, that he was guilty.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-26 02:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-26 02:33 pm (UTC)The really amazing part is that the British Government seems to have really believed that Qadaffi would even consider NOT holding a triumph out of "compassion for the victims." If the prisoner was guilty, then Qadaffi almost certainly would have been the man who cut his orders -- why would he have "compassion" for victims whom he ordered slain?
no subject
Date: 2009-08-31 11:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-31 11:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-31 11:32 pm (UTC)However, if terminally ill and possibly innocent come together, it becomes a bit more compelling than just people's subjective interpretation of the value of compassion... I'm very curious about how things go on Wednesday.