This is one of those days when you have to be glad you aren’t a government minister being asked to make lonely and hard decisions which, by definition, will elate some and enrage others. The release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, from Scottish custody ‘on compassionate grounds’ has appalled many people in Britain and the United States and divided opinion worldwide.
The Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is adamant that he reached his conclusions on the basis of Scotland’s due process, clear evidence, and the recommendations from the parole board and prison governor. But, in an unprecedented move, Robert Mueller, chief of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, has written to Mr MacAskill and condemned his decision in extremely strong terms: “Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice…”, making a “mockery of the rule of law” that “gave comfort to terrorists”. (Mr Mueller is a former prosecutor who played a key role in investigating the 1988 Lockerbie bombing which killed 270 people.)
The anger and outrage are entirely understandable. The bombers did not show compassion to those who fell out of the sky in 1988 and their families cannot welcome home their long-lost loved ones. So, what does it mean to show compassion to a convicted mass-murderer while thereby showing a total lack of compassion to those who were so violently bereaved?
In this context it is important to read also the statement issued by Megrahi on his release and hear the anger of those who, because of the dropping of his second appeal, will now not be able (a) to challenge his conviction or (b) identify those who did organise, authorise and perpetrate this appalling crime. I guess that had he been tried and convicted in a US court, Megrahi would by now have been executed – regardless of doubts about his guilt.
But, put the fully-justified righteous anger to one side for a moment and pick away at the assumptions underlying the argument and the language. Mueller uses the word ‘compassion’ almost as a term of contempt.
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…
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.
Strong stuff, indeed – and, I imagine, hard even for tough Scottish ministers to hear. But it also begs serious questions.
1. Why does Mueller see compassion as weak? Why does he see compassion as a concession – something that is only offered to ‘reward terrorists’?
2. Does Mueller see justice as always or inevitably devoid of compassion – being merely the imposition of a legal/penal response to a legal decision?
3. How does Mueller know that this ruling ‘gives comfort to terrorists’? And are we to continue to allow the USA to determine who is and who is not a terrorist? If we are to extrapolate from this particular event to others in recent history, then there will be a fair number of US politicians and military personnel who might also require dispassionate ‘justice’. Or do those who were shown no ‘compassion’ in Central America in the 1980s not deserve justice because US-backed aggression is somehow justifiable? That is, ‘terrorists’ are always and inevitably those who attack the US, but never the Americans who attack others?
4. There are bereaved family members who back the Scottish decision and who have not been caused ‘continued grief and frustration’. Jim Swire is one among a number who believe that Megrahi is a scapegoat and that the loss of this latest appeal prevents the real culprits from being identified and brought to justice.
Isn’t it conceivable that a mark of civilisation and moral maturity is the ability or willingness to transcend even justice (narrowly defined) and show those virtues we claim to espouse? Or, when the ‘nice stuff’ is stripped away, do we really believe that a tooth should always be extracted for a tooth and an eye blinded in recompense for an eye – which, as someone once pointed out, always leaves us all blind and toothless?
These are not easy questions and I don’t assume easy or obvious answers. Life is more complicated than that. But there are as many questions to be asked of the American response to Megrahi’s release as there are about the grounds for his release itself. And we might want to ask if there would now be peace in Northern Ireland if some people had not had the courage to go beyond the cry for mere justice towards an outrageously generous compassion for all who suffer and not just ‘our own’. The South African transition from apartheid might raise similar comparisons.
In the end, I do want to recover ‘compassion’ as something strong and costly, deserving of respect and honour – not to be spat out as a term of derision, implying weakness or cowardice.
Was Jesus being pathetic when from the gallows – he cried for forgiveness for those who had put him there?
August 23, 2009 at 12:30 pm
+Nick, Your questions and the conclusion of ‘no’ (that I infer) in the last sentence are spot on, I think.
My own humble contribution is that I think the answer to point no 2. is ‘yes’ and that this is rather the whole point. However, I don’t think it is necessarily a personal failing of Mr Mueller’s, but rather an example of a deep judicial and therefore cultural chasm between the US and the UK. The American legal system has (to my inexpert eye) much less room for compassion, certainly in terms of its verdicts, including those which are simply impossible in either Scottish or English law. Execution is the obvious one, but there’s also ‘life without the possibility of parole’. Such verdicts paint a picture of a culture with a much more ‘eye for an eye’ approach to justice than ours.
As such, I wonder if we in the UK can ever share with the US even an inkling of the same understanding of the concept of compassion? Or is it yet another example of two nations separated by the same language?
The shared disgust at the Libyan triumphalist and distorted response to Megrahi’s release might, of course, provide a bridge between us…
August 23, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I am going to say something wacky, but I think PPl will get used to my strange logic. But I was lying in bed this morning thinking about how USA executes people, and yet just like us, they are reluctant to use any form of physical punishment for kids.
I am not in support of whipping children or anything, but I was reading about the little 5 yr old girl in Yorkshire who has cancer, and who was pinned down by two young boys who sprayed deodorant in her face and tried to set it alight at the same time, but the match would not work. I am sure that this is not highly unusual these days, and probably many such horror stories go unreported.
But getting back to the thread, it is a sick society that nurtures children like this and then quite happily executes them when they get old enough. Until we all start to wake up to the reality of the situation, which I am not going into because change wont happen in my lifetime I am sure, the suffering and torment will not only continue, but it will have to get worse. It’s a fundamental law similar to gravity and the laws of motion, inertia and vector algebra. The answer never changes no matter how deep you try to bury your head in a pit of sand.
August 23, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Political assassins and terrorists strike at the life blood of open, constitutional and democratic societies. Absent the death penalty, (which I agree should be abolished), these assholes should rot to death in prison whenever they can be caught and convicted. That’s what Megrahi was doing when he was let out, “Scot-Free”.
August 23, 2009 at 4:25 pm
[...] do we rant? Anywhere. The US Government is ranting in an unprecedented way at Scotland (see Nick’s blog for reflection on that); the X-Factor blogs are full of rants about the justices and injustices or [...]
August 23, 2009 at 5:29 pm
My initial reaction was to welcome the release apparently not being undermined by non-health-related factors, just as I was appalled that “Biggs not being sorry enough” as being a reason for rejecting a release on medical grounds.
Possible political deals and manipulation have given me pause for thought, however.
August 23, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Even though he is dying,he should not be trusted and he should still be monitored.
August 23, 2009 at 6:29 pm
I find the outrage of those relatives understandable, given the trauma they have undergone, and the continuing doubt over the original trial and verdict.
What I find less appealing is the reaction both in the US and the UK from some Politicians and others such as Mr Mueller who are politicising and posturing in condemnation of a decision taken on the basis of compassion and in accordance with the legal framework in place in Scotland.
Of course the triumphalism of the Libyans is also distasteful, but could have been anticipated given their history under Colonel Ghadafi.
I do not know whether Megrahi committed the offence, although an article in the Scottish Sunday post today, points very strongly towards his guilt – but if the law does not permit retribution by putting to death those who commit capital crimes, why should it be used to condemn someone to die in prison which ultimately is a death sentence, rather more prolonged and drawn out.
The decsisons are based on law, passed by respective Parliaments, with the consent of the population – and seem to me to have been acceptable to the country, or they would not have become law.
If a change to the law is required, than the democratic process should be followed, not an over reaction to a public outcry, which will be overtaken by the next crisis along the way.
August 23, 2009 at 10:33 pm
My gut reaction to the decision was that this must be the correct one for anyone looking at this from a Christian perspective. Whilst I too dislike intensely the triumphalism displayed in Tripoli, seeing the fragility and joylessness of Megrahi on his return initially affirmed my conclusion in my own mind.
However, as things unfold, it is difficult not to have reservations. How much have the governments in question – including USA – been involved in the whole process. Is there something being covered up.
I am not normally given to sympathetic views of conspiracy theories, but I admit to being puzzled about this one.
August 24, 2009 at 9:53 am
Yesterday’s Collect from the BCP seems rather appropriate: ‘O God, who declarest thy almighty power most chiefly in shewing mercy and pity…’
August 24, 2009 at 11:05 am
[...] to pick up on the theme of my last post and a good deal of Twitter traffic in the UK, there is a certain degree of what might be called [...]
August 24, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Yeah, Kath! Whenever you’re puzzled, reach out with one hand for a conspiracy theory, and with the other hand point your finger at the USA.
August 24, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Jim,
But getting back to the thread, it is a sick society that nurtures children like this and then quite happily executes them when they get old enough.
Agreed. And yet I don’t believe in corporal punishment.
Without wanting to get into a long, drawn-out discussion about how to raise children, I don’t think that simply avoiding direct physical violence is enough to constitute good parenting, however much more preferable it is to communicating with fists. And I recognise that even that may be inordinately difficult in many situations, and a perfect human parent does not exist.
Nick,
In the end, I do want to recover ‘compassion’ as something strong and costly, deserving of respect and honour – not to be spat out as a term of derision, implying weakness or cowardice.
Me too.
I think you encourage considerable progress in this direction with your blogging. Or at least I’m encouraged by much of what you write.
August 24, 2009 at 11:33 pm
No, Vigilante. I’m not pointing my finger anywhere. Just admitting to being puzzled – by all parties.
Do I detect a hint of paranoia in your response?
August 25, 2009 at 1:58 pm
You’re not pointing fingers? Only innuendos, in which you named the USA. Consider the USA was not a party or principle to Tony Bliar’s Blair’s deal in the desert. Consider your own paranoia before you project it on to others,
September 12, 2009 at 2:28 am
Megrahi caused 270 deaths. He had been convicted, and so his guilt cannot be questioned.
Murderers should not receive privileges of “compassion”.