Debunking The “White House Wanted Libyan Bomber Released” Story
Today's outrage of the day comes in the form of a new report claiming that the United States supported the release of the only man accused. But the report itself proves that isn't what happened.
There’s plenty of chatter in the blogosphere this morning about a story that, by it’s own headline, claims that the Obama White House backed the release of accused convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi:
THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be “far preferable” to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.
Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.
The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.
The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama’s claim last week that all Americans were “surprised, disappointed and angry” to learn of Megrahi’s release.
Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as “half-hearted” and a sign it would be accepted.
Sounds fairly outrageous, doesn’t it ? Well, not so much if you bothered to continue reading:
In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.
The note added: “Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose.”Mr LeBaron added that freeing the bomber and making him live in Scotland “would mitigate a number of the strong concerns we have expressed with regard to Megrahi’s release”.
The US administration lobbied the Scottish government more strongly against sending Megrahi home, under a prisoner transfer agreement signed by the British and Libyan governments, in a deal now known to have been linked to a pound stg. 550 million oil contract for BP.It claimed this would flout a decade-old agreement between Britain and the US that anyone convicted of the bombing would serve their sentence in a Scottish prison. Megrahi was released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on the grounds that he had three months to live, making his sentence effectively spent.
In other words, according to this report, the Obama Administration told Scottish authorities the following:
1. Don’t release Megrahi
2. If you do release him, make it a compassionate release conditioned upon him remaining in Scotland, presumably under some form of house arrest
3. Under no circumstances should you send him back to Libya.
While it would be helpful if the White House were to clear the air on this and release the August 12th letter, it is fairly clear that any claim that the Obama Administration lobbied Scotland to release Megrahi is, on it’s face, an absolute lie.
Now, it is perhaps possible to be outraged that the U.S. would take any position that would allow Megrahi to be released from prison, but it’s worth remembering that, at the time, the world was operating under belief that Megrahi was dying. We now know that wasn’t true, and, yesterday, one doctor said he told the Scottish Government that Megrahi’s cancer would not kill him as other physicians were claiming at the time. Based on the information publicly available at the time, though, it was the common belief that Megrahi would be dead within a very short period of time.
There is no story here. The Obama White House did not lobby for Megrahi’s release. It’s time to move on.
Update: The State Department has released the complete text of the August 12, 2009 letter.
Is it coincidental that the Sunday Times, The Australian, and Fox News are all owned by Rupert Murdoch?
…any claim that the Obama Administration lobbied Scotland to release Megrahi is, on it’s face, an absolute lie.
Oh, that won’t stop anybody on conservative blogs or Fox News. You should know that, Doug.
Good for you Doug, for highlighting this story. I wonder if there can ever be some cost associated with blatant lying like this. It sure seems that there is no cost now. If the debunkers, like you, get the upper hand in the dynamics of this story, they will simply try something else tomorrow.
just curious – since he is not dying, are there any grounds for trying him in the US for anything? I envision a Pave Low helicopter dropping in for a visit at his home. The fall out is what? Libya being mad at us?
Out-of-context quotes? In my source of news?
Inconceivable!
Your story misses two key points.
1. Obama feigned surprise that Megrahi would be released. Since he was discussing the alternatives, he lied about his surprise. That lie damaged longstanding relations with the U.K.
2. The idea that Obama could only be a passive spectator to the decision of Megrahi’s release is silly. Another president would have found a way to exert some influence on such an important issue.
mike, he’ll be safe from extradition as long as he sticks to places like France and Switzerland . . .or Libya.
The argument being made by Mika Brzezinski this a.m. on MSNBC was that the letter did not exhibit any real effort to stop the release, but was a mere face-saving measure. Dunno, I don’t speak state-departmentese. Is John Burgess in the house?
1. Obama feigned surprise that Megrahi would be released. Since he was discussing the alternatives, he lied about his surprise. That lie damaged longstanding relations with the U.K.
Source, please?
2. The idea that Obama could only be a passive spectator to the decision of Megrahi’s release is silly. Another president would have found a way to exert some influence on such an important issue.
So from a story that purports to show Obama favored transfer to Libya, and presumably exerted influence in that direction, the debunking now prompts criticism that he exerted no influence. Neat trick. In any case — see point above: the guy was believed virtually dead, and the government had made a strong private statement against his release.
Could “more” have been done, with 20/20 hindsight, to achieve what some people are sure would have been the right thing? Personally, I’d need more facts and probably more anti-terror/diplomacy expertise (i.e., some) to debate further.
verbalobe:
Here’s one source:
“The publication of the memo’s contents comes just days after President Obama, at a press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron, said “all of us … were surprised, disappointed and angry” by the Scottish government’s decision to free Abdel Baset al-Megrahi last year.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/25/obama-administration-reportedly-backed-lockerbie-release-transfer-libyan-prison/
Many others sources are available. Just Google “Obama Megrahi Surprised Disappointed Angry”
This matters because the U.K. has been one of our strongest allies. Regardless of whether you support the war in Afghanistan, Obama does. And the U.K. has supported our efforts there heroically. That’s not how we should be treating our allies.
2. In fact, in the above quote Obama does claim to be a passive spectator. That’s the lie.
See Mataconis, there are people here who do deeper investigation than you. Obama lied. I am shocked. When are you going to stop appologizing for this inept Marxist?
Doug, if you are not afraid. Go look at Riehl World View blog. Use the word Sherrod. This is just for your edification because I care.
I saw it
I see that Dan Riehl; has moved on from dragging Shirley Sherrod through the mud and has moved on to her husband.
That is all I have to say about something that doesn’t even qualify as news
I am not talking about extradition. I am talking about an assisted visit by the CIA or military to the US – but your response was pretty funny about France/Switz.
Anyone has the whole letter we can look at. I understand if other unrelated parts are blacken out, I heard Obama is blocking its publication but hopefully someone has it. I would like to read it myself to put it into context.
Regardless it does show that Obama is either lying about knowing about the release or he is incompetent.
Does this clear anything up?
See also, U.S. State Department, U.S. Letter Regarding Continued Detention of Megrahi [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/07/145141.htm]
New Mataconis lead-in template: “Debunking the [ anything that makes Obama look bad ] “
“Debunking the [ anything that makes Obama look bad ] “
It’s a target rich environment.
Appreciate the info Sam. It does appear the Obama administration wasn’t trying to secure his release but the administration was aware of what was going on.
****New Mataconis lead-in template: “Debunking the [ anything that makes Obama look bad ] “****
No the same Mataconis lead-in template as from the very beginning:
“De-bunking pure idiocy no matter where it originates from”
No the same Mataconis lead-in template as from the very beginning:
“De-bunking pure idiocy no matter where it originates from”
One man’s idiocy is an entire nation’s motivator. Golly gee, if you folks could just teach people like me and the rest of the great unwashed masses how to stay in our proper place, everything would work out perfectly. Learn to enjoy the coast , its the only place left in the country where your brand of politics has any credibility