Sunday, September 6, 2009

It’s Not You; It’s Me.

His guilt or innocence is irrelevant.

His reception at home is irrelevant.

The complexity of the government’s motives is irrelevant.

It’s not about him. It’s about us.

When the Scots Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill gave compassionate release to the only person convicted of the 1988 PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie on August 20, 2009 he faced a storm of criticism. The storm rose in volume and intensity when Abdelbeset al Megrahi landed in Libya to cheering crowds. The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has washed his hands of the matter while expressing outrage at Megrahi’s reception and President Obama has similarly expressed his dismay. Subsequent releases of government documents and speculation on the multiple considerations that lead to Megrahi’s release have further incited anger and conspiracy theories. Amongst the families who lost children and other family members aboard the PanAm flight a range of equally stormy emotions rage. Some are plainly angry. Others despair that they will never know whether Megrahi was a mass murderer or simply a sacrificial goat.

Before going further, let’s consider what we actually know. On Wednesday, December 21, 1988 a bomb loaded inside luggage at London’s Heathrow Airport exploded on board PanAm Flight 103 as it passed over Lockerbie, Scotland on its way to New York. The bomb killed 243 passengers, 16 crew members and 11 Lockerbie citizens on the ground. An investigation lasting nearly 3 years concluded that Libyans al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifah Fhimah had participated in the bomb plot. The Scottish arrest warrants for al Megrahi and Fhimah could not be served for 8 years during which time sanctions and negotiations proceeded with the Libyan government. Finally the parties created a compromise that allowed the Scottish Courts to try al Megrahi and Fhimah in the Netherlands on a former military base and under Scottish Law. The result was that al Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah was acquitted. Al Megrahi was sentenced to life in prison.

But al Megrahi and his attorneys continued to protest that he was innocent of the charges. Many people in Lockerbie and even some of the victims’ relatives came to believe that al Megrahi was simply the goat sacrificed to atone for and mask the guilt of others in Libya or possibly Iran.

Iran?

Yes, Iran. Possibly Iran

Lest we forget these things too quickly, on July 3, 1988 a missile from the USS Vincennes destroyed Iran Air Flight 655 over the Straight of Hormuz killing 290 passengers and crew. Some felt that it was a greater and far more proximate cause of the PanAm 103 bombing than the air strike on Libya on April 15, 1986 that killed 40, including a 15-month old adopted daughter of Libyan leader Muammar al Gaddafi.

The point is that there has always been some doubt about al Megrahi’s guilt. But whether he is guilty or innocent is utterly irrelevant. The facts, as we know them are that a plane was blown out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland killing 270 people. An investigation ensued followed by a trial and a conviction. Those are facts. Guilt or innocence are at best findings, judgments. Without specific evidence those judgments can be wrong. But in this particular case let’s grant out of hand that the judgment against al Megrahi was correct and just and he was guilty. Even so his guilt is irrelevant.

Let us also grant out of hand that doing business with Libya, exploiting its oil reserves was one of the complex of considerations that motivated the British Government in its acts or inaction surrounding Megrahi’s release. That too is irrelevant.

What is relevant to the issue at hand is that al Megrahi is dying. He has spent 8 years in prison. Now he will be dead in a matter of months…3…6…who cares? Al Megrahi is dying. That is a fact. The length of time until his death is not relevant to anything. That Libya has orchestrated a hero’s welcome for a murderer is not terribly relevant either.

What is relevant – perhaps the only thing relevant to MacAskill’s decision - is compassion. I think that we can agree that whoever blew up PanAm Flight 103 for whatever reason was utterly lacking in compassion. Whoever plotted and carried out that horrible murder showed no compassion for the people on the plane, those on the ground or the families who survived those victims. The act was despicable and criminal. Anyone who participated in that horrible act deserves ostracism from the community of all decent people. But it is a mark of our decency, our compassion that we supersede our anger and outrage and, especially, our lust for revenge.

If we are in fact decent people, better, more civilized and of higher moral standards than Megrahi, Gaddafi or any other person who participated actively or passively in the bombing of that plane 21 years ago MacAskill’s decision was correct.

When faced with vile acts the lust for revenge is understandable. Yet if we are to display why those acts are vile we must be able to rise above them. We must be able to assert compassion in the midst of our anger and disgust for by doing so we demonstrate that as a society we are not on the level of the murderers, the terrorists, the criminals.

Though I have never seen it adequately expressed the failure to understand that just chanting, “We’re number 1,” does not make it so. We have to demonstrate our moral superiority by our acts. In fact, the utter failure to understand that it is by our acts of empathy and compassion that we establish that superiority is one of the hallmark differences between the right and left wings of American politics.

George W. Bush demonstrated his absolute unsuitability for the office of president by proceeding with the execution of Karla Faye Tucker and further confirmed his unsuitability by mocking her pleas for clemency. That vile, vengeful inability to rise above his basest instincts also played out when he sent inadequately armed and armored American troops to die in an unnecessary war in Iraq. He also demonstrated his basest instincts with his insensitivity to the plight of the people of New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina hit.

Bush and Cheney more clearly demonstrated that they are no better than the murderers and terrorists they claim to abhor by instituting their own reign of terror with secret prisons, renditions and torture. Certainly they cloaked their confirmation that they are no better than Megrahi, Gaddafi, or bin Laden in claims that they were defending the nation against a terror that their acts further incited. Still by surrendering to revenge and sadism their whole Administration demonstrated that they are not to be trusted with any level of power.

More broadly the neo-fascist Republicans have demonstrated that they are, as a group unsuitable for high office let alone leadership by defending those violations of law and decency perpetrated by the Bush-Cheney Administration. They continue to do so by sewing lies and fear to defend the profits of insurance companies in the health care debate and polluters in the debate on climate change.

In the health care debate Republicans have abjured any sense of compassion for their fellow citizens by actively campaigning for the implicit exclusion of their fellow citizens from effective medical coverage. The Republicans couch their arguments in red herrings like the cost of extending coverage when they really are concerned with the profits of their supporters in the insurance industry. They terrorize elderly citizens with false claims that they will lose Medicare coverage when the real purpose is to extend Medicare to every American. The opposition is mean, dishonest and utterly lacking in compassion for their fellows.

In the debate over mitigating climate change, the Republicans make great and loud lamentation over the cost to this and future generations of reducing dependence on oil and coal while defending their contributors and employers in the oil industries even as they jeopardize the health and welfare and even the life of future generations.

It is about us. Are we better? Are we decent enough to translate our concern for our children and grandchildren to the children and grandchildren of every person on our small, blue-green planet? Are we decent enough even to a murderer to show compassion? If we are, then we have some claim to that chant of “We’re number 1!” If we cannot, then we are down in the sewers with the murderers and terrorists we claim to abhor.

Kenny MacAskill did the good and right and decent thing in releasing a man, Abdelbeset al Megrahi, who is probably neither good nor right nor decent. I repeat, it is not about Megrahi. It is about us. It is about demonstrating our goodness, our rightness and our decency. Is it not, after all, what we are commanded to do in that cliché voiced by some old, dead white guy, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?

2 comments:

Michael Follon said...

Ever since the release of Megrahi this is probably the most objective blog post, on the matter, I have read which has come out of the United States. There is, however, an aspect of the post with which I disagree, you write -

'His guilt or innocence is irrelevant.

His reception at home is irrelevant.

The complexity of the government's motives is irrelevant.'


As a Scot I am of the opinion that all of that is VERY relevant. There are many unanswered questions about the bombing of PanAm 103 which may never be fully answered, for example -

1. Why was it that within 2 hours of the 'crash' a mountain rescue team found that 'American' personnel were at the scene before them and before it was known that a bombing had taken place?

2. Why was it that the bomb timer fragment was not tested for explosive residue?

3. Why was the bomb timer fragment accepted as evidence when it had been testified that no part of the bomb would have survived the explosion?

4. Why were labels on police evidence bags tampered with and by whom?

5. If there had been a jury of 15 members at the Camp Zeist trial, as required by Scots Law, would the very circumstantial evidence have been accepted? - Probably not.


At the present moment the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill MSP, is considering the release of the full report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission of which only the summary has previously released. That summary refers to 6 reasons why a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. A miscarriage of justice would mean that the victims were not only those who died but also their families and Megrahi himself.

Here are some links -

'THE LOCKERBIE CASE', a blog by Professor Robert Black, QC, FRSE - often referred to as the 'architect' of the Camp Zeist trial:

http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/,

'The Lockerbie Bombing; Facts, Deceptions, And Misinformation.' -

http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=5118,

http://www.freewebs.com/fbiblog/

'FBI CHIEF TERRORIST'

Read paragraph 2).

I've come to the conclusion that, while a lot of the outrage at the release of Megrahi was genuine, the majority of it was motivated by Republican hostility to the election of Barack Obama as President of the United Statesand to divert attention from the fact that the bombing of PanAm 103 occurred when there was a Republican president in the White House.

The following is an extract from an appeal decision in the United States Court of Appeals -

'It bears repeating that this Nation, two centuries ago, resolved that it was better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man be unjustly punished...Justice ought to be rendered under the rules of law and not according to public opinion. The tendency to forget this fundamental precept brings about debasing debilitating affects.'

- United States v Carl E Banks & Arthester McCruiston, 687 F.2d. 967, 11 Fed.R.Evid.Serv. 1036 (United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit).

Bahstan Rob said...

Thank you for your comment, Mr. Follon. I do wish that you'd read the entire blog entry before commenting, however. The arguments you make are valid when considering the entire matter of the PanAm 103 bombing. They are, I believe, irrelevant to the matter of the appropriateness of al Megrahi's release. The questions you and many others have are appropriate to the matter of al Megrahi's trial and the investigation of the bombing. They certainly need answers. But as far as al Megrahi's release is concerned I think that Kenny MacAskill has shown that he and the Scots generally are better and nobler than al Megrahi and the government of Libya. I continue to applaud MacAskill's decision if for no other reason than its demonstration of decency and mercy in the face of depravity and injustice.