When I first heard about the four US senators demanding a probe into the release of Megrahi, I was giving them a limited benefit of the doubt, in the sense that I assumed that their cavalier attitude to fact was based on typical American insularity - ie. if something hasn't been reported in the US media, it might as well never have happened at all. But the more I've followed the pronouncements of Menendez, Gillibrand, Schumer and Lautenburg over recent days, the more I've recognised their offensive buffoonery for what it is. Witness this statement from Menendez at a press conference just a few hours ago -
"some independent reports suggest that he [Megrahi] may well be alive for another ten years"
These "some reports" of course refer to the musings of Dr Karol Sikora - a fact that poses a couple of rather huge problems for Senator Menendez. First of all, Sikora has made clear that while it is theoretically possible that Megrahi may survive for another decade, the chances of that happening are less than 1%. Now, does that justify the characterisation "may well be alive for another ten years"? The most charitable thing that can be said about that statement is that it's consciously intended to mislead.
Secondly, Sikora is the doctor whose initial report Menendez and his colleagues (falsely) claimed was used by Kenny MacAskill to inform his decision, a "fact" that was deemed outrageous due to Sikora being paid by the Libyan government. So let me get this clear - Sikora is a Libyan stooge when he's saying what the senators don't want to hear, but miraculously becomes an "independent" source of information when he says what they do want to hear?
But this was the comment from Menendez that really took the biscuit -
"We'd like to know how you can get it so wrong."
Whoever said Americans don't do irony?
Yeah, as an American, I've called the senators in question.
ReplyDeleteIt's our fault this happened really. The moment that devolution happened, if we wanted to get our way, we should have upgraded our Consulate to a full Embassy, and petitioned for prisoner transfer from Scotland to the US, citing the Compassionate Release law, and prior agreements with the UK government that Megrahi would die in prison.
That is, if we wanted to get our way. Not that Scotland would have had any responsibility to us, but we didn't pay Scotland or it's legal system any attention at all, and we shouldn't blame Scotland when our ignorance allowed this situation to develop.
We may not have gotten our way. That would have been completely up to the Scottish government.
The point is: we didn't even try. We didn't pay attention. We weren't in communication with Scotland about an issue that we care about. We made no overtures to the Scottish government until Kenny MacAskill began to make his decision, and then we got upset.
It is one thing to complain if our diplomatic overtures are denied, but it is another thing entirely to complain when we gave no input on our needs. Scotland cannot work with the US if the US ignores Scotland.
The only failure here was ours.
We were the ones who got it so wrong.
We should now upgrade our Consulate to a full embassy to discuss with the Scottish government those devolved issues which affect US foreign policy.
Mr Anonymous from America, surely you can't upgrade yer consulate tae an Embassy until Scotland becomes an independent nation? Upgrading just now would be akin tae interfering in UK internal politics. Ah'm also pretty sure that we would have resisted to the end any attempts by the US tae have Megrahi extradited tae yer country, on account o' the US still supporting the death penalty. This has little to do with the current devolution arrangements of the UK anyhow. Scottish Law pre-dates the current devolution set-up by a few centuries, yer auld pal Benjamin Franklin could've told ye that.
ReplyDeleteYe say the US werenae in communication with the Scottish Government about an issue ye care about? Ah think ye need tae go an' read some background info. The US government were involved in Megrahi's trial which took place in the Hague under Scots Law, an' knew all along who tae be in touch with. Perhaps ye have fallen intae the 4 numpty senators' trap, which is tae believe this is a new issue, when it is not. This whole affair is last year's news. Nothing can be done now, Megrahi is dying at home in Libya, an' no amount of senatorial grandstanding is gaun tae change that.
America does have it wrong, on so many issues and on so many levels, but upgrading yer Consulate tae an Embassy is hardly the most important of these.
I don't know why Menendez is getting it so wrong on this. He has no worries about being relected.
ReplyDeleteI simply don't understand the fury and hatred that is being stirred up by this, as Sophia calls it "last year's news".
The man will soon be dead. Perhaps we can then get on with the business of 'unbecoming' the junior partner of the junior partner.
"surely you can't upgrade yer consulate tae an Embassy until Scotland becomes an independent nation?"
ReplyDeleteIn devolved matters, Scotland essentially IS an independent nation. We can't really talk to Downing Street about devolved issues. Downing street has no power. This is in contrast to the US, where Federal authority supersedes State authority (this was largely what our civil war was about.)
"Ah'm also pretty sure that we would have resisted to the end any attempts by the US tae have Megrahi extradited tae yer country, on account o' the US still supporting the death penalty."
Not all states have the death penalty. It varies from state to state, and will soon be eliminated, though it will take time to rid us of that disgusting practice. Also, Megrahi has already been tried and convicted. It would be illegal for us to have a second trial here in the states, as that would constitute double jeopardy.
Regardless, whether a prisoner transfer agreement could be reached would have been entirely up to the Scottish government, and what the US could have offered in return. My point was: we didn't ask for it when it would have been appropriate to ask for it.
Now we complain.
"This has little to do with the current devolution arrangements of the UK anyhow. Scottish Law pre-dates the current devolution set-up by a few centuries, yer auld pal Benjamin Franklin could've told ye that."
Yes, but from what I understand, Westminster used to have some say over Scots law. It was with Downing Street that we discussed the Megrahi trial in the first place. Now Downing Street has zero authority.
So upgrading would not be interfering with UK internal politics. It would be sending a US Ambassador to talk to the appropriate government. It's not just England that we have a special relationship with.
As for our "Numpty" senators, they're making a big deal in an election year over something Americans care about.
It's political grandstanding, full of sound and fury, which will ultimately come to nothing.
But that's Election Year politics in the US.
The only potential benefit that might come from this is the realization that Scotland is completely independent from the UK, and that if something happens in Scotland, say an American is arrested, diplomatic communication shouldn't go to Downing Street, but to Holyrood. This could also apply to any of the other areas where Scotland is independent. It would affect exchange student programs, medical communication, and businesses to name a few.
I meant to say "Scotland is completely independent from Downing Street on devolved issues." where I said that "Scotland is completely independent from the UK."
ReplyDeletePardon the misstatement.
Anon - I appreciate this is standard US election year politics, but it's been a real eye-opener to me that four Democrat Senators in particular could be this cynical. I suppose the choice in American politics really is six of one and half-a-dozen of the other on a great many topics.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with Sophia on the embassy point - it must be almost unprecedented for a 'stateless nation' to be treated in that way. A quick check of the State Department website shows that the US don't even have a full embassy in Hong Kong, for example.
Also, while I'm certainly not a legal expert, I would be amazed if any suggestion of transferring Megrahi to an American jail to serve out a sentence passed down in Scotland wouldn't have breached the ECHR. It's hard to see what the point would have been anyway - if MacAskill had given in to American pressure to keep him in jail, it would have been far more palatable simply to keep him where he was.