Through WikiLeaks, UK Paper Says Brits Instructed Libya on How to Secure Terrorist's Release on 'Compassionate Grounds'
While it is quite clear that the officials of WikiLeaks are leftists, there are more conservative media outlets picking through its scraps. The Telegraph in the U.K. has found a scandal: that the British government manipulated the Libyans into releasing a mass-murdering terrorist on his cancer diagnosis:
A Foreign Office minister sent Libyan officials detailed legal advice on how to use Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s cancer diagnosis to ensure he was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds.
The Duke of York [Prince Andrew] is also said to have played a behind-the-scenes role in encouraging the terrorist’s release.
The Libyans closely followed the advice which led to the controversial release of Megrahi – who was convicted of the murder of 270 passengers on Pan Am Flight 103 – within months of the Foreign Office’s secret intervention.
The disclosure seriously undermines British Government claims that is was not complicit in the release of al-Megrahi, and that the decision to free the convicted terrorist was taken by the Scottish Executive alone.
It will also lead to renewed pressure from senior American politicians on David Cameron to release all internal documents detailing Britain’s role in the scandal. Last summer, the Prime Minister pledged to release the relevant information – but the publication has yet to occur sparking fears that a cover-up may have been ordered.
Will American media outlets that have defended WikiLeaks -- like The New York Times, most prominently -- cover this story, or ignore it? Or are they only interested in leaked documents that support their own ideological views? The commercial benefits of Britain trading with Libya apparently played a major role in the Megrahi plotting, and they seemed to have no fear of domestic outrage of closely working with Libyan strongman Moammar Gaddafi:
After Megrahi was released in August 2009, another American document records Gaddafi’s comments – which suggest that Prince Andrew, the UK’s trade envoy, may have played a role.
The document records: “He [Gaddafi] went on to thank his 'friend Brown’, the British Prime Minister, his government, Queen Elizabeth, and Prince Andrew, who 'against all odds encouraged this brave decision’. [Gaddafi] noted that the UK efforts would positively affect 'exchange’ between the two countries.
When al-Megrahi was finally released, it also emerged that Gordon Brown instructed the British ambassador to hand deliver a note to Gaddafi. The letter was ostensibly to ask the Libyan leader not to lionise the released terrorist but the delivery of the letter also presented British officials with the opportunity for a rare private meeting with Gaddafi. The leader usually only sees very senior foreign politicians and dignitaries.
The disclosure of the secret Foreign Office advice to the Libyans is set to spark renewed calls for the British government to appear before the US Senate to justify its role in the bomber’s release.
The Telegraph also raised the speculation that Megrahi was to receive chemotherapy in Scotland instead of being released as a dead man walking, which the Scottish government denies. Megrahi was released with "three months to live" about 16 months ago.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Say it Again Joe
Submitted by cobokat on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 7:49am.
2/1/11-Here goes Joe Scarborough again-giving BO credit for the uprising in Egypt.
Does this claim legitimize his Nobel Peace Prize?
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 3:03pm.
No doubt the MSM will get around to proclaiming it so.huh?
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 9:30am.
Or are they only interested in leaked documents that support their own ideological views?
Why would you assume that this doesn't fit their ideological view? A government pressed by BP (no mention of that in the Telegraph's story) to grant a favour to a middle east despot, so that they (BP) can start drilling. Shouldn't that be a perfect fit with the left-leaning NYT?
sorry troglodyte
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:51am.
I am afraid you missed the point. Scoring a few shots against BP is not worth it when there's a Muslim terrorist to protect.
That is exactly what they did in the post.
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:35am.
Just search the NYT.
huh?
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:49am.
Why is troglodyt is actively shorting BP's stock.? 75% of his money is tied up in a BP short. An anti-business ideologue that mentions BP to grant himself favors so BP stock can start crashing. Shouldn't that be a perfict fit with the way he presents himself here?
And now guess
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 7:18pm.
who caused the Deepwater Horizon "incident".
TransOceans's failure to properly cement the well
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:17pm.
What does this have to do the the leak of documents between the governments of Libya and Great Britain?
I'm Not So Sure...
Submitted by Bill W. on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 9:41am.
No one around here is more conservative/libertarian/right wing than me. OK? My credentials. But, why is everyone seemingly convinced that the Wikileaks bunch are leftists? With some perspective and time, we might wish to change that view. Some of the entrenched power centers that are being exposed might need their activities brought to light.
I shal endeavor to answer your question Sir.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:32am.
Actually, I believe the criticism is that wikileaks is anti-American, not so much with the whole lefty thing.
A couple hundred thousand classified documents exposed so far. Not a one of them shows much in the way of wrongdoing on the part of our government. Not one. But they are doing grave damage to our war effort by exposing the names of people that have worked with us in the war zones. The opposition in Zimbabwe may end up being killed for talking to the United States. And foreign governments may now be less inclined to confide in us now that we can't keep a secret. Good luck building any kind of coalition like the ones in Persian Gulf War I & II.
I get the negative strategic
Submitted by Bill W. on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:01am.
I get the negative strategic implications of the disclosures. That's not the gist of this in my mind. I'm looking ahead to what Asange says he has on the banks --- domestic and worldwide. I say, "Let it flow, fella." I watched the 60 Minutes interview (I know how they edit their reports, OK?) and he intimated that they have safeguards that can be pulled if they are threatened. Who would threaten them? Let your imagination run wild on that one.
wow Bill W
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:15am.
You know how 60 minutes edits their reports? What, do you work there? Do you have a journalism degree? Do you work in the media at all? And he intimated they have safeguards - was that in the part you "know" ended up on the cutting room floor, or was that plainly included? And you know Assange well enough to know what he's intimating?
Yes, Yes, and Yes
Submitted by Bill W. on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:56am.
As a matter of fact, I do have a degree in Journalism and have been involved in the field for over 40 years. And, also as a matter of fact, I do happen to know a few things about how all this is going together. Any other doubts about the my bona fides? Why the personal attack? SOP?
All I'm suggesting is the possibility that we don't know everything there is to know about the Wikileaks situation. Yeah, it's deplorable in many aspects, but we might change our perspective if / when other things come out into the light.
wow
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:56am.
it's a personal attack to ask you about your bona fides? geez sorry I asked.
OK, How's This?
Submitted by Bill W. on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:00pm.
Indiana - world's home for the best second-class men.
you are crazy
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:09pm.
You claimed to have inside knowledge of what happened when 60 Minutes interviewed Assange. I asked you to back it up. You called it a personal attack. I said sorry. You came back to say some jibberish about Indiana.
It's official. You are delusional.
Yes. Deplorable and Anti-American.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:08pm.
You being a journalist ought to know there is not a paucity of journalists willing to expose wrongdoing regardless of how big the wrongdoer is. And that is exactly what wikileaks wants you to think. The only one with a hidden agenda is wikileaks.
I am confused.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:52am.
You said everyone was convinced they were leftists. I remarked on that. Now you talk of who is threatening and imaginations. Sorry. Can't speak to that.
Let's See Here
Submitted by Bill W. on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 3:35pm.
So, I couldn't possibly know the agenda of Wikileaks, how 60 Minutes constructs their shows, etc. But, folks that want to take issue with my simple point...they know.
Again, I'm just wondering if any --- any --- good will come out of this.
I've been coming to this site for over 4 years and never felt such a lack of intellectual curiosity. Aren't any of you the slight bit interested in that way?
Wait, are we for Wikileaks
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:05am.
Wait, are we for Wikileaks today? "Or are they only interested in leaked documents that support their own ideological views?" Pot, kettle.All the worlds a stage...
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:06am.
The WikiLeak documents show how much of what we think we know and debate about is in reality nothing more than political theater.
We are like Star Trek nerds who debate various episodes as if they are real.
Like I have said before...
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:09am.
...changing all those maps and signs to read Eurabia, United Kingdomistan, and Londonistan is going to be real expensive.
You can now beat the rush and kiss them goodbye, as the U.K. is toast - of the severely burned camel-washer variety.
It's only a matter of time now - and not very much of that.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
→ Wikileaks
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:44am.
Unless Assange actively engaged in the purloining of the documents he now disseminates, he is guilty of journalism.
But people who objected to
Submitted by Cowboy on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:59pm.
But people who objected to his release at the time were "conspiracy theorists"...
Pick throught the WikiLeaks for the ones you like but don't report the rest, MSM...
To the point about British subterfuge . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 3:11pm.
. . . It has long been held by Beltway elites -- including the MSM -- that the UK is our strongest ally.
But this is demonstrably false.
Australia is probably our most reliable and true ally, and we happen to share common interests in the vital areas of the Western Pacific/East Asia.
The Duke of York can shove his advice up his fergie. Screw those twits!