Barack Obama and new British Prime Minister David Cameron last week both seemed to publicly criticize the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi 11 months ago, and the Scottish government the challenged the U.S. to open its files on the case of the Lockerbie bomber. Uh oh!
A report in the Times of London this past weekend has discovered why Scotland urged for this transparency. Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, apparently gave a green light to Megrahi's release, and he even insisted on a "compassionate" parole rather than simply a prisoner transfer.
In the letter, sent on August 12th last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, LeBaron wrote that the United States wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime. But 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."
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."
Obama, at the time of the release, called it a "mistake": "We have been in contact with the Scottish government, indicating that we objected to this. And we thought it was a mistake. We're now in contact with the Libyan government, and want to make sure that if in fact this transfer has taken place, that he's not welcomed back in some way, but instead should be under house arrest. We've also obviously been in contact with the families of the Pan Am victims, and indicated to them that we don't think this was appropriate."
So if it was a mistake, and if it was inappropriate, then how does the Obama administration explain this exchange?
