Letter from FBI's Robert S. Mueller

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision.

Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because I am familiar with the facts, and the law, having been the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991.

And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of “compassion.”

Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law.

Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man’s exercise of “compassion.”

Your action rewards a terrorist even though he never admitted to his role in this act of mass murder and even though neither he nor the government of Libya ever disclosed the names and roles of others who were responsible.

Your action makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy: the medical personnel who first faced the horror of 270 bodies strewn in the fields around Lockerbie, and in the town of Lockerbie itself; the hundreds of volunteers who walked the fields of Lockerbie to retrieve any piece of debris related to the breakup of the plane; the hundreds of FBI agents and Scottish police who undertook an unprecedented global investigation to identify those responsible; the prosecutors who worked for years - in some cases a full career - to see justice done.

But most importantly, your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21, 1988.

You could not have spent much time with the families, certainly not as much time as others involved in the investigation and prosecution.

You could not have visited the small wooden warehouse where the personal items of those who perished were gathered for identification - the single sneaker belonging to a teenager; the Syracuse sweatshirt never again to be worn by a college student returning home for the holidays; the toys in a suitcase of a businessman looking forward to spending Christmas with his wife and children.

You apparently made this decision without regard to the views of your partners in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy.

Although the FBI and Scottish police, and prosecutors in both countries, worked exceptionally closely to hold those responsible accountable, you never once sought our opinion, preferring to keep your own counsel and hiding behind opaque references to “the need for compassion.”

You have given the family members of those who died continued grief and frustration. You have given those who sought to assure that the persons responsible would be held accountable the back of your hand.

You have given Megrahi a “jubilant welcome” in Tripoli, according to the reporting. Where, I ask, is the justice?

Sincerely yours,

Robert S. Mueller, III

Director

Respectfully, how is the above post LingQ related?

I don’t know but I’ve got to say the Mr. Mueller has a point. Why on earth would they release that guy?

Well in the United States we have a strong east coast bias in most of our sports and I’m willing to bet that both he and the prosecutor were probably Yankee fans… idiots…

Huh? There are still a lot of questions as to the man’s actual guilt. A lot of people, including families of the victims, think the guy might have been wrongly accused.

http://tinyurl.com/m49b78

Also the witness whose testimony identified the found detonator as one which had been supplied to Libyan military admitted later he had not only lied under oath about the identification, but that as an employee of the firm that made this device, he had stolen a prototype and handed it to the investigation team (ie the FBI).

I think the only undisputed criminals are the shoddy security contracted by Pan Am at the time.

There are many reports of FBI shenanigans, like offering millions for testimony that would convict Megrahi and

It is not my impression that this man was released because the Scottish courts felt he was falsely accused.

He was released for reasons of compassion, so that he could spend the last three months of his life with his family. He was released under an arrangement with the Libyan government, with the promise that his transfer home would be handled discreetly, quietly.

Instead he was welcomed home as a hero of state. Why is he a hero? Is he a hero for blowing up a plane?

If he was not guilty, then the case should have been opened again, even now, or even after his death, to clear his name. Innuendo about police wrong doing is one thing. Proving it is something else. This was not done, not at any time in the last 27 years.

If he is guilty, which is quite a credible assumption, then why is he being shown compassion? The 250 people killed in the airplane, and there is not doubt that the airplane was blown up by someone, received no compassion. They were killed, senselessly.

Perhaps we should not punish criminals and murderers. After all it does not bring the dead back to life. But if we had our family members killed for no reason, what would we want to happen to the perpetrator of the crime? Would we treat him with compassion, compassion that he did not show towards his victims? I doubt it.

I say the Scots are fools. Fools to show this man compassion, and fools to trust the Libyan government.

I actually think terrorists should be punished as slowly, horribly, and painfully as possible.

The problem here is that I am not convinced this guy was a real terrorist.

Frankly, I could never understood how the prosecution managed to convict.

The case depended on two important points:

  1. The testimony of Tony Gauci. He said that he sold clothes to a person who resembled Megrahi. The same clothes were used to wrap the bomb in a suitcase.
  2. The shred of the bomb detonator found in the investigation was traced back to the suitcase with the clothes. The detonator was of a kind sold to the Libyans at the time.

So in the prosecution’s point of view a) Megrahi buys the clothes from Gauci. b) bomb explodes in a suitcase that had the clothes in it.

In a nutshell, that’s the case against Megrahi.

Even if you discount all the circumstancial stuff that is persistently floating around, including the affidavit from the key witness admitting to lying on the stand about his identification of the detonator model, just the evidence in court seems pretty thin.

Ed,

I have no idea as to this guy’s guilt. If he was innocent or if there was good reason to suspect he was, the case should have been reopened. That is not what was done. He was released early for reasons of compassion.