Miraculous Recovery For Terrorist Bomber, And BP May Have Helped

It has now been a year since Scotland released convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi on the humanitarian grounds that he had terminal cancer and only three months to live. Looking at it another way, the murdering bastard has already lived nine months longer than they said he would, and seems to be recovering nicely.

There's no need to rehash the original story. Scotland made a horrendously bad decision releasing a terrorist who murdered 270 people, mostly Americans, on Pan Am Flight 103. There is simply no "humanitarian balance" in showing mercy toward one vile inhuman beast when 270 innocent human beings went to their graves with justice denied. But now it appears that the picture of the Libyan mass murderer returning home in triumph [above] may be at least partially the result of efforts by British Petroleum (BP).

Now BP isn't exactly every American's favorite oil company at the moment anyway. BP executives continue to treat the Gulf oil spill as an unfortunate public relations mistake instead of a major disaster. Their statements regarding the events leading up to and following the oil spill have ranged from simple obfuscation to outright distortion. And now it seems that this is a pattern. Dead fish and birds and lost wetlands are bad enough, but murdered Americans being denied justice is at least as bad. When queried on their alleged involvement in the release of the mass murderer, BP at first remained silent (typical), then issued one of those infamous non-denial denials.

The Wall Street Journal hopped on the story early, and made multiple requests of BP officials for a confirmation, denial or explanation of the reports that BP influenced the decision to release the terrorist. But it wasn't until loud noises coming from members of Congress about a possible investigation into the allegations began to be heard outside the Capitol that BP felt it could no longer stonewall. So it sandbagged instead. BP's response to the Journal reads as follows:

"The decision to release Mr. Al Megrahi in August 2009 was taken by the Scottish government. It is not for BP to comment on the decision of the Scottish Government. BP was not involved in any discussions with the UK Government or the Scottish Government about the release of Mr. Megrahi." That is what the military academies call "a quibble." The answer is true, but not truthful. And it's dishonest and dishonorable. Here is what BP really said to both governments in late 2007:

"We are concerned about the slow progress that is being made in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya. We are aware that this could have a negative impact on UK commercial interests, including the ratification by the Libyan Government of BP's exploration agreement (emphasis added). OK, the memo doesn't specifically reference al-Megrahi. And if that's all we had, their current explanation would be at least somewhat believable.

BP was deep in negotiations with the Libyan government, and specifically with madman Muammar Qadaffi's son, Saif. From a legal viewpoint at trial, this is only hearsay, but we're not in court, and this is pretty nasty stuff. Says Saif: "At all times we (Libya and Scotland) talked about the prisoner transfer agreement it was obvious we were talking about him (terrorist al-Megrahi). And when we talked to BP, we all knew that was what we were talking about." Qadaffi is only one of several Libyan officials who have tied BP, the UK and Scottish governments, and Libya together.

So what we're left with at this point is BP claiming it had no direct part in the government negotiations (true, apparently), but was very much involved in negotiations regarding economic matters and prisoner exchanges, which had at their pinnacle the unspoken but well-known exchange of BP oil exploration agreements in Libya for the release of a mass murderer. That is a distinction without a difference, and if BP can't come up with something better than that, they should earn at least a major consumer boycott of their products in America.

In all fairness, the WSJ writers say "what we still don't know is how hard BP lobbied the British government to secure the transfer agreement. One key figure is Mark Allen, a politically connected former MI6 officer who became an adviser to BP in 2004 and raised the matter with then-UK Justice Minister Jack Straw in 2007. The company hasn't answered our request for details of Mr. Allen's conversations with Mr. Straw." The Journal was being generous in not pointing out that Straw was notorious for being in the hip-pocket of Middle East Oil money men.

The only thing that prevents this from being a clear and provable quid pro quo is that the transfer agreement was signed in 2007. BP immediately thereafter received a $900 million deal from the Libyan government in Tripoli to drill deep water wells off the Libyan coast. Still, bureaucratic matters held up the specific release of al-Megrahi until 2009. That might give BP a little room to maneuver around this latest revelation, but not enough to satisfy me without considerably better answers. I don't ordinarily jump to conclusions, but where there's oil, there's lies. As I mentioned earlier, we're not in a court of law, and all things being equal, it seems right to me to consider BP guilty until proven innocent.

ADDENDUM: Before anyone asks, I did indeed see the entire joint press conference between the President and the British Prime Minister. That display of bonhomie was both necessary and appropriate. That said, nothing either of them said allays my suspicions of BP's possible involvement in the release of the Lockerbie bomber, nor I suspect it will have much affect on the Wall Street Journal. In fact, Cameron's comment that the British government will cooperate in any investigation but doesn't see the point of it only adds to my suspicions. I don't see anything sinister in his statement, but I do see an attempt to minimalize what may be a very important story.