|
THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 2009
Obama says Libyans should not welcome back Lockerbie bomber
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release)--Following is an excerpt of a radio interview of President Obama by Michael Smerconish:
MR. SMERCONISH: A bit off message. Today the Scots released the Lockerbie bomber due to -- actually maybe it is health care-related. He's got terminal cancer. Your take on this. A lot of folks very offended over a perceived lack of justice.
THE PRESIDENT: 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.
White House issues statement
on bomber's release
WASHINGTON, D.C (Press Release)--The following statement was issued by The White House onThursday, August 20:
The United States deeply regrets the decision by the Scottish Executive to release Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Megrahi. Megrahi was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for his role in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which blew up over Scotland on December 21, 1988. As we have expressed repeatedly to officials of the government of the United Kingdom and to Scottish authorities, we continue to believe that Megrahi should serve out his sentence in Scotland. On this day, we extend our deepest sympathies to the families who live every day with the loss of their loved ones. We recognize the effects of such a loss weigh upon a family forever.
Statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on release of Lockerbie bomber
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release)—The United States is deeply disappointed by the decision of the Scottish Executive to release Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Megrahi who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for his part in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which took the lives of 270 persons, including 189 Americans. We have continued to communicate our long-standing position to UK government officials and Scottish authorities that Megrahi should serve out the entirety of his sentence in Scotland. Today, we remember those whose lives were lost on December 21, 1988 and we extend our deepest sympathies to the families who live each day with the loss of their loved ones due to this heinous crime.
'Less than 14 days per victim'—FBI's Mueller
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release)--We are deeply disappointed over the decision to release Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Megrahi from prison. Mr. Megrahi’s guilt was firmly established by the court. His conviction resulted in a life sentence for his part in the loss of 270 innocent lives, including 189 Americans. He never admitted to his role in this act of terrorism, nor did he or the government of Libya disclose the names or roles of others who were responsible. In a case of mass murder over Lockerbie, Mr. Megrahi served less than 14 days per victim. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those victims today, for the ongoing pain and loss caused by this horrific attack.
U.S. Helsinki Commission
issues statement
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release)—Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (Democrat, Maryland), Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (U.S. Helsinki Commission), Co-Chairman Congressman Alcee L. Hastings (Democrat, Florida) issued the following statement on Thursday upon learning of the release of Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Meghri in Scotland:
“We are disappointed to see the man convicted of the deadliest terrorist attack before 9/11 today walking free from a Scottish prison. Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Megrahi was sentenced to life behind bars for a reason. Al-Megrahi showed no compassion in December 21, 1988 when he bombed Pan Am flight 103, killing 270 innocent people, including 189 Americans, and he deserves no compassion today. When convicted by a U.K. court, the families of victims had the right to expect that the man behind this senseless killing would never walk free again. To those families, we extend deep sympathy and share their frustration and sense of betrayal.”
Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi issues statement
WASHINGTON, D.C (Press Release)– Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement condemning the release of Libyan terrorist Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Megrahi:
“Today the world remembers the victims of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, and expresses our deep alarm that the convicted perpetrator of this unspeakable crime has been allowed to go free.
“I am deeply disappointed by the Scottish Executive’s decision to release Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Megrahi, who was convicted of this crime and sentenced to life in prison in 2001. Instead of returning to Libya, he should be serving the remainder of his sentence in Scottish custody.
“We continue to condemn this brutal, criminal act and stand steadfast in our commitment to international efforts to prevent terrorism and punish its perpetrators.
“My deepest sympathies continue to be with the families of the 270 victims, including 189 Americans, who lost their loved ones as a result of this horrific crime.”
White House provides more detail on U.S. request to Libya
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release)— Quickly on Lockerbie, the President said on Smerconish that -- I think he used the word "we" when he said called Libya and discussed the idea of putting this guy under house arrest when he gets out. Did he personally make that call, or who did make that --
MR. GIBBS: Our folks in Libya have discussed with the Libyan government exactly what the President said a minute ago -- one, that this individual ought the be treated -- well, first let me say this -- we oppose and deeply regret the decision that has been made for release. Our officials in Libya talked with the government and -- delivering two primary messages, as the President said: First, that this individual should be treated as he always ought to be, a convicted mass murderer that took part in a terrorist activity in December of 1988, that killed several hundred people, including almost 200 Americans. Secondly, we expressed our concern about the release, and believe that the Libyans should treat the individual as somebody who should be under house arrest. That was communicated, again, through American officials in Libya directly with the Libyan government.
Q And that would be the U.S. embassy?
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q And did you get a response?
MR. GIBBS: I believe some of that communication happened as early as today.
Q Today's Sky News is doing wall-to-wall live coverage of this release, and we appreciate the President's comments. In light of the fact that this release has occurred despite the protest of the administration, what effect do you think this will have on agreements of this nature between the U.S., the UK, and other nations in the future?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I hesitate to speculate about the future. I think it's just important to reiterate, as I've done here, our deep regret that the decision was made, our deep condolence with the families that, as I said this morning, have for now many years lived with the loss of a loved one as a result of these horrific acts. And we wish that this decision had not been made.
Q May I follow up?
Q May I follow, as well?
MR. GIBBS: Sure.
Q As some say, regret is fine and condolences are fine, but certain individuals like Senator Lautenberg are wondering where the outrage is.
MR. GIBBS: Well, the outrage has been expressed directly to the governments that have made these decisions, from the White House to those individuals, and as well as to the Libyan government. I think our actions have been in direct -- because we have direct concern about this decision.
Q Can I follow on that, Robert?
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q What does this do to the so-called "special relationship" between the United States and --
MR. GIBBS: I don't want to get -- I think it's best today just to discuss where we are on this activity.
Q Robert --
MR. GIBBS: Do you have a follow-up on that? I can't imagine that you do. (Laughter.)
Q You'll come back?
MR. GIBBS: Regrettably, yes.
Q On this point, might there be any steps the U.S. would take that might amount to repercussions in exchange for -- to the -- taken against the UK or Scotland?
MR. GIBBS: Not that I'm aware of, but I will ask NSC if that's the case.
Q What about Libya? Is there some sort of -- like, if they agree to put him under house arrest or something?
MR. GIBBS: I can check on that, but I don't know --
Q Did anyone from the British or Scottish governments contact the United States to try and explain the reasoning?
MR. GIBBS: I can talk to NSC. I assume they -- I assume we've had discussions with them because folks here registered, on behalf of our government, this administration, and our country, the deep regret and opposition we had to the decision being made.
Q Can we get some more statements on the series of questions about the --
MR. GIBBS: I will see if there is anything to add, yes.
**
Q Robert, the President said about the Lockerbie incident that the administration has reached out to the families of the victims of the bombing. Can you tell us how that has happened? Did the President call any of the families --
MR. GIBBS: I believe, again, it was NSC officials that communicated the likelihood of the decision that would be made, to express to the families the actions that the administration had taken with UK and Scottish officials about an impending decision, and again, to express this government and our country's condolence for what had happened.
Q And that was all handled at the NSC?
MR. GIBBS: At NSC and through John Brennan.
State Department tells its disappointment with Lockerbie bomber release
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release)--Following are excerpts from a press briefing by Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley on Thursday, August 20:
MR. CROWLEY: Good afternoon and welcome to the Department of State. And I’ll begin by reading a statement by Secretary Clinton that we released earlier today.
“The United States is deeply disappointed by the decision of the Scottish Executive to release Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Megrahi who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for his part in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which took the lives of 270 persons, including 189 Americans. We have continued to communicate our longstanding position to the United Kingdom Government officials and Scottish authorities that Megrahi should serve out the entirety of his sentence in Scotland. Today, we remember those whose lives were lost on December 21, 1988 and we extend our deepest sympathies to the families who live each day with the loss of their loved ones due to this heinous crime.”
**
QUESTION: So you’ve put out this statement from the Secretary, the White House has put out a statement, what are you going to do? I mean, obviously, you made your case and they didn’t listen, so what are you going to do now?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, first of all, this was a decision that came within the purview of Scottish authorities. We raised this at the highest levels, going back weeks and months. Secretary Clinton raised it with a variety of officials, so did the Attorney General, others within the United States Government. And as we – as happens with friends, we sometimes have disagreements, even significant ones, and this is clearly one of them.
QUESTION: And – well, is that – does it end here or is there some kind of retaliatory step that you might take?
MR. CROWLEY: I wouldn’t say it’s a retaliatory step. I mean, in essence, the Scottish minister today said that a convicted terrorist has a right to die at home, and the United States could not disagree more. But clearly, we are a country of laws. We respect our laws, we respect the right that – the fact that Scottish authorities had this right. They exercised this right. We just believe this is a profound mistake.
QUESTION: So this is – it’s case closed from your point of view or do you --
MR. CROWLEY: I --
QUESTION: -- is there anything more that you plan to do to make your displeasure known?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think, obviously, in light of the release, we have had a number of conversations with the Government of Libya. Obviously, he will move back to Libya, and we certainly believe that as a convicted criminal he is not entitled to a hero’s welcome.
QUESTION: Well, I’m talking about with the Scottish and Brits.
MR. CROWLEY: I understand that. I mean, we have a wide range of interests, close partnership with Britain. We’re obviously deeply disappointed with its decision, but I don’t think it’s going to affect our fundamental relationship.
Yes.
QUESTION: What have your communications, though, been with the Libyans? Do you want him to be held under – well, he apparently can’t really move very well anyway, but do you want him to be held under house arrest or are you asking for some sort of action by the Libyans? Because they have seen this case quite differently to how you perceive it.
MR. CROWLEY: Well, obviously, I think there are some conditions that the Scottish authorities have given to the Libyans. I’ll refer to the Scottish authorities to describe those. But we have had conversations both – or will have conversations both in Washington and in Tripoli over what our expectations are with respect to his greeting back in Libya.
QUESTION: What are your expectations?
MR. CROWLEY: We believe that he – to the extent that the Scottish authorities have sent him home to die with his family, we hope that he – the return will be low key and he will not be celebrated as a hero, which he is not.
QUESTION: And can you say anything about whether you want him to be, I think, following on Sue’s question, under house arrest or anything like that? You’ve made that known to the Libyans that you’d like that?
MR. CROWLEY: That would – I think, if the Libyans take that action, we would be pleased.
QUESTION: What does the State Department say to the families who have been very vocal in the last few days that this is about oil and trade deals with Libya and it only appeases Qadhafi?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, for that I would refer you to the Scottish authorities and to the British Government. This is a Scottish decision.
Obviously, from the standpoint of the United States, we do not think that justice has been served. We think that justice has been undermined. We understand compassion, but Pan Am 103 has always been a special case. We all remember the iconic vision of the cockpit of Pan Am 103 resting on the ground in Lockerbie. And over 12 years, the United States, working with the United Kingdom, working with the international community, worked diligently to prosecute and convict the perpetrator of one of the most heinous crimes of the last 25 years.
The international community was united in applying significant international pressure on Libya to yield these suspects, to create a special tribunal to provide them a fair trial. That verdict was considered just, and it was upheld on appeal. So we deeply regret that the Scottish authorities have taken this action, but they have. It was within their purview to do so.
QUESTION: It seems to be Libya is preparing to celebrate this. Do you think that will have an impact on the future relationship between the United States and Libya, and what your feeling was toward the Brits and Scottish after his release? Are you mad? Are you – I mean –
MR. CROWLEY: I think we are disappointed. That’s – we think this sends the wrong signal to those who would contemplate acts of terrorism or political violence. As for Libya, obviously, they have taken steps in recent years to be a more responsible actor in the region and the world, and we’ll be watching to see how they handle this particular situation.
QUESTION: Can I ask you a quick one?
MR. CROWLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: Last week, you told us that Secretary Clinton and Attorney General Holder had made calls to the Scottish justice minister. Can you bring us up-to-date if there were any calls since then, with him or any other officials? You said senior officials in the government. Who else did she call and when? When was the last one?
MR. CROWLEY: I think you’re – I haven’t got a list in front of me, but going back literally months, we have been deeply engaged with both the Scottish Government, Scottish authorities, and the British Government on this question. We have raised it in a variety of venues with a variety of officials at the highest levels of all governments. And we expressed, as we said publicly, our firm conviction that this individual should serve out his time in jail.
QUESTION: Did that happen since last week? Has there been –
MR. CROWLEY: I can’t say that we’ve had – obviously, we’ve had communication in the last 24 hours. We were given an informal word that the verdict would be coming down today, and as we continue to say, we are deeply disappointed in the action they have taken.
QUESTION: After the Libyans kind of settled the compensation case and the deal was done, the Libyan’s retracted their kind of claim of responsibility. And today, it was reported that Saif Qadhafi’s plane, the son of Muammar Qadhafi who’s seen as very close to the government, took Megrahi home. I mean, what does that say about the fact that the Libyan’s don’t claim responsibility for this, but then are assisting the man who –
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, there was a very specific settlement. My recollection is rusty, but Libya, first of all, yielded these suspects, agreed to the trial that was conducted in – in a special trial conducted in the Netherlands. They have paid compensation to the victims of Pan Am 103, but clearly in terms of what happens now, we will be watching closely to see how Libya reacts to his return home.
QUESTION: But what do you say to the fact that a senior member of Muammar Qadhafi’s family is taking the guy home?
MR. CROWLEY: Let’s see what the Libyans do once he gets back to Libya.
QUESTION: Did you say that you’ve been told by the Libyans that they won’t have any celebrations, or that you had asked –
MR. CROWLEY: We have said to the Libyan officials quite clearly that he is not entitled to a hero’s welcome.
QUESTION: Well, your embassy doesn’t seem to think that that – first of all, your deep engagement with the Brits and the Scotts doesn’t – I’m not sure what their decision today means about your ability to influence people, but – there, in a friendly country, but now you have this situation with the Libyans. Now, you’re telling them that you don’t think it would be appropriate or that he is not entitled to any kind of celebration, and yet there’s a Warden Message from the embassy in Tripoli which says that, you know, there is this big celebration expected.
MR. CROWLEY: Well, let’s see what happens. But clearly, what happens when he returns to Libya will have an influence on the future direction of our relationship.
QUESTION: Well, does that mean that if there is a –
MR. CROWLEY: Well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
QUESTION: Well, no, I understand, but have you told them –
MR. CROWLEY: We have communicated – we have communicated something clearly to Libya, and we’ll see how they respond.
QUESTION: But you have said our relationship will suffer if this guy is given a hero’s welcome?
MR. CROWLEY: We have given a very direct message to Libya.
QUESTION: Many of the families feel that a lot of the questions are still not answered over Lockerbie, and they would like to have the investigation reopened. Is this something that you would look at, or do you see that as case closed, time to move on?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I’ll defer to the Justice Department. I think there’s probably questions of jurisdiction here, and there’s also a practical aspect that this individual is in his last days on earth. I mean – so I’m not sure if that will be a fruitful undertaking. I think what we are mostly concerned about is the mixed message that this sends in terms of those who have in the past, or those who might contemplate in the future acts of political violence, that this – and that’s why we have said very firmly, very strongly that, as a perpetrator of one of the most heinous acts in recent history, that he should serve out his sentence and should not be released.
QUESTION: I want to go back to what – the point that Matt made about the fact that you weren’t able to influence the decision. I mean, this wasn’t a kind of independent court that decided where, you know, the government can’t get involved. I mean, the justice minister made this decision. And I mean, the UK, Scotland is a close ally. Why weren’t you able to influence the decision more?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, look, I mean, there are – Scotland is an independent authority within the United Kingdom, and don’t ask me to try to explain it. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: No, I understand that.
MR. CROWLEY: But it has a devolution of authority --
QUESTION: But still, you’ve called Scotland a close ally in the past, though. I mean --
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, I recall the fact that there was a case in the United States a couple of years ago involving an inmate in Texas who was denied his consular rights. The President of the United States made an appeal to the governor of Texas. The governor of Texas said: I have the authority to exercise this within my purview, and I will exercise it as I deem appropriate. So I think that we are --
QUESTION: You think this is a tit-for-tat?
MR. CROWLEY: I don’t think that – I think that – let’s accept the justice minister’s rationale here that this was, in his mind, an act of compassion. We are a compassionate people in the United States. We just don’t believe in this particular case, or in the case of terrorism, that compassion should overrule justice.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, you’re --
MR. CROWLEY: But let me finish. But we are a nation of laws here in the United States, and we do respect the fact that this is an exercise of authority legitimately and legally by the Scottish authorities, by the Scottish executive. We just happen to disagree with what he decided to do.
QUESTION: Your protest notwithstanding though, a lot of the families are saying today that if you really wanted to make this an issue in the relationship, that you could have made sure that the Scottish did not do that. And the fact that you didn’t means that you don’t feel that really, your protest notwithstanding, that you don’t feel that strongly about it and this is really about kind of issues about Libya and oil and the like.
MR. CROWLEY: I think if you judge the history of this case, you will recognize that we have been very diligent, we have been very dogged, since December 1988, working with the United Kingdom, working with the international community. We made it clear we were going to find out who was responsible for this heinous act. We, in fact, identified the perpetrators. We, working creatively with the international community, set up a special tribunal and we supported that tribunal. We put the appropriate amount of pressure on Libya. We did, in fact, get Libya to yield these suspects. There was a trial. It was a fair trial. It yielded a credible result.
So to suggest that over the course of 12 years the United States was not determined year after year to see justice done, in fact, the track record says we were, in fact, determined to see justice done. It is, in fact, why up until today we’ve been very clear with the United Kingdom, we’ve been very clear with Scottish authorities, that we disagreed profoundly with this step.
QUESTION: Well, then why is the case closed, then? Why don’t you take – I mean, I don’t know what kind of retaliation you can take against Scotland – banning haggis and bagpipes or something – but why isn’t there – why isn’t there any – why aren’t you prepared to consider any kind of --
MR. CROWLEY: Well, again --
QUESTION: -- step against them if you feel so strongly?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, the United Kingdom and the United States have a special relationship. That is not to say that we will not have disagreements. And currently, right now, this is one that is significant. We have communicated with them. We will communicate with them some more. But, obviously, in our relationship, we have a range of interests. We’re cooperating significantly in the war in Afghanistan. We are allies within NATO. So sure, on this particular one, we respect their decision. It was their decision. We disagree profoundly with what they’ve done. It will – we will continue to talk to our friends in the United Kingdom and in Scotland about this, but it will be a conversation among friends.
Go to top of next column
|
|
QUESTION: Do you see this as a decision by the UK or by simply – or by – by the United Kingdom or by Scotland?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, obviously, this was a decision that was made by the authorities and the executive in Scotland.
QUESTION: So you don’t --
MR. CROWLEY: But, obviously, we --
QUESTION: -- hold this against – you don’t hold this against --
MR. CROWLEY: We did raise this both with Scottish authorities directly – the Secretary of State – as recently as last week. At the same time, we apprised our allies in London about the importance of this case.
QUESTION: So you accept that devolved powers that Scotland has --
MR. CROWLEY: Of course.
QUESTION: -- but you still consulted with the Brits?
MR. CROWLEY: Yes.
**
QUESTION: In terms of the pressure brought in Whitehall and in Scotland, did that extend beyond conversations at all? I mean, what was the kind of tone of the conversations? How tough did you really get with --
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, in our normal discussions with allies on a variety of subjects and within this particular case, we made it clear that a decision by the Scottish authorities to release this individual would be something that the American people would have a great deal of difficulty understanding. I think that they understood our concern. But, obviously, the final decision was for the Scottish executive to make.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) You, as a part of the Executive Branch, would you like to see the Justice Department challenging this legally to the Scottish authority?
MR. CROWLEY: I’m not sure I hear a question in --
QUESTION: The next step that would you challenge this legally through the Justice Department?
MR. CROWLEY: I think if there is any remaining legal question, I will defer to the Justice Department. I’m just not aware that --
QUESTION: But would you like to see them do it?
MR. CROWLEY: -- at this point there’s any --
QUESTION: Would you like to see them do such a step? I mean, would you like to see the Justice Department, like, do the follow-up and to see – to challenge this legally?
MR. CROWLEY: I’m not suggesting that there is a legal challenge available to the United States at this point.
Yes.
Anti-Defamation League denounces release of al-Megrahi
NEW YORK—The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) on Thursday called the release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, the terrorist convicted of taking part in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people were killed, "an outrage" and "a travesty of justice."
Al-Megrahi was released by Scottish officials on Thursday on "compassionate grounds" after his diagnosis of terminal prostate cancer. He later expressed "sympathy" for the families of those who were killed in the air disaster, but insisted he was wrongfully convicted in 2001.
Al-Megrahi, 57, was flown home to his native Libya.
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:
Scotland's decision to release Abdel Basset al-Megrahi is an outrageous action and a regrettable mistake. To treat such a violent person with "sensitivity" and to allow him to rejoin society is to extend to him a right that he had permanently denied his victims. For the families of those who perished, his release has reopened painful wounds and deprived them of a sense of closure.
The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 was a terrible tragedy that served as a wake-up call to the virulent danger of international terrorism. Libya ultimately accepted responsibility for the bombing, but al-Megrahi never once expressed remorse or accepted responsibility for his actions. To grant him the right to live out the last days of his life in freedom, after having served just eight years of a life sentence, is a travesty of justice. Like other perpetrators of violent terrorism who are caught and convicted, he should be made to live out his sentence in prison.
Al-Megrahi's statement of sympathy for the victims is belated and wholly inadequate.
Release cruel to victims —Wiesenthal Center
LOS ANGELES (Press Release)—"The Simon Wiesenthal Center is shocked by the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the convicted mastermind of the Pan Am Lockerbie mass murder," said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the Center's Associate Dean
"The life sentence originally given to this mass murder was society's way of standing up for justice and in solidarity with the innocent victims and hundreds of families whose lives were permanently crippled by this premeditated horror. This terrorist was sentenced to die in jail. The outrageous decision to free him recalls the Jewish Medrashic saying, "He who shows compassion to the cruel will in the end be cruel to the compassionate," Cooper added.
"The Wiesenthal Center will continue to stand in solidarity with the victims and their families," Cooper concluded.
FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 2009
White House says U.S. is
watching Libyan reaction
WASHINGTON, D.C.(Press Release)—Following is a briefing conducted on Friday by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:
Q Despite official protests from this government, on every level, the Scots released the Lockerbie bomber. The President yesterday said he hoped that they would place him under -- in Libya under house arrest. Instead he gets a hero's welcome; people are outraged.
MR. GIBBS: Rightly so. I think the images that we saw in Libya yesterday were outrageous and disgusting. We continue to express our condolences to the families that lost a loved one as a result of this terrorist murder. We communicated with the Libyan government, and we continue to watch what they do in the days going forward about this individual, and understand that the video that you saw yesterday is tremendously offensive to the survivors that, as I said, lost a loved one in 1988.
Q They're like blowing off the President. I mean, the guy who shook the President's hand at the G8, who runs Libya, is basically thumbing his nose at the President.
MR. GIBBS: Well, we're watching the government to see how they respond
**
Q Okay. Getting back to Bill's questions about Libya, what effect is the show that went on there on the tarmac yesterday going to have on prospects for any improvement in relations with that country?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, we've registered our outrage. We have discussed with the Libyans what we think is appropriate, as we did with UK and Scottish officials in our opposition to the release to begin with. And all I can say, going forward, is we'll continue to watch the actions of this individual and the Libyan government.
Q Would you acknowledge that the show that they put on yesterday when he arrived has set back prospects for improved relations with Tripoli?
MR. GIBBS: I'd feel comfortable saying that the administration believes that the images that were broadcast throughout the world were outrageous and incredibly offensive to Americans, and particularly offensive to those that lost a loved one on that flight many years ago.
Yes, ma'am.
Q What was the President's specific reaction to the video when he saw it, of Megrahi returning --
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think I'm conveying his sense and the administration's sense of what those images encapsulated.
U.S. concerned about Libyan celebration of terrorists, Iranian elevation of accused terrorist
WASHINGTON, D.C (Press Release)--Following are exerpts from a press briefing on Friday, August 21, by State Department spokesman Ian Kelly:
QUESTION: It appears the Libyan’s didn’t heed your warnings not to welcome him as a hero yesterday. Do you have any reaction to that?
MR. KELLY: Well, I think first of all, the images that we saw yesterday of this convicted terrorist, mass-murderer coming off a plane and being greeted with great elation – I mean, these personally to me were very offensive. And if they were offensive to me, I can only imagine what the families of the victims of that act in 1988, how they responded to these kinds of images.
And I would say just as a general principle that we’ve taken Libya off the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. We’re looking forward to productive relations with Libya. We have – we’ve got a fully functioning embassy there. It is – Libya has made every indication to us that they want to put this in their past, this – their connections with terrorism in their past. So I think we’re going to be watching very closely in the days and weeks ahead to see that, indeed, they do want to put these kinds of incidents in their past. And I think celebrating this man who was convicted in a court of law as a terrorist would, of course, cause us to question that, indeed, they do want to move to a new phase in our relationship.
QUESTION: But there are no plans to block Qadhafi from getting a visa to come to the UN General Assembly.
MR. KELLY: I am not aware of any plans to block him from coming.
QUESTION: You mentioned that you did –
QUESTION: Pop his tent in Central Park (inaudible).
QUESTION: You didn’t take him off the state sponsors -- you did mention you didn’t take them off the state sponsors list. Isn’t this a demonstrable incident of state sponsorship of terrorism?
MR. KELLY: Well, I’m not going to take an event – a single event at an airport and this single data point and say that this is going to cause us to totally reconsider our relationship with Libya. But as I said before, we will be watching, as they go forward, how this man is treated.
QUESTION: Ian, what are you looking for them to do going forward?
MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, we understand that he has been taken to his home. He’s still there at this town called Sebha. I’m not sure exactly where it is. As you know, we did – as the President indicated yesterday, we did ask them to put him under house arrest. We haven’t – they haven’t informed us officially what his status is while he’s in there, while he’s in his house. But, I mean, today is the first day of Ramadan. Libyan Government offices are closed. And we’ll just this – as I say, we’ll be watching to see how this is handled.
QUESTION: Do you have reason to suspect that the Scots and the UK would do this for business reasons? Seriously.
MR. KELLY: Yeah. No, I’m just not going to speculate on that, Indira. That’s not my place.
QUESTION: The sale of jet fighters from BAE?
MR. KELLY: You know what? You’ll have to talk to my counterpart in London about that, I think.
QUESTION: But would you say that the early signs are not good, that Libya wants to move ahead with a better relationship?
MR. KELLY: Well, again, this is – we’re talking about an event in an airport right now. I mean, that was an extremely unfortunate public display. But let’s see how things play out.
QUESTION: And the fact that Saif – that Qadhafi’s son went to pick to him up and was on that plane, is that an indication? Does that concern you as well that there’s been such a public demonstration of support for him by the Qadhafi family?
MR. KELLY: Well, again, I think we’ve made it quite clear that they need to be very careful and need to be very sensitive to the feelings of the families, and they need to restrain themselves from celebrating a convicted terrorist.
QUESTION: Well, when was that? When was that last – message last delivered? I mean, if you say that today is the first day of Ramadan, Friday, Libyan offices are closed, did the ambassador or anyone else make any representations to the Libyans?
MR. KELLY: Yesterday.
QUESTION: Yesterday?
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: After the plane had landed?
MR. KELLY: Before the plane landed.
QUESTION: And then after?
MR. KELLY: I’m not aware of what –
QUESTION: Well, have you – has your outrage at the greet – at his welcome been conveyed to the Libyan Government directly, or is it just –
MR. KELLY: It has – I mean, he arrived last night in the evening. I’m not sure if we had any kind of contact today, frankly, in Tripoli. I do know that Jeff Feltman did call in the Libyan Ambassador, and that would have been, I think, after he arrived.
QUESTION: Here in Washington?
MR. KELLY: I think.
QUESTION: Yesterday?
MR. KELLY: Yesterday.
QUESTION: They called him in last night, basically.
MR. KELLY: No, no, he called him in – it was the afternoon, but it would been night in Tripoli.
QUESTION: He telephoned him or he called him in?
MR. KELLY: I believe that he was called in. And I really will have to check that, because I’ve – I haven’t even cracked open my book. See here. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Do you think it might be in your book?
MR. KELLY: It’s not in my book. I know it’s not in my book.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: So we can’t say yet that he called him in?
MR. KELLY: Let us – let me – just let me check that with NEA, but I think that was the plan.
QUESTION: What would you do if the Libyans refuse to put him under house arrest?
MR. KELLY: I’m not going to speculate on what we’ll do and what we won’t do. But as I said before, what they do going forward is going to have some kind of effect on our relationship, but I can’t speculate right now what that will be.
QUESTION: What about on the other end of this with the Scots and the Brits?
MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, we had – as we’ve said a number of times, we’ve had a lot of engagement with them. I don’t know if we’ve had any engagement today. You know that we contacted them at a number of different levels from a number of different cabinet agencies, urging the Scottish authorities not to do what they did – release this man. But I just – I’m not sure what’s going to happen today.
QUESTION: Well, is there any repercussion?
MR. KELLY: Well, – we – as the Secretary said and the President said, we were deeply disappointed.
QUESTION: Yeah, but does that --
MR. KELLY: But we do respect their right to make this kind of decision.
QUESTION: Yeah, but states are not children as much as the Secretary might refer to the North Koreans. They don’t respond to deep disappointment, you know. That isn’t what – that’s not something that a state – that a sovereign country responds to. So are there any plans to do anything to demonstrate your displeasure?
MR. KELLY: Well, we have demonstrated our displeasure --
QUESTION: Well, other than just saying you’re deeply –
MR. KELLY: -- on multiple occasions and in very public fashion.
QUESTION: Other than saying you’re deeply disappointed, which as I said, it doesn’t have any effect on them?
MR. KELLY: Well, look, I mean, you’ve heard the term “special relationship” used. I mean, it’s become almost trite. But we have – we do have a very important relationship with Great Britain. And I would not – you said that states are not children. I would not really – I wouldn’t --
QUESTION: In terms of responding to the --
MR. KELLY: I wouldn’t improvise any metaphors --
QUESTION: Look, you say – when a parent tells a child that he’s disappointed in them --
MR. KELLY: -- regarding how you treat children who have done something that you don’t like, I mean, it’s – this is not – our relationship is such where we’re not talking about it in that way.
QUESTION: So, okay. So you’re not talking about any kind of punishment?
MR. KELLY: No.
QUESTION: So it is okay to – you’ve essentially traded the justice for the victims of 170 Americans for the special relationship.
MR. KELLY: First of all, this was a decision by the Scottish Executive. Are you talking about --
QUESTION: I totally understand that.
MR. KELLY: -- imposing some kind of punishment upon the –
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. KELLY: Scottish Executive or upon Great Britain? -
QUESTION: Yeah, or either of them.
QUESTION: No more golf at St. Andrews. That’s it.
MR. KELLY: We have to respect the right of countries --
QUESTION: Sure.
MR. KELLY: Kelly – to make sovereign decisions.
QUESTION: And – okay, well, that doesn’t preclude you taking action when they do something --
MR. KELLY: Well, we did take action. I mean, we took –
QUESTION: You didn’t do anything.
MR. KELLY: No, I mean, we let them know that we disagree with them in the strongest terms.
QUESTION: Yeah, but in countries with whom we do not have a special relationship, we impose sanctions, we do all sorts of things to show our displeasure.
MR. KELLY: There’s no talk about imposing sanctions.
QUESTION: I know, but that’s what we’re – we’re talking about if this were not Great Britain, then –
MR. KELLY: Look, we disagreed with them. We disagree with our allies frequently. This is one where we deeply disagreed with them. But it doesn’t mean we’re going to impose sanctions on them.
QUESTION: I’m not – I’m trying to ask you whether you would do anything to punish them in a way that you would punish a country that we’re not a close ally for doing exactly the same thing.
MR. KELLY: The quick answer to that is no.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. KELLY: Dave.
QUESTION: Can I ask a couple about Iran? Ahmadinejad seems to have named as his defense minister a guy who was wanted by Interpol in the 1994 terrorist attacks in Argentina. And I just wonder if you have any reflection on that, the appropriateness thereof?
MR. KELLY: We’ve seen the press reports. I mean, I just saw them this morning. In fact, you sent it to me, which I appreciate. And clearly, if this report is true, and if this man is confirmed as a cabinet minister and he is wanted by Interpol for his involvement in a terrorist act, of course, this would be, again, disturbing. But there’s going to be a process in place here. I mean, he has to go – the whole slate has to go before parliament, so before that process plays out, we’ll withhold any comment.
QUESTION: If he were to come here for the UN General Assembly or something like that, would the U.S. take any action?
MR. KELLY: That’s a very good question. It’s a speculative question, but --
QUESTION: No, it’s not. If he’s wanted by Interpol and he arrives here in the U.S., what is the U.S. going to do about it?
MR. KELLY: I’ll just take that question, Kirit. I’m really not sure. Just I’m not sure of the various regulations and immunities of a UN visit. I’m just not sure.
QUESTION: Any comment on Iran agreeing to allow inspectors back in?
MR. KELLY: I will crack open that book now. We look forward to the IAEA’s forthcoming report on Iran’s compliance with its Security Council, NPT, and IAEA obligations, which we expect will comprehensively address all issues associated with Iran’s cooperation with IAEA. I understand that report is going to come out next week sometime. We’re going to withhold comment until that report is released. But I will underscore that Iran does have obligations to the IAEA and to the UN Security Council to suspend its enrichment and heavy-water reactor activities and to cooperate to address a full range of very serious questions that we have.
Just a few comments on these reported steps that they apparently offered to make regarding improving surveillance of the Natanz plant and access to the Arak reactor. These reported steps would not address the reason for its noncompliance nor constitute the full and comprehensive cooperation that’s required of Iran and would fall well short of Iran’s obligations.
And finally, I’ll just highlight that they still have not responded to our offer from April to join us in P-5+1 talks that the U.S. is willing to sit down and participate in.
QUESTION: Have you kind of given up on that? I mean, it’s been a long time. Do you think that that’s just not coming now?
MR. KELLY: No, we have not given up on it. I think you’ve seen the President has said that our patience is not infinite, that the timetable is not indefinite, but the invitation is still out there.
QUESTION: So you’re still thinking of the UNGA as your sort of deadline as to when you start --
MR. KELLY: I don’t think that we’re – UNGA, per se. I mean, obviously, there would be a lot of opportunities at UNGA to meet in a P-5+1 context, but UNGA is not necessarily the key date here.
|
