The Sunday Sun publishes yet another snippet that indicates what is to be expected in The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie television programme. (Query: will there be anything at all in the programme that has not been released to the media in advance?)
This story relates to the Northumberland couple who found on their farm a Toshiba manual which came from Pan Am 103. They claim that, by the time the document was shown as a label production at the Lockerbie trial, it was in a scorched and damaged condition, which had not been the case when they picked it up.
The programme apparently comes to no firm conclusion about the reason for this, merely posing the question: “Why was the piece of paper so altered from when the Hortons found it? Was it proof of a conspiracy or careless handling by the police? The mystery remains.”
Again, nothing new here for those who have been following Lockerbie developments.
Sunday, 31 August 2008
Giaka and the CIA cables
The producer of tonight's The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie BBC Two programme has written an article in today's issue of The Independent on Sunday. It deals with Abdul Majid Giaka, a Libyan CIA asset and later defector whose evidence at the Lockerbie trial the judges described 'as "at best grossly exaggerated and at worst simply untrue" and concluded he was "largely motivated by financial considerations". The article focuses on the cables sent by Giaka's CIA handlers in which his lack of useful information on alleged Libyan involvement in the Lockerbie bombing was detailed. Yet, at the trial, he (now with an entirely new version of events) was put forward as a witness of credit by the Crown, who also disgracefully sought to prevent the CIA cables being made available to the defence and to the court. The whole unsavoury episode is dealt with in this post on this blog.
Today's article does not seem to me to add anything to what has been known for a very long time to those interested in the Lockerbie affair.
Today's article does not seem to me to add anything to what has been known for a very long time to those interested in the Lockerbie affair.
Saturday, 30 August 2008
Megrahi on Al-Jazeera?
A normally well-informed source tells me that Abdelbaset Megrahi earlier this week took part by telephone in a discussion programme broadcast on the Arabic service of Al-Jazeera. His comments, it appears, related mainly to Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi's recently broadcast views about the "greed" of the Lockerbie relatives, and were highly critical. If any of the readers of this blog has further information, I would be delighted to have it.
Friday, 29 August 2008
Press reaction to Conspiracy Files revelations
The Herald's coverage can be read here and The Scotsman's here.
For English-based press coverage, see The Telegraph's article here, The Independent's here and The Times's here.
BBC Scotland's Newsnight Scotland broadcast a segment on the story, concentrating mainly on Saif al-Islam. It can be viewed here.
For English-based press coverage, see The Telegraph's article here, The Independent's here and The Times's here.
BBC Scotland's Newsnight Scotland broadcast a segment on the story, concentrating mainly on Saif al-Islam. It can be viewed here.
David Ben-Aryeah on the SCCRC annual report
[David Ben-Aryeah, was one of the first journalists into Lockerbie on the night of the disaster. He has received several major international media awards for his work on Lockerbie and was unpaid advisor to the UK relatives group from 1989 to 2001. He has acted as consultant to many investigative programs on Lockerbie. What follows are his views on the Lockerbie aspects of the SCCRC’s recent annual report.]
For the first time in its relatively short history, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) annual report and accounts for 2007-2008 contains not only substantial reference in the Chairman’s remarks (the Very Revd Dr Graham Forbes CBE) in the foreword of the document but also a two page summary of the Administration of the Lockerbie Review by the Chief Executive, Gerard Sinclair, into the Commission’s role enquiring into the submission of the defence in the Lockerbie case.
(1) The foreword (Pages 2-3):
Dr. Forbes states: ‘In June (2007) we issued our decision to refer the case of Mr. Adbelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi back to the High Court. This has been the most difficult and complex case we have had to review.
'The Commission’s enquiry team worked tirelessly over three years. Some of what we discovered may imply innocence; some of what we discovered may imply guilt. However, such matters are for a court to decide. The Commission formed the view, based on our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we found and other evidence that was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
'Our role in “Lockerbie” is now complete. Our Parliament can be reassured that we carried out our investigations without fear or favour; we travelled where we needed to go, including Malta and Libya; we sought and obtained the documents we believed we needed to reach our decision; the Scottish Government, as did the previous administration, funded us to do what we believed we needed to do. It is a sign of a mature democracy and of our country’s commitment to justice that the State gives the Commission such powers and such access. I gladly pay tribute to the commitment of our Lockerbie team (Senior Legal Officer Robin Johnston, and Legal Officers Andrew Beadsworth, Gordon Newall and Michael Walker, supported by our Chief Executive and administration staff) and to my fellow Board Members who oversaw the investigation from start to finish, scrutinised, challenged, argued and decided.’
[The Board was composed of The Very Reverend Dr. Graham Forbes CBE, Provost of St Mary’s Cathedral Edinburgh (Chairman), Sir Gerald Gordon QC, CBE (author of a major text book on Scots Law), Mr. David Belfall, Mr. Graham Bell QC, Professor Brian Caddy*, Mr. Stewart Campbell* and Mr. Gerard McClay*.
*Appointed 1 July 2007 to replace Sheriff Anderson QC and Professor Peter Duff who resigned due to competing commitments in July 2007 and Mr. Robert Anthony QC who resigned following his appointment as a Sheriff.]
It is important to remember that in the written reasons for the referral of the case for a second appeal, the Commission made mention of six reasons or grounds, though its press release gave details of only four.
(2) Administration of the Lockerbie Review (Pages 16 – 18):
Mr. Graham Sinclair (Chief Executive) provides more detail than was previously available in the 28th June 2007 written reasons for referral back for a second appeal, particularly the following:
‘The Outcome: The Commission referred the applicant’s case to the High Court on 28 June 2007. The reference was based on six grounds mainly relating to evidence which, for one reason or another, was not heard at the trial and which indicated that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Of the six grounds of reference, four were the result of the Commission’s own enquiries rather than the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. The Applicant’s appeal against conviction is ongoing.’
Mr. Sinclair goes on to furnish confirmed expenditure on the case from 2003-4 to 2007-8 as totalling £1,195,827.
The Commission report refers to
a. the fact that Board members ‘scrutinised, challenged, argued and decided’ (1: The Foreword).
b. the grounds of referral ‘relating to evidence which, for one reason or another was not heard at the trial’.
This gives grounds to conclude that the enquiry went well beyond the original 16 volumes of submissions (and at least five subsequent ones). Coupled with the fact that as late as 19th August the Appeal Court granted defence petitions for (1) documents and photographs relevant to the (alleged) identification of Megrahi by the Maltese shopkeeper, Mr Tony Gauci, to be allowed to be shown to an expert psychologist and (2) for access to documents and productions used at the Scottish Court sitting in the Netherlands, and for permission to subject them to forensic scientific examination, there must be serious concerns not only as to the range and scope of evidence that was (or rather was not) presented to the court at the time; and, given the averment that the SCCRC found four additional ground for referral, there could be concerns as to the standard of conduct of the original defence. Taken against the historical demands of the UK relatives for a ‘full, independent enquiry’ into events before, during and after the bombing of Pan Am 103, the pending appeal may well shed light in some very dark corners and go a small way into answering the disturbing spectrum of questions raised during the original trial and appeal.
The appointment of Professor Brian Caddy to the Board of the Commission (albeit it came after he date of the reference of the case back to the Appeal Court) may not be without significance: Professor Caddy is pre-eminent and much respected in the field of forensic science and has research interests concerning firearms discharge residue, trace explosives analysis and has a deep interest in raising and maintaining standards of forensic science practice. His appointment may be not insignificant considering continuing concerns in respect of the qualification and standards of the forensic science practices so far revealed during the investigation (both in the UK and USA) and the trial.
For the first time in its relatively short history, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) annual report and accounts for 2007-2008 contains not only substantial reference in the Chairman’s remarks (the Very Revd Dr Graham Forbes CBE) in the foreword of the document but also a two page summary of the Administration of the Lockerbie Review by the Chief Executive, Gerard Sinclair, into the Commission’s role enquiring into the submission of the defence in the Lockerbie case.
(1) The foreword (Pages 2-3):
Dr. Forbes states: ‘In June (2007) we issued our decision to refer the case of Mr. Adbelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi back to the High Court. This has been the most difficult and complex case we have had to review.
'The Commission’s enquiry team worked tirelessly over three years. Some of what we discovered may imply innocence; some of what we discovered may imply guilt. However, such matters are for a court to decide. The Commission formed the view, based on our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we found and other evidence that was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
'Our role in “Lockerbie” is now complete. Our Parliament can be reassured that we carried out our investigations without fear or favour; we travelled where we needed to go, including Malta and Libya; we sought and obtained the documents we believed we needed to reach our decision; the Scottish Government, as did the previous administration, funded us to do what we believed we needed to do. It is a sign of a mature democracy and of our country’s commitment to justice that the State gives the Commission such powers and such access. I gladly pay tribute to the commitment of our Lockerbie team (Senior Legal Officer Robin Johnston, and Legal Officers Andrew Beadsworth, Gordon Newall and Michael Walker, supported by our Chief Executive and administration staff) and to my fellow Board Members who oversaw the investigation from start to finish, scrutinised, challenged, argued and decided.’
[The Board was composed of The Very Reverend Dr. Graham Forbes CBE, Provost of St Mary’s Cathedral Edinburgh (Chairman), Sir Gerald Gordon QC, CBE (author of a major text book on Scots Law), Mr. David Belfall, Mr. Graham Bell QC, Professor Brian Caddy*, Mr. Stewart Campbell* and Mr. Gerard McClay*.
*Appointed 1 July 2007 to replace Sheriff Anderson QC and Professor Peter Duff who resigned due to competing commitments in July 2007 and Mr. Robert Anthony QC who resigned following his appointment as a Sheriff.]
It is important to remember that in the written reasons for the referral of the case for a second appeal, the Commission made mention of six reasons or grounds, though its press release gave details of only four.
(2) Administration of the Lockerbie Review (Pages 16 – 18):
Mr. Graham Sinclair (Chief Executive) provides more detail than was previously available in the 28th June 2007 written reasons for referral back for a second appeal, particularly the following:
‘The Outcome: The Commission referred the applicant’s case to the High Court on 28 June 2007. The reference was based on six grounds mainly relating to evidence which, for one reason or another, was not heard at the trial and which indicated that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Of the six grounds of reference, four were the result of the Commission’s own enquiries rather than the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. The Applicant’s appeal against conviction is ongoing.’
Mr. Sinclair goes on to furnish confirmed expenditure on the case from 2003-4 to 2007-8 as totalling £1,195,827.
The Commission report refers to
a. the fact that Board members ‘scrutinised, challenged, argued and decided’ (1: The Foreword).
b. the grounds of referral ‘relating to evidence which, for one reason or another was not heard at the trial’.
This gives grounds to conclude that the enquiry went well beyond the original 16 volumes of submissions (and at least five subsequent ones). Coupled with the fact that as late as 19th August the Appeal Court granted defence petitions for (1) documents and photographs relevant to the (alleged) identification of Megrahi by the Maltese shopkeeper, Mr Tony Gauci, to be allowed to be shown to an expert psychologist and (2) for access to documents and productions used at the Scottish Court sitting in the Netherlands, and for permission to subject them to forensic scientific examination, there must be serious concerns not only as to the range and scope of evidence that was (or rather was not) presented to the court at the time; and, given the averment that the SCCRC found four additional ground for referral, there could be concerns as to the standard of conduct of the original defence. Taken against the historical demands of the UK relatives for a ‘full, independent enquiry’ into events before, during and after the bombing of Pan Am 103, the pending appeal may well shed light in some very dark corners and go a small way into answering the disturbing spectrum of questions raised during the original trial and appeal.
The appointment of Professor Brian Caddy to the Board of the Commission (albeit it came after he date of the reference of the case back to the Appeal Court) may not be without significance: Professor Caddy is pre-eminent and much respected in the field of forensic science and has research interests concerning firearms discharge residue, trace explosives analysis and has a deep interest in raising and maintaining standards of forensic science practice. His appointment may be not insignificant considering continuing concerns in respect of the qualification and standards of the forensic science practices so far revealed during the investigation (both in the UK and USA) and the trial.
Thursday, 28 August 2008
News at Ten broadcasts Lumpert interview
ITN's News at Ten programme this evening broadcast an interview with Ulrich Lumpert, the MEBO engineer who now claims that the fragment of MST-13 circuit board presented to the Lockerbie trial at Zeist as part of the timing mechanism of the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103, in fact came from a non-operative prototype. The account on the News at Ten website reads as follows:
'An exclusive News at Ten interview has cast new doubt on who was to blame for the Lockerbie bombing.
'A witness who helped convict a Libyan secret service agent of bringing down Pan Am flight 103 has now changed his story.
'Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was convicted of the bombing that killed 270 people, including 11 residents of the Scottish town of Lockerbie.
'But electronics engineer Ulrich Lumpert says what he told the trial about the timing device said to have detonated the explosives was wrong.
'A key part of the evidence in the case was a singed fragment of a timer traced to Swiss company Mebo, where Mr Lumpert worked.
'Mebo admitted selling timers to Libya but Mr Lumpert now claims the fragment found was part of a non-functional timer that could not possibly have helped to bring down Pan Am 103.
'Mr Lumpert now says the bombing could not have happened in the way prosecutors described it, leaving more questions unanswered about the Lockerbie bombing.'
[The back story can be obtained by typing "Lumpert" into the Search Blog box at the top of the page and the interview itself can be accessed by UK computers from the website mentioned above.]
'An exclusive News at Ten interview has cast new doubt on who was to blame for the Lockerbie bombing.
'A witness who helped convict a Libyan secret service agent of bringing down Pan Am flight 103 has now changed his story.
'Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was convicted of the bombing that killed 270 people, including 11 residents of the Scottish town of Lockerbie.
'But electronics engineer Ulrich Lumpert says what he told the trial about the timing device said to have detonated the explosives was wrong.
'A key part of the evidence in the case was a singed fragment of a timer traced to Swiss company Mebo, where Mr Lumpert worked.
'Mebo admitted selling timers to Libya but Mr Lumpert now claims the fragment found was part of a non-functional timer that could not possibly have helped to bring down Pan Am 103.
'Mr Lumpert now says the bombing could not have happened in the way prosecutors described it, leaving more questions unanswered about the Lockerbie bombing.'
[The back story can be obtained by typing "Lumpert" into the Search Blog box at the top of the page and the interview itself can be accessed by UK computers from the website mentioned above.]
Money cannot bring back our loved ones
What follows is the text of a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in the issue of The Herald for Friday, 29 August:
'Money cannot bring back our loved ones In the years following the Lockerbie atrocity Libya found her oil industry progressively crippled by UN (and US) sanctions, which denied her the use of ever more sophisticated western oil-recovery technology.
'Following her agreement to allow her two citizens to appear in front of a Scottish criminal court (at Zeist in Holland), one was found guilty of having carried out the atrocity.
'The terms for withdrawal of the UN sanctions included that Libya acknowledge her guilt and pay "compensation" for the atrocity. The scope for negotiation was clear: meeting the UN requirements would allow Libya's economic recovery, no less. This is now being achieved through a refurbishment of her oilfields with the benefit of western (mainly US) technology.
'In a letter to the UN after the Zeist verdict was passed, Libya's phraseology was that "since a Scottish court had found one of her agents guilty, therefore she would pay compensation''. The terms of the financial "compensation" were negotiated by a team of US lawyers representing most relatives, including myself. The details of these negotiations remain embargoed. The then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, stressed the negotiations were a legal, not a political, issue. Of course.
'Colonel Gaddafi's talented and artistic son, Saif, now claims the relatives were "greedy". I am glad to see that Libya's economy is recovering, far beyond the value of the "compensation" negotiations and that she is becoming accepted as other than a promoter of terrorism. Both of these facts suggest a diminution of hostility and material gains for both sides.
'I salute Saif and wish him happiness, which I think he is more likely to find in his life, if it is true, as he claims, that he is dropping out of politics. I just wish that the needs of the relatives, namely a thirst for the truth and for justice, would be attended to rather than an alleged hunger for money.
'A trapped man dies of thirst long before he would die of hunger.
'Financial "compensation" must remain in its inverted commas. Money cannot buy our families back.
'But there is some genuine compensation to be had from seeing the healing of the enmity between the West and Libya. I thank Saif for providing the opportunity to say this.
'So far as many relatives I know would say, we would gladly repay any "compensation" money if we could just have our loved ones back.'
'Money cannot bring back our loved ones In the years following the Lockerbie atrocity Libya found her oil industry progressively crippled by UN (and US) sanctions, which denied her the use of ever more sophisticated western oil-recovery technology.
'Following her agreement to allow her two citizens to appear in front of a Scottish criminal court (at Zeist in Holland), one was found guilty of having carried out the atrocity.
'The terms for withdrawal of the UN sanctions included that Libya acknowledge her guilt and pay "compensation" for the atrocity. The scope for negotiation was clear: meeting the UN requirements would allow Libya's economic recovery, no less. This is now being achieved through a refurbishment of her oilfields with the benefit of western (mainly US) technology.
'In a letter to the UN after the Zeist verdict was passed, Libya's phraseology was that "since a Scottish court had found one of her agents guilty, therefore she would pay compensation''. The terms of the financial "compensation" were negotiated by a team of US lawyers representing most relatives, including myself. The details of these negotiations remain embargoed. The then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, stressed the negotiations were a legal, not a political, issue. Of course.
'Colonel Gaddafi's talented and artistic son, Saif, now claims the relatives were "greedy". I am glad to see that Libya's economy is recovering, far beyond the value of the "compensation" negotiations and that she is becoming accepted as other than a promoter of terrorism. Both of these facts suggest a diminution of hostility and material gains for both sides.
'I salute Saif and wish him happiness, which I think he is more likely to find in his life, if it is true, as he claims, that he is dropping out of politics. I just wish that the needs of the relatives, namely a thirst for the truth and for justice, would be attended to rather than an alleged hunger for money.
'A trapped man dies of thirst long before he would die of hunger.
'Financial "compensation" must remain in its inverted commas. Money cannot buy our families back.
'But there is some genuine compensation to be had from seeing the healing of the enmity between the West and Libya. I thank Saif for providing the opportunity to say this.
'So far as many relatives I know would say, we would gladly repay any "compensation" money if we could just have our loved ones back.'
More on the forthcoming BBC Two programme
The BBC News website has a lengthy article on what the forthcoming BBC Two programme The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie has uncovered. It focuses on (1) the failure of the police to pass on to Abdelbaset Megrahi's defence team information, of which the police were aware, to the effect that the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, had seen a photograph of Megrahi four days before the identification parade at which he pointed him out as resembling the person who had bought in his shop the clothes that were in the suitcase along with the bomb; and (2) comments by Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi to the effect that in the compensation negotiations the relatives of those killed on board Pan Am 103 had been "greedy" and "materialistic". He is also quoted as saying:
"Yes, we wrote a letter to the Security Council saying we are responsible for the acts of our employees... but it doesn't mean that we did it in fact.
"I admit that we played with words - we had to.
"What can you do? Without writing that letter we would not be able to get rid of sanctions."
Reactions from relatives and their US lawyers can be read here.
"Yes, we wrote a letter to the Security Council saying we are responsible for the acts of our employees... but it doesn't mean that we did it in fact.
"I admit that we played with words - we had to.
"What can you do? Without writing that letter we would not be able to get rid of sanctions."
Reactions from relatives and their US lawyers can be read here.
Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Libyan August 2003 "acceptance of responsibility"
I recently discovered that it is quite difficult to find on the internet the text of the Libyan "acceptance of responsibility" for Lockerbie. Here, for ease of reference, is the document:
Letter dated 15 August 2003 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council
I am pleased to inform you that the remaining issues relating to the fulfilment of all Security Council resolutions resulting from the Lockerbie incident have been resolved. I am also pleased to inform you that my country is confident that the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States of America will be confirming this development to you and to members of the Council as well. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has sought to cooperate in good faith throughout the past years to bring about a solution to this matter.
In that context and out of respect for international law and pursuant to the Security Council resolutions, Libya as a sovereign State:
• Has facilitated the bringing to justice of the two suspects charged with the bombing of Pan Am 103 and accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials.
• Has cooperated with the Scottish investigating authorities before and during the trial and pledges to cooperate in good faith with any further requests for information in connection with the Pan Am 103 investigation. Such cooperation would be extended in good faith through the usual channels.
• Has arranged for the payment of appropriate compensation. To that end, a special fund has been established and instructions have already been issued to transmit the necessary sums to an agreed escrow account within a matter of days.
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which during the last two decades has, on numerous occasions, condemned all acts of terrorism in its correspondence to the General Assembly and to the Security Council, reaffirms its commitment to that policy. The following are examples of that policy. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya confirms its support for Security Council resolutions 1373 (2001) which stipulates, according to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, that all States are to “refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts”; that they are to “take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including taking action and sharing information to provide early warning to other States”; that they are to “deny safe haven to any person who finances, plans, supports, or commits terrorist acts”; that they are to “ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice”; and that they are to “afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession, deemed necessary for legal proceedings”.
In that connection, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is committed to be cooperative in the international fight against terrorism. It is also committed to cooperate with efforts to bring to justice those who are suspects.
In addition, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya renews its support for the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism as well as its support for such General Assembly resolutions as resolution 55/158, in which the Assembly “strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed”.
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya continues to endorse the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, which is contained in the annex to General Assembly resolution 49/60. That Declaration stipulates that all States shall “refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in territories of other States, or from acquiescing in or encouraging terrorist activities within their territories directed towards the commission of such acts”. It also stipulates that “those responsible for acts of international terrorism must be brought to justice”.
In line with this forceful denunciation of terrorism in all its forms, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has signed regional conventions and bilateral agreements as well as the twelve international conventions to fight terrorism. It recently reported those steps to the Security Council and pledged to refrain from becoming involved in any acts of terrorism. In particular, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya pledged “not to engage in, attempt, or participate in any way whatever in the organization, financing or commission of terrorist acts or to incite the commission of terrorist acts or support them directly or indirectly; and to prevent its territory from being used for the planning, organization or perpetration of terrorist offences by, inter alia, preventing the illicit entry, sheltering or sojourn of terrorist elements or by receiving, sheltering, training, arming or financing them or by providing them with facilities”(see S/2001/1323). Libya’s report to the Security Council also detailed the specific steps that were taken to implement those pledges.
Suffice it to say that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has pledged itself not only to cooperate in the international fight against terrorism but also to take practical measures to ensure that such cooperation is effective.
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya appreciates the efforts made and the parts played by the Member States of the United Nations, by the Secretary-General and by other entities in bringing about the resolution of this long-standing matter. In expressing such appreciation, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya affirms that it will have fulfilled all Security Council requirements relevant to the Lockerbie incident upon transfer of the necessary sums to the agreed escrow account. It trusts that the Council will agree. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 16 of Council resolution 883 (1993) and paragraph 8 of resolution 1192 (1998), the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya requests that in that event the Council immediately lift the measures set forth in its resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993).
I should be grateful if you would have the present letter circulated as a document of the Security Council.
(Signed) Ahmed A. Own
Ambassador
Chargé d’affaires a.i.
Letter dated 15 August 2003 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council
I am pleased to inform you that the remaining issues relating to the fulfilment of all Security Council resolutions resulting from the Lockerbie incident have been resolved. I am also pleased to inform you that my country is confident that the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States of America will be confirming this development to you and to members of the Council as well. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has sought to cooperate in good faith throughout the past years to bring about a solution to this matter.
In that context and out of respect for international law and pursuant to the Security Council resolutions, Libya as a sovereign State:
• Has facilitated the bringing to justice of the two suspects charged with the bombing of Pan Am 103 and accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials.
• Has cooperated with the Scottish investigating authorities before and during the trial and pledges to cooperate in good faith with any further requests for information in connection with the Pan Am 103 investigation. Such cooperation would be extended in good faith through the usual channels.
• Has arranged for the payment of appropriate compensation. To that end, a special fund has been established and instructions have already been issued to transmit the necessary sums to an agreed escrow account within a matter of days.
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which during the last two decades has, on numerous occasions, condemned all acts of terrorism in its correspondence to the General Assembly and to the Security Council, reaffirms its commitment to that policy. The following are examples of that policy. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya confirms its support for Security Council resolutions 1373 (2001) which stipulates, according to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, that all States are to “refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts”; that they are to “take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including taking action and sharing information to provide early warning to other States”; that they are to “deny safe haven to any person who finances, plans, supports, or commits terrorist acts”; that they are to “ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice”; and that they are to “afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession, deemed necessary for legal proceedings”.
In that connection, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is committed to be cooperative in the international fight against terrorism. It is also committed to cooperate with efforts to bring to justice those who are suspects.
In addition, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya renews its support for the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism as well as its support for such General Assembly resolutions as resolution 55/158, in which the Assembly “strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed”.
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya continues to endorse the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, which is contained in the annex to General Assembly resolution 49/60. That Declaration stipulates that all States shall “refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in territories of other States, or from acquiescing in or encouraging terrorist activities within their territories directed towards the commission of such acts”. It also stipulates that “those responsible for acts of international terrorism must be brought to justice”.
In line with this forceful denunciation of terrorism in all its forms, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has signed regional conventions and bilateral agreements as well as the twelve international conventions to fight terrorism. It recently reported those steps to the Security Council and pledged to refrain from becoming involved in any acts of terrorism. In particular, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya pledged “not to engage in, attempt, or participate in any way whatever in the organization, financing or commission of terrorist acts or to incite the commission of terrorist acts or support them directly or indirectly; and to prevent its territory from being used for the planning, organization or perpetration of terrorist offences by, inter alia, preventing the illicit entry, sheltering or sojourn of terrorist elements or by receiving, sheltering, training, arming or financing them or by providing them with facilities”(see S/2001/1323). Libya’s report to the Security Council also detailed the specific steps that were taken to implement those pledges.
Suffice it to say that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has pledged itself not only to cooperate in the international fight against terrorism but also to take practical measures to ensure that such cooperation is effective.
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya appreciates the efforts made and the parts played by the Member States of the United Nations, by the Secretary-General and by other entities in bringing about the resolution of this long-standing matter. In expressing such appreciation, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya affirms that it will have fulfilled all Security Council requirements relevant to the Lockerbie incident upon transfer of the necessary sums to the agreed escrow account. It trusts that the Council will agree. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 16 of Council resolution 883 (1993) and paragraph 8 of resolution 1192 (1998), the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya requests that in that event the Council immediately lift the measures set forth in its resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993).
I should be grateful if you would have the present letter circulated as a document of the Security Council.
(Signed) Ahmed A. Own
Ambassador
Chargé d’affaires a.i.
Monday, 25 August 2008
The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie
The trailer for this programme, which is to be broadcast on BBC Two on Sunday, 31 August 2008 at 21.00 BST, can be viewed here.
Sunday, 24 August 2008
Lockerbie - Mueller, Thurman, Bollier, Lumpert and a timer
This is the heading over a post dated 23 August on the Terrorism blog. Amongst many other things, it quotes responses from The Herald website to the two Lockerbie letters published there. Once again, however, it contains the false statement that Abdelbaset Megrahi's counsel at Zeist, Bill Taylor QC, has become a sheriff.
Saturday, 23 August 2008
Reaction to the High Court of Justiciary decision
There are two letters in today's issue of The Herald, welcoming the decision of the High Court on the issue of the appellant's access to productions used at the Zeist trial, and the speed with which that decision was arrived at. They are from Dr Jim Swire and Tom Minogue, a long-standing campaigner against injustices perpetrated by the Scottish court system. The letters can be read here. The comments from members of the public which follow the letters are also well worth reading.
Friday, 22 August 2008
English court's robust approach to "national security" non-disclosure claim
Given that the thrust of the Advocate General's submissions to the High Court of Justiciary on the public interest immunity (PII) issue has been to seek to induce the Scottish court to adopt an approach identical to, or more closely in line with, that taken in the English courts, it is instructive to read yesterday's judgement by Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones in the case of Binyam Mohamed (the last UK resident imprisoned at Guantanamo).
The Foreign Secretary in that case contended that although information had been supplied to the US authorities from UK security and intelligence sources about the circumstances of Mr Mohamed's detention and interrogation, that information need not be supplied to the defence team. The basis of the Foreign Secretary's contention was "that disclosure, even on a limited basis ... would seriously prejudice the viability of the United Kingdom's liaison relationships with highly valued partners ... and the importance of keeping secret information received on a confidential basis from informants and liaison intelligence agencies so as to protect the operational effectiveness of the United Kingdom security and intelligence agencies."
This is precisely the basis of the Foreign Secretary's PII certificate in the Lockerbie appeal.
In the Binyam Mohamed case the English court overrode the secrecy claim and ordered disclosure. The full judgement can be read here.
[I am grateful to Big David for drawing my attention to this judgement.]
The Foreign Secretary in that case contended that although information had been supplied to the US authorities from UK security and intelligence sources about the circumstances of Mr Mohamed's detention and interrogation, that information need not be supplied to the defence team. The basis of the Foreign Secretary's contention was "that disclosure, even on a limited basis ... would seriously prejudice the viability of the United Kingdom's liaison relationships with highly valued partners ... and the importance of keeping secret information received on a confidential basis from informants and liaison intelligence agencies so as to protect the operational effectiveness of the United Kingdom security and intelligence agencies."
This is precisely the basis of the Foreign Secretary's PII certificate in the Lockerbie appeal.
In the Binyam Mohamed case the English court overrode the secrecy claim and ordered disclosure. The full judgement can be read here.
[I am grateful to Big David for drawing my attention to this judgement.]
A view from France
The website of the French news agency Alter Info today publishes a lengthy article on the Libyan political scene. It starts with a discussion of the Lockerbie affair and takes the view that Libya was framed. Much weight is given to the recent affidavit by MEBO engineer Ulrich Lumpert relating to the provenance of the fragment of MST-13 circuit board that was such an important link in incriminating Libya and Megahi. The relevant portion of the article reads as follows:
'Après l'attentat de Lockerbie, les USA ont prouvé la culpabilité de la Libye sur le fait qu'un élément de détonateur de fabrication Suisse avait été trouvé sur les lieux. Justement, la Suisse venait de vendre 20 détonateurs de ce modèle à la Libye. Cette dernière était néanmoins parvenue à présenter les 20 détonateurs à des émissaires. Mais "tout concordait". Cette cabale a coûté un libyen innoçent en prison à perpetuité et 2,7 milliards d'US$ d'indemnités aux familles de victimes. 10 millions de dollars à chacune des familles des 270 victimes de l'attentat.
'Coup de théatre, en 2007, un ingénieur Suisse du nom d'Ulrich Lumpert, ex-employé du fabricant des détonateurs, l'entreprise Suisse MEBO, avoue avoir menti et avoir volé le fragment de détonateur et l'avoir "donné" à un des enquêteurs écossais. La CIA a dès lors eu beau jeu de prouver la culpabilité de la Libye. Ce fragment était en fait issu d'un détonateur défectueux mis au rebut, n'ayant pas passé le contrôle qualité. Après "traitement" (après "l'explosion de l'avion") par la CIA, le fragment était difficilement identifiable comme tel. Ce qui a néanmoins été fait par Ulrich Lumpert!
'Ulrich Lumpert, ingénieur Suisse travaillant pour le fabricant des détonateurs à l'époque de l'attentat de Lockerbie, a donc "donné" (pour quel prix? Mystère) la preuve nécessaire à la CIA pour faire accuser la Libye. La CIA avait de bonnes raisons de conspirer contre la Libye, dont le fait que Kadhafi était le héros de la nation africaine parce qu'il visait le développement de l'Union Africaine qui stagnait, minée par les occidentaux. Mais aussi parce que Kadhafi avait eu le talent de joindre une démocratie populaire à une intégration de sa culture musulmane et l'éradication de l'islamisme dans son pays.
'Les USA dépensent des milliards pour rendre les musulmans belliqueux, ce n'est pas pour qu'un Kadhafi calme le jeu.
'L'attentat de Lockerbie, après des mois et des mois d'enquête, personne ne l'avait revendiqué et il n'y avait pas de coupable. Par conséquent, il était librement attribuable à n'importe qui. La Libye, gêneur de première grandeur dans les plans africains de l'occident, dont la "Révolution Verte", pour ne citer que ça, était le coupable idéal. La CIA a monté le dossier de toute pièce et s'est approchée d'Ulrich Lumpert.
'Durant des années la Libye s'est trouvée sous embargo de l'ONU sur exigence des Etats-Unis. Voyant son peuple privé de tous les éléments de première nécessité, nourriture, médicaments, Kadhafi s'est mis à genoux en avouant publiquement "la faute" de la Libye. L'embargo a été partiellement levé. Pour le lever complètement, il a été exigé de Kadhafi qu'il livre les "coupables", deux Libyens qui passaient par là justement ce jour-là et ont été filmés par les caméras de surveillance, et qu'il indemnise les familles.
'Kadhafi n'a pas eu d'autre choix que de s'exécuter. Les "coupables" se sont livrés, courageusement, pour leur pays. Ils sont allés d'eux-même se faire juger en Ecosse. Kadhafi à versé 10 millions de d'USdollars à chaque famille des 270 victimes, soit 2,7 milliards de dollars en tout. Un des libyens a été acquitté. Trop difficile à "prouver" sa culpabilité. L'autre a été condamné à vie alors qu'il est parfaitement innocent (il est toujours en prison en l'occurrence).'
'Après l'attentat de Lockerbie, les USA ont prouvé la culpabilité de la Libye sur le fait qu'un élément de détonateur de fabrication Suisse avait été trouvé sur les lieux. Justement, la Suisse venait de vendre 20 détonateurs de ce modèle à la Libye. Cette dernière était néanmoins parvenue à présenter les 20 détonateurs à des émissaires. Mais "tout concordait". Cette cabale a coûté un libyen innoçent en prison à perpetuité et 2,7 milliards d'US$ d'indemnités aux familles de victimes. 10 millions de dollars à chacune des familles des 270 victimes de l'attentat.
'Coup de théatre, en 2007, un ingénieur Suisse du nom d'Ulrich Lumpert, ex-employé du fabricant des détonateurs, l'entreprise Suisse MEBO, avoue avoir menti et avoir volé le fragment de détonateur et l'avoir "donné" à un des enquêteurs écossais. La CIA a dès lors eu beau jeu de prouver la culpabilité de la Libye. Ce fragment était en fait issu d'un détonateur défectueux mis au rebut, n'ayant pas passé le contrôle qualité. Après "traitement" (après "l'explosion de l'avion") par la CIA, le fragment était difficilement identifiable comme tel. Ce qui a néanmoins été fait par Ulrich Lumpert!
'Ulrich Lumpert, ingénieur Suisse travaillant pour le fabricant des détonateurs à l'époque de l'attentat de Lockerbie, a donc "donné" (pour quel prix? Mystère) la preuve nécessaire à la CIA pour faire accuser la Libye. La CIA avait de bonnes raisons de conspirer contre la Libye, dont le fait que Kadhafi était le héros de la nation africaine parce qu'il visait le développement de l'Union Africaine qui stagnait, minée par les occidentaux. Mais aussi parce que Kadhafi avait eu le talent de joindre une démocratie populaire à une intégration de sa culture musulmane et l'éradication de l'islamisme dans son pays.
'Les USA dépensent des milliards pour rendre les musulmans belliqueux, ce n'est pas pour qu'un Kadhafi calme le jeu.
'L'attentat de Lockerbie, après des mois et des mois d'enquête, personne ne l'avait revendiqué et il n'y avait pas de coupable. Par conséquent, il était librement attribuable à n'importe qui. La Libye, gêneur de première grandeur dans les plans africains de l'occident, dont la "Révolution Verte", pour ne citer que ça, était le coupable idéal. La CIA a monté le dossier de toute pièce et s'est approchée d'Ulrich Lumpert.
'Durant des années la Libye s'est trouvée sous embargo de l'ONU sur exigence des Etats-Unis. Voyant son peuple privé de tous les éléments de première nécessité, nourriture, médicaments, Kadhafi s'est mis à genoux en avouant publiquement "la faute" de la Libye. L'embargo a été partiellement levé. Pour le lever complètement, il a été exigé de Kadhafi qu'il livre les "coupables", deux Libyens qui passaient par là justement ce jour-là et ont été filmés par les caméras de surveillance, et qu'il indemnise les familles.
'Kadhafi n'a pas eu d'autre choix que de s'exécuter. Les "coupables" se sont livrés, courageusement, pour leur pays. Ils sont allés d'eux-même se faire juger en Ecosse. Kadhafi à versé 10 millions de d'USdollars à chaque famille des 270 victimes, soit 2,7 milliards de dollars en tout. Un des libyens a été acquitté. Trop difficile à "prouver" sa culpabilité. L'autre a été condamné à vie alors qu'il est parfaitement innocent (il est toujours en prison en l'occurrence).'
Wednesday, 20 August 2008
Seventh (public) procedural hearing
Today's procedural hearing related to the appellant's two petitions for access to material used at the Zeist trial, or referred to in material used at the trial. In respect of one petition, concerning documents and photographs relevant to the (alleged) identification of Abdelbaset Megrahi by the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, the Crown (represented by Ronnie Clancy QC) intimated that it was no longer opposing the appellant's application to be allowed to show the originals to an expert psychologist. The court accordingly granted the prayer of the petition.
As regards the second petition, relating to the appellant's claim to be allowed access to documents and productions used at the Zeist trial (and to other material referred to in such documents), and to be permitted to subject them to forensic scientific examination, the Crown's opposition was maintained. However, after an adjournment of twenty minutes, the court (Lord Justice General Hamilton, Lords Kingarth and Eassie) granted the prayer of the petition, subject to satisfactory arrangements being agreed between the Crown and the appellant's representatives for the security of the productions during the forensic examination.
The fact that the court, without reserving judgement, granted the application makes it unnecessary for me to try to explain the convoluted grounds on which the Crown opposed the application. This is something that (despite having taken ten pages of notes during the hearing) I would have found it difficult to do for a (predominantly) lay readership. Perhaps the most important aspect of today's hearing is the ease and speed with which the court dismissed the Crown's submissions and granted the appellant's requests.
[For some light relief, why not glance at this piece from Radar?]
As regards the second petition, relating to the appellant's claim to be allowed access to documents and productions used at the Zeist trial (and to other material referred to in such documents), and to be permitted to subject them to forensic scientific examination, the Crown's opposition was maintained. However, after an adjournment of twenty minutes, the court (Lord Justice General Hamilton, Lords Kingarth and Eassie) granted the prayer of the petition, subject to satisfactory arrangements being agreed between the Crown and the appellant's representatives for the security of the productions during the forensic examination.
The fact that the court, without reserving judgement, granted the application makes it unnecessary for me to try to explain the convoluted grounds on which the Crown opposed the application. This is something that (despite having taken ten pages of notes during the hearing) I would have found it difficult to do for a (predominantly) lay readership. Perhaps the most important aspect of today's hearing is the ease and speed with which the court dismissed the Crown's submissions and granted the appellant's requests.
[For some light relief, why not glance at this piece from Radar?]
The Scottish press and the closed hearing
Only The Herald has a report, by Lucy Adams, on the PII hearing that took place yesterday behind closed doors and in the absence of Abdelbaset Megrahi's legal representatives. The Scotsman ("Scotland's National Newspaper") does not regard the issue as worthy of attention.
The article in The Herald (like yesterday's BBC report) says that what the judges have to decide is 'whether Megrahi can still get a fair appeal hearing without access to the secret papers.' This is inaccurate. The true position is as stated on this blog on 25 May 2008:
'As a distinguished Scottish judge said in 1968 in a case in the House of Lords: “It is universally recognised that there are two kinds of public interest which may clash. There is the public interest that harm shall not be done to the nation or the public service by disclosure of certain documents, and there is the public interest that the administration of justice shall not be frustrated by the withholding of documents which must be produced if justice is to be done.”
'What the court has to do is to assess the harm, if any, that would be done to the national interest through disclosure, and weigh that against the harm that would be done to the administration of justice (eg the likelihood, or the possibility, that an unjustified conviction might be upheld) if disclosure were denied. In this balancing exercise, the court must consider what aspects of the UK’s national interest would be harmed by disclosure (eg national security; relations with friendly foreign governments) and what the extent and gravity of that harm would be. Before the Government’s PII claim can succeed, this potential harm must outweigh the public interest in (and the European Convention on Human Rights requirement of) the fairness of criminal proceedings, which involves an accused person’s having access to all relevant material that might assist his defence.
'In the past, PII claims have been relatively frequently been upheld in civil cases, but only rarely upheld in criminal cases, where the liberty of the accused person is at stake. And given that the document in question was already in the hands of the Crown at the time of the Lockerbie trial in 2000, I suspect that the court will take some convincing that serious harm would be done to the UK’s national interest by its disclosure today, some eight years later.'
The Herald also publishes a letter on the matter from Dr Jim Swire. It reads in part:
'No matter what the content of the document(s) may be, and they may for all we know be quite trivial, the principle that there be "equality of arms" between the prosecution and defence in a criminal case is fundamental to a fair trial/appeal.
'Justice and truth could not be provided by any system where the political executive intervenes in the fair distribution of information between the prosecution and defence. Nor could the Scottish public have faith in such a system. One of the vital functions of any free country's judicial system is to ensure, free from interference by the executive, that the individual can rely upon it to decide issues where that political executive is alleged to have acted unfairly in disadvantaging that individual. It is against that background that I commend the letter from Professor Hans Koechler, the UN international observer at the Camp Zeist trial of Megrahi, to Mr Miliband in which he writes: "Many who, like myself, initially trusted in the integrity of the judicial process under Scots law, will feel betrayed. There is no justice without truth - and there can be no truth if evidence is withheld in a criminal case by governmental decree."
'Like the professor, I do not believe that a meaningful and fair further appeal could be held under the Scottish criminal justice system, should the High Court today decide against sharing this information with the [appellant]'s defence team.'
The article in The Herald (like yesterday's BBC report) says that what the judges have to decide is 'whether Megrahi can still get a fair appeal hearing without access to the secret papers.' This is inaccurate. The true position is as stated on this blog on 25 May 2008:
'As a distinguished Scottish judge said in 1968 in a case in the House of Lords: “It is universally recognised that there are two kinds of public interest which may clash. There is the public interest that harm shall not be done to the nation or the public service by disclosure of certain documents, and there is the public interest that the administration of justice shall not be frustrated by the withholding of documents which must be produced if justice is to be done.”
'What the court has to do is to assess the harm, if any, that would be done to the national interest through disclosure, and weigh that against the harm that would be done to the administration of justice (eg the likelihood, or the possibility, that an unjustified conviction might be upheld) if disclosure were denied. In this balancing exercise, the court must consider what aspects of the UK’s national interest would be harmed by disclosure (eg national security; relations with friendly foreign governments) and what the extent and gravity of that harm would be. Before the Government’s PII claim can succeed, this potential harm must outweigh the public interest in (and the European Convention on Human Rights requirement of) the fairness of criminal proceedings, which involves an accused person’s having access to all relevant material that might assist his defence.
'In the past, PII claims have been relatively frequently been upheld in civil cases, but only rarely upheld in criminal cases, where the liberty of the accused person is at stake. And given that the document in question was already in the hands of the Crown at the time of the Lockerbie trial in 2000, I suspect that the court will take some convincing that serious harm would be done to the UK’s national interest by its disclosure today, some eight years later.'
The Herald also publishes a letter on the matter from Dr Jim Swire. It reads in part:
'No matter what the content of the document(s) may be, and they may for all we know be quite trivial, the principle that there be "equality of arms" between the prosecution and defence in a criminal case is fundamental to a fair trial/appeal.
'Justice and truth could not be provided by any system where the political executive intervenes in the fair distribution of information between the prosecution and defence. Nor could the Scottish public have faith in such a system. One of the vital functions of any free country's judicial system is to ensure, free from interference by the executive, that the individual can rely upon it to decide issues where that political executive is alleged to have acted unfairly in disadvantaging that individual. It is against that background that I commend the letter from Professor Hans Koechler, the UN international observer at the Camp Zeist trial of Megrahi, to Mr Miliband in which he writes: "Many who, like myself, initially trusted in the integrity of the judicial process under Scots law, will feel betrayed. There is no justice without truth - and there can be no truth if evidence is withheld in a criminal case by governmental decree."
'Like the professor, I do not believe that a meaningful and fair further appeal could be held under the Scottish criminal justice system, should the High Court today decide against sharing this information with the [appellant]'s defence team.'
Tuesday, 19 August 2008
What happened at the closed hearing?
Here is what the BBC News website says about today's closed hearing:
'Legal debate has taken place behind closed doors to try to resolve a long-running row over secret documents linked to the Lockerbie bombing appeal.
'The man convicted of the atrocity, Abdelbasset al Megrahi, 56, believes they could help to clear him.
'UK Foreign secretary David Miliband said handing them to defence lawyers would put national security at risk.
'Judges now have to decide whether Megrahi can get a fair appeal hearing without access to the papers. [RB: No, this is not correct. What the judges have to decide is whether to override the Foreign Secretary's PII certificate and order the documents to be handed over, in whole or in part, to the lawyers representing Megrahi or (and this would be an entirely new departure in Scottish criminal proceedings) to special -- security-vetted -- counsel.]
'Scotland's top judge, Lord Hamilton, sitting with Lords Kingarth and Eassie, will make a ruling on the matter.
'It is the first time the Scottish courts have had to deal with such a question.
'Megrahi is currently serving a life sentence for the 1988 bombing, in which 270 people died.
'He has already lost one appeal against conviction, but the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission said he should have another.
'It has seen the secret documents and said they should have been shown to defence lawyers before Megrahi's trial.'
'Legal debate has taken place behind closed doors to try to resolve a long-running row over secret documents linked to the Lockerbie bombing appeal.
'The man convicted of the atrocity, Abdelbasset al Megrahi, 56, believes they could help to clear him.
'UK Foreign secretary David Miliband said handing them to defence lawyers would put national security at risk.
'Judges now have to decide whether Megrahi can get a fair appeal hearing without access to the papers. [RB: No, this is not correct. What the judges have to decide is whether to override the Foreign Secretary's PII certificate and order the documents to be handed over, in whole or in part, to the lawyers representing Megrahi or (and this would be an entirely new departure in Scottish criminal proceedings) to special -- security-vetted -- counsel.]
'Scotland's top judge, Lord Hamilton, sitting with Lords Kingarth and Eassie, will make a ruling on the matter.
'It is the first time the Scottish courts have had to deal with such a question.
'Megrahi is currently serving a life sentence for the 1988 bombing, in which 270 people died.
'He has already lost one appeal against conviction, but the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission said he should have another.
'It has seen the secret documents and said they should have been shown to defence lawyers before Megrahi's trial.'
Monday, 18 August 2008
This week's court hearings
On Tuesday, 19 August a closed hearing will be held on whether the UK Government's claim of public interest immunity should be upheld and, if so, to what extent. As well as the public, Abdelbaset Megrahi and his lawyers are excluded from this hearing. As I wrote on this blog on 16 July: "This is the very first time of which I am aware in Scottish legal history that a hearing has been convened in a criminal appeal from which the appellant and his legal representatives have been excluded. It should also be the last."
On Wednesday, 20 August there will be a public procedural hearing on the petition lodged by Megrahi's legal representatives for an order according them access to the original trial productions which, contrary to established practice, the Crown has been denying them. It is to be hoped that there will also be an indication of the outcome of the earlier debate on the scope of the current appeal, ie whether it should be confined to the issues on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that there might have been a miscarriage of justice.
On Wednesday, 20 August there will be a public procedural hearing on the petition lodged by Megrahi's legal representatives for an order according them access to the original trial productions which, contrary to established practice, the Crown has been denying them. It is to be hoped that there will also be an indication of the outcome of the earlier debate on the scope of the current appeal, ie whether it should be confined to the issues on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that there might have been a miscarriage of justice.
Saturday, 16 August 2008
Oliver Miles on the compensation agreement
The website of The Guardian has an article on the implications of the US-Libyan compensation agreement by Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Tripoli and a former president of the Society for Libyan Studies. The article, unlike many, recognises that the conviction of the one Libyan found guilty of involvement in the Lockerbie atrocity has been referred back to the Criminal Appeal Court by the SCCRC on the basis that it may have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The article can be read here.
And here, from the Tripoli Post, is a Libyan perspective.
And here, from the Tripoli Post, is a Libyan perspective.
From the horse's mouth
The transcript of the press briefing given by David Welch, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, on his return from Tripoli after concluding the compensation agreement with the Libyan Government, can be read here.
Friday, 15 August 2008
Yet more ...
The following is from the CNN website:
'The pact, supported by the victims' families, closes the book on a contentious period in U.S.-Libyan relations. Ties between the two countries began to improve in 2003, when Libya gave up its weapons of mass destruction program and began compensating Lockerbie victims.
'But lingering lawsuits prevented the two countries from fully normalizing ties. A joint U.S.-Libya statement issued Thursday in Tripoli said "both parties welcomed the establishment of a process to provide fair compensation for their respective nationals, and thereby turn their focus to the future of their bilateral relationship." ...
'The State Department said the "agreement is being pursued on a purely humanitarian basis and does not constitute an admission of fault by either party."
'Senior State Department officials said the formula was designed to respect Libyan sensitivities about compensating victims for incidents for which it hasn't taken responsibility.
'But it also allows Libya to settle outstanding claims for U.S. air strikes on Tripoli in 1986, in which Libya claims more than 40 of its citizens were killed, including Gadhafi's adopted daughter.
'Donations to settle Libyan claims would be placed in the "voluntary" fund, from which each country involved in the claims draws the money to pay its citizens.
'Welch said no U.S. taxpayer money would be used to compensate Libya but said he was "optimistic" donations to settle Libyan claims would be made. Other senior U.S. officials said American companies eager to do business in Libya could possibly make a contribution.
'The deal is to be followed by a U.S. upgrading of relations with Libya, including the confirmation of a U.S. ambassador and possible American aid. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to visit Libya before the end of the year.'
'The pact, supported by the victims' families, closes the book on a contentious period in U.S.-Libyan relations. Ties between the two countries began to improve in 2003, when Libya gave up its weapons of mass destruction program and began compensating Lockerbie victims.
'But lingering lawsuits prevented the two countries from fully normalizing ties. A joint U.S.-Libya statement issued Thursday in Tripoli said "both parties welcomed the establishment of a process to provide fair compensation for their respective nationals, and thereby turn their focus to the future of their bilateral relationship." ...
'The State Department said the "agreement is being pursued on a purely humanitarian basis and does not constitute an admission of fault by either party."
'Senior State Department officials said the formula was designed to respect Libyan sensitivities about compensating victims for incidents for which it hasn't taken responsibility.
'But it also allows Libya to settle outstanding claims for U.S. air strikes on Tripoli in 1986, in which Libya claims more than 40 of its citizens were killed, including Gadhafi's adopted daughter.
'Donations to settle Libyan claims would be placed in the "voluntary" fund, from which each country involved in the claims draws the money to pay its citizens.
'Welch said no U.S. taxpayer money would be used to compensate Libya but said he was "optimistic" donations to settle Libyan claims would be made. Other senior U.S. officials said American companies eager to do business in Libya could possibly make a contribution.
'The deal is to be followed by a U.S. upgrading of relations with Libya, including the confirmation of a U.S. ambassador and possible American aid. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to visit Libya before the end of the year.'
More on the US-Libya compensation agreement
The Herald's coverage of the compensation agreement signed yesterday in Tripoli can be read here.
The website of the other Scottish daily "heavy", The Scotsman, which advertises itself as "Scotland's National Newspaper", does not run the story.
The website of the other Scottish daily "heavy", The Scotsman, which advertises itself as "Scotland's National Newspaper", does not run the story.
Thursday, 14 August 2008
Libya, US settle all terror-related lawsuits
The following is from Associated Press news agency:
'Libya and the United States settled all outstanding lawsuits by American victims of terrorism on Thursday, clearing the way for the full restoration of diplomatic relations.
'There were 26 pending lawsuits filed by American citizens against Libya for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and other attacks, said a senior Libyan government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the details of the deal had not been publicly announced.
'He said there were also three outstanding lawsuits filed by Libyan citizens for U.S. airstrikes on Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986 that Libyans say killed 41 people, including leader Moammar Gadhafi's adopted daughter.
'The settlement completes a nearly five-year effort to rebuild ties between the two countries.
'The agreement will be followed by a U.S. upgrading of relations with Libya including the opening of an embassy in Tripoli, the confirmation of a U.S. ambassador and a visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice before the end of the year. It will also allow direct U.S. aid.
'The deal also gives immunity to the Libyan government from any further terror-related lawsuits, the Libyan government official said.
'The U.S. had no diplomatic relations with Libya from 1980 until late 2003, when Gadhafi pledged to abandon his weapons of mass destruction programs, stop exporting terrorism and compensate the families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing and other attacks.
'After that, the nation that once was a global pariah was given a reprieve from U.N., U.S. and European sanctions, removed from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism and allowed a seat on the U.N. Security Council.
'The last hurdle was over compensation for Americans harmed in Libyan-sponsored attacks, including the Lockerbie attack and the 1986 bombing of La Belle discotheque in Berlin, which killed two American soldiers. The disco attack prompted former President Reagan to order the 1986 airstrikes on Libya.
'Libya has paid the 268 families involved in the Pan Am settlement $8 million each, but was withholding an additional $2 million it owed each of them because of a dispute over U.S. obligations in return.
'The main Libyan lawsuit was filed by 45 families of those killed in the 1986 airstrikes. There are two other cases pending related to other incidents.
'International institutions and foreign companies operating in Libya — including some American firms — will contribute to a fund to compensate the American and Libyan claimants, the Libyan government official said.
'The top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East, David Welch, signed the deal with Ahmed al-Fatouri, head of America affairs in Libya's Foreign Ministry, in a ceremony before reporters and members of both delegations.
'"We went through a long path of negotiations until we reached this agreement," al-Fatouri said just before the signing. "It opens new horizons for relations based on mutual respect. ... The agreement turns the page on the negative past forever."
'Welch called the deal a "historic agreement" and said he delivered a letter from President Bush to Gadhafi.'
A later edition can be read here. The BBC News website's report can be read here.
It is noteworthy that Patrick Haseldine's comments on this blog to the effect that the talks were to cover Libyan as well as US claims (something that Western press reports failed to make clear) have been vindicated.
'Libya and the United States settled all outstanding lawsuits by American victims of terrorism on Thursday, clearing the way for the full restoration of diplomatic relations.
'There were 26 pending lawsuits filed by American citizens against Libya for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and other attacks, said a senior Libyan government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the details of the deal had not been publicly announced.
'He said there were also three outstanding lawsuits filed by Libyan citizens for U.S. airstrikes on Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986 that Libyans say killed 41 people, including leader Moammar Gadhafi's adopted daughter.
'The settlement completes a nearly five-year effort to rebuild ties between the two countries.
'The agreement will be followed by a U.S. upgrading of relations with Libya including the opening of an embassy in Tripoli, the confirmation of a U.S. ambassador and a visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice before the end of the year. It will also allow direct U.S. aid.
'The deal also gives immunity to the Libyan government from any further terror-related lawsuits, the Libyan government official said.
'The U.S. had no diplomatic relations with Libya from 1980 until late 2003, when Gadhafi pledged to abandon his weapons of mass destruction programs, stop exporting terrorism and compensate the families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing and other attacks.
'After that, the nation that once was a global pariah was given a reprieve from U.N., U.S. and European sanctions, removed from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism and allowed a seat on the U.N. Security Council.
'The last hurdle was over compensation for Americans harmed in Libyan-sponsored attacks, including the Lockerbie attack and the 1986 bombing of La Belle discotheque in Berlin, which killed two American soldiers. The disco attack prompted former President Reagan to order the 1986 airstrikes on Libya.
'Libya has paid the 268 families involved in the Pan Am settlement $8 million each, but was withholding an additional $2 million it owed each of them because of a dispute over U.S. obligations in return.
'The main Libyan lawsuit was filed by 45 families of those killed in the 1986 airstrikes. There are two other cases pending related to other incidents.
'International institutions and foreign companies operating in Libya — including some American firms — will contribute to a fund to compensate the American and Libyan claimants, the Libyan government official said.
'The top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East, David Welch, signed the deal with Ahmed al-Fatouri, head of America affairs in Libya's Foreign Ministry, in a ceremony before reporters and members of both delegations.
'"We went through a long path of negotiations until we reached this agreement," al-Fatouri said just before the signing. "It opens new horizons for relations based on mutual respect. ... The agreement turns the page on the negative past forever."
'Welch called the deal a "historic agreement" and said he delivered a letter from President Bush to Gadhafi.'
A later edition can be read here. The BBC News website's report can be read here.
It is noteworthy that Patrick Haseldine's comments on this blog to the effect that the talks were to cover Libyan as well as US claims (something that Western press reports failed to make clear) have been vindicated.
US and Libya close to resuming full ties: diplomat
The following update on the talks in Tripoli is from AFP:
'Libya and the United States are close to a deal that would see compensation paid for US victims of Libyan attacks and a full normalisation of diplomatic ties, an American official said in an interview published Thursday.
'"We hope we will (soon) conclude discussions on the deal between the two governments," US assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs David Welch told the daily Asharq al-Awsat newspaper.
'"If we manage to conclude this matter, we will be in a situation that will allow a complete normalisation of relations with Libya," he added.
'Welch arrived in Tripoli on Wednesday to hold final discussions ahead of the inking of a far-reaching agreement that will see a fund being set up to compensate US victims of Libyan-sponsored attacks.
'Both US houses of Congress have passed a bill that grants Libya immunity from lawsuits once compensation has been paid through the fund.
'US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after the bill was passed on August 1 that she looked forward to further improvements in ties with the north African state.
'Libyan newspaper Oya said last month that Tripoli and Washington had resumed talks in Abu Dhabi on fully compensating the relatives of US victims of Libyan attacks as well as Libyan victims of US air raids.
'Washington wants Tripoli to fully compensate families of the victims of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am Flight over Lockerbie, Scotland that killed 270 people, and a Berlin disco bombing that killed two Americans.
'US-Libyan relations were restored in early 2004 after more than two decades after Libya's leader, Colonel Moamer Kadhafi, announced that Tripoli was abandoning efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
'In 2006, the United States announced a full normalisation of ties, dropping Libya from a State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism and raising diplomatic relations to the level of ambassadors.
'However, the appointment of a US ambassador to Tripoli as well as approval of funds for a new embassy have been held up in the Senate. Rice has also said she wants to visit Tripoli, but has not yet done so.'
'Libya and the United States are close to a deal that would see compensation paid for US victims of Libyan attacks and a full normalisation of diplomatic ties, an American official said in an interview published Thursday.
'"We hope we will (soon) conclude discussions on the deal between the two governments," US assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs David Welch told the daily Asharq al-Awsat newspaper.
'"If we manage to conclude this matter, we will be in a situation that will allow a complete normalisation of relations with Libya," he added.
'Welch arrived in Tripoli on Wednesday to hold final discussions ahead of the inking of a far-reaching agreement that will see a fund being set up to compensate US victims of Libyan-sponsored attacks.
'Both US houses of Congress have passed a bill that grants Libya immunity from lawsuits once compensation has been paid through the fund.
'US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after the bill was passed on August 1 that she looked forward to further improvements in ties with the north African state.
'Libyan newspaper Oya said last month that Tripoli and Washington had resumed talks in Abu Dhabi on fully compensating the relatives of US victims of Libyan attacks as well as Libyan victims of US air raids.
'Washington wants Tripoli to fully compensate families of the victims of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am Flight over Lockerbie, Scotland that killed 270 people, and a Berlin disco bombing that killed two Americans.
'US-Libyan relations were restored in early 2004 after more than two decades after Libya's leader, Colonel Moamer Kadhafi, announced that Tripoli was abandoning efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
'In 2006, the United States announced a full normalisation of ties, dropping Libya from a State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism and raising diplomatic relations to the level of ambassadors.
'However, the appointment of a US ambassador to Tripoli as well as approval of funds for a new embassy have been held up in the Senate. Rice has also said she wants to visit Tripoli, but has not yet done so.'
Wednesday, 13 August 2008
US official in Libya for attack compensation talks
Following the passage by the Congress of the United States of the Libyan Claims Resolution Act and its signing by President Bush, it appears that an Assistant Secretary of State is in Tripoli for negotiations about payment by Libya into the compensation fund. The following is from AFP (Agence France Presse) and Middle East Online:
'A top US diplomat arrived in Tripoli on Wednesday for what the local press said were talks aimed at securing compensation for US victims of Libyan attacks.
'The visit by assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs David Welch came after both US houses of Congress passed a bill to set up a fund for Libya to compensate US victims of Libyan-sponsored attacks and granting it immunity from lawsuits once compensation has been paid.
'US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after the bill was passed on August 1 that she looked forward to further improvements in ties with the north African state.
'Libyan newspaper Oya said last month that Tripoli and Washington had resumed talks in Abu Dhabi on fully compensating the relatives of US victims of Libyan attacks as well as Libyan victims of US air raids.
'Washington wants Tripoli to fully compensate families of the victims of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am Flight over Lockerbie, Scotland that killed 270 people, and a Berlin disco bombing that killed two Americans.
'US-Libyan relations were restored in early 2004 after more than two decades after Libya's leader, Colonel Moamer Kadhafi, announced that Tripoli was abandoning efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
'In 2006, the United States announced a full normalisation of ties, dropping Libya from a State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism and raising diplomatic relations to the level of ambassadors.
'However, the appointment of a US ambassador to Tripoli as well as approval of funds for a new embassy have been held up in the Senate. Rice has also said she wants to visit Tripoli, but has not yet done so.
'State Department officials declined to link removing the final diplomatic snags to a settlement of the compensation issue.'
'A top US diplomat arrived in Tripoli on Wednesday for what the local press said were talks aimed at securing compensation for US victims of Libyan attacks.
'The visit by assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs David Welch came after both US houses of Congress passed a bill to set up a fund for Libya to compensate US victims of Libyan-sponsored attacks and granting it immunity from lawsuits once compensation has been paid.
'US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after the bill was passed on August 1 that she looked forward to further improvements in ties with the north African state.
'Libyan newspaper Oya said last month that Tripoli and Washington had resumed talks in Abu Dhabi on fully compensating the relatives of US victims of Libyan attacks as well as Libyan victims of US air raids.
'Washington wants Tripoli to fully compensate families of the victims of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am Flight over Lockerbie, Scotland that killed 270 people, and a Berlin disco bombing that killed two Americans.
'US-Libyan relations were restored in early 2004 after more than two decades after Libya's leader, Colonel Moamer Kadhafi, announced that Tripoli was abandoning efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
'In 2006, the United States announced a full normalisation of ties, dropping Libya from a State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism and raising diplomatic relations to the level of ambassadors.
'However, the appointment of a US ambassador to Tripoli as well as approval of funds for a new embassy have been held up in the Senate. Rice has also said she wants to visit Tripoli, but has not yet done so.
'State Department officials declined to link removing the final diplomatic snags to a settlement of the compensation issue.'
Sunday, 10 August 2008
Patrick Haseldine on US-Libya compensation agreement
I am grateful to Patrick Haseldine for allowing me to reproduce here the text of an e-mail that he sent to me today:
'A week ago, President Bush signed off the Libyan Claims Resolution Act (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4462187.ece).
'A fortnight ago, the Libyan leader's son Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi publicly confirmed that a comprehensive agreement with the United States over further payments of compensation for past bombing incidents for which Libya has been blamed (April 1986 Berlin discotheque, December 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 and September 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombings) was close to being concluded. However, Saif al-Islam was insistent that the United States should first compensate Libya for the June 1986 bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi: "We offered the United States a comprehensive deal putting all the cases in one package but we want them to compensate the Libyan victims of the U.S. strike. This is our condition and they must satisfy it" (see http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080724/wl_nm/libya_italy_compensation_dc).
'It would be wrong to regard this Libyan demand for compensation as something new or simply the latest negotiating tactic. Giving evidence in a 2002 legal action against The Daily Telegraph, Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi recounted a terrifying event that took place in his youth:
'"One of the worst times in my family's life together was the United States bombing raid on Tripoli and Benghazi (the two biggest cities in Libya) in 1986. I was only 14 at the time and my family were all together in our home in Tripoli. One night, without any warning, the bombers came and, for five minutes, rained rockets down on us. I was woken up by loud crashing sounds and explosions, it was absolutely terrifying. Our house had been directly hit. I knew that we had to go to a shelter which had been built within the house. Sadly, some of my brothers and sisters were too young to know what to do, and they became trapped in one part of the house when a corridor collapsed. They were stuck there until the rescue services arrived, and, when we dug them out we found that Hannah, my youngest sister, had died. She was just four years old" (see http://www.libya-watanona.com/news/n21aug2a.htm).
'It was claimed that the U.S. air strike killed at least 40 people in Libya, and injured 220. As recently as 3 August 2008, it was revealed that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had been forewarned of the attack in a telephone call from Malta's Prime Minister, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici. When Gaddafi heard that unauthorised aircraft were flying over Maltese airspace heading south towards Tripoli, he rushed out of the family residence in the Bab al Aziziya compound moments before the bombs dropped, and escaped injury (see http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/08/03/t8.html).
'The Libyan claim for compensation might not be limited just to the United States but could perhaps be extended to the United Kingdom. This is because Margaret Thatcher's government authorised the use of RAF Lakenheath and RAF Upper Heyford for the bombing raid by the USAF's 22 strike aircraft. France, which denied the USAF overflying rights, could also put in a compensation claim because the French embassy in Tripoli was seriously damaged by a precision-guided bomb which "missed" its intended target!'
This item was reproduced by Mathaba News Network on 12 August 2008.
'A week ago, President Bush signed off the Libyan Claims Resolution Act (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4462187.ece).
'A fortnight ago, the Libyan leader's son Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi publicly confirmed that a comprehensive agreement with the United States over further payments of compensation for past bombing incidents for which Libya has been blamed (April 1986 Berlin discotheque, December 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 and September 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombings) was close to being concluded. However, Saif al-Islam was insistent that the United States should first compensate Libya for the June 1986 bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi: "We offered the United States a comprehensive deal putting all the cases in one package but we want them to compensate the Libyan victims of the U.S. strike. This is our condition and they must satisfy it" (see http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080724/wl_nm/libya_italy_compensation_dc).
'It would be wrong to regard this Libyan demand for compensation as something new or simply the latest negotiating tactic. Giving evidence in a 2002 legal action against The Daily Telegraph, Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi recounted a terrifying event that took place in his youth:
'"One of the worst times in my family's life together was the United States bombing raid on Tripoli and Benghazi (the two biggest cities in Libya) in 1986. I was only 14 at the time and my family were all together in our home in Tripoli. One night, without any warning, the bombers came and, for five minutes, rained rockets down on us. I was woken up by loud crashing sounds and explosions, it was absolutely terrifying. Our house had been directly hit. I knew that we had to go to a shelter which had been built within the house. Sadly, some of my brothers and sisters were too young to know what to do, and they became trapped in one part of the house when a corridor collapsed. They were stuck there until the rescue services arrived, and, when we dug them out we found that Hannah, my youngest sister, had died. She was just four years old" (see http://www.libya-watanona.com/news/n21aug2a.htm).
'It was claimed that the U.S. air strike killed at least 40 people in Libya, and injured 220. As recently as 3 August 2008, it was revealed that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had been forewarned of the attack in a telephone call from Malta's Prime Minister, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici. When Gaddafi heard that unauthorised aircraft were flying over Maltese airspace heading south towards Tripoli, he rushed out of the family residence in the Bab al Aziziya compound moments before the bombs dropped, and escaped injury (see http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/08/03/t8.html).
'The Libyan claim for compensation might not be limited just to the United States but could perhaps be extended to the United Kingdom. This is because Margaret Thatcher's government authorised the use of RAF Lakenheath and RAF Upper Heyford for the bombing raid by the USAF's 22 strike aircraft. France, which denied the USAF overflying rights, could also put in a compensation claim because the French embassy in Tripoli was seriously damaged by a precision-guided bomb which "missed" its intended target!'
This item was reproduced by Mathaba News Network on 12 August 2008.
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
The USS Vincennes affair
The following comes from Ed's Blog City:
'In the midst of the continuing appeal by the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and the approaching Pan Am 103 Lockerbie 20 year anniversary, there was another painful anniversary marked last month. July 3rd marked two decades since Iran Airbus 655, carrying 290 civilians was downed over the Persian Gulf by an American warship and relatives of those killed gathered at Bandar Abbas to commemorate them.
'Many believe, contrary to the official line taken by the US and UK government's, that this particular event in July 1988 led directly to the attack on the Pan Am flight just before Christmas in 1988.
'The US, despite paying compsenation to the Iranian victims families, has never apoligised for the incident and in fact still to this day seems reluctant to show any remorse for the attack, wiping all recollection of the atrocity from memory.
'In a daily press briefing on July 2, 2008, the following set of questions and answers took place between an unidentified reporter and Department of State Spokesman Sean McCormack:
'QUESTION: Tomorrow marks the 20 years since the U.S. Navy warship Vincennes gunned down the IR655 civilian airliner, killing all 300 people on board, 71 of whom were children. And while the United States Government settled the incident in the International Court of Justice in 1996 at $61.1 million in compensation to the families, they, till this day, refuse to apologize...
'MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.
'QUESTION: – as requested by the Iranian Government. And actually, officials in the Iranian Government said today that they’re planning on a commemoration tomorrow and it would, you know, show a sign of diplomatic reconciliation if the United States apologized for this incident.
'MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.
'QUESTION: Do you think it sends a positive message if, on the 20th anniversary of this incident, the United States Government apologize?
'MR. MCCORMACK: You know, to be honest with you, I’ll have to look back and see the history of what we have said about this – about the issue. I honestly don’t know. Look, nobody wants to see – everybody mourns innocent life lost. But in terms of our official U.S. Government response to it, I can’t – I have to confess to you, I don’t know the history of it. I’d be happy to post you an answer over to your question.'
And the following, from the same blog, comes from Wiredispatch:
'Some 300 relatives of victims as well as artists and officials sailed from the southern port city of Bandar Abbas to the spot where the Iran Air Airbus A300 crashed into the water on July 3, 1988, killing all on board.
'The USS Vincennes shot down the airliner shortly after it took off from Bandar Abbas for Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Washington said the Vincennes mistook the airliner for a hostile Iranian fighter jet. Iran maintains it was a deliberate attack.
'In recent years, as tensions with the U.S. have increased, the anniversary has become an annual outpouring of anger at America, and it has drawn wider coverage in state media.
'Participants shouted "Death to America" and "We condemn U.S. state terrorism" as helicopters showered flowers on the crash site.
'"This crime will remain a disgraceful blot on the forehead of the United States (government). We are here today to say we will never forget the horrendous crime Americans committed against civilians," said Roya Teimourian, an Iranian actress.
'The participants released 66 white pigeons into the air in remembrance of the 66 children killed in the attack. Relatives of the victims tossed flowers into the water while a navy band played the Iranian national anthem and the song "Death to America."
'"How could a sophisticated warship like the USS Vincennes have mistaken a passenger plane for a fighter jet, which is two-thirds smaller?" said Mehdi Amini-Joz, who lost his father in the attack.
'Ali Reza Tangsiri, a military official, said the incident was a deliberate attack.
'"The airliner was increasing its altitude and was flying a commercial route. The Airbus has a general frequency which shows it is a nonmilitary plane. ... It was deliberately targeted by two missiles from the Vincennes," he said.
'Iran has called for the commander of USS Vincennes at the time, William C. Rogers III, to be brought to trial. In 1990, then-U.S. President George H. W. Bush awarded Rogers the Legion of Merit for his service as a commanding officer.
'Iran has said it received $130 million from a 1996 settlement that included compensation for families of the victims.'
'In the midst of the continuing appeal by the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and the approaching Pan Am 103 Lockerbie 20 year anniversary, there was another painful anniversary marked last month. July 3rd marked two decades since Iran Airbus 655, carrying 290 civilians was downed over the Persian Gulf by an American warship and relatives of those killed gathered at Bandar Abbas to commemorate them.
'Many believe, contrary to the official line taken by the US and UK government's, that this particular event in July 1988 led directly to the attack on the Pan Am flight just before Christmas in 1988.
'The US, despite paying compsenation to the Iranian victims families, has never apoligised for the incident and in fact still to this day seems reluctant to show any remorse for the attack, wiping all recollection of the atrocity from memory.
'In a daily press briefing on July 2, 2008, the following set of questions and answers took place between an unidentified reporter and Department of State Spokesman Sean McCormack:
'QUESTION: Tomorrow marks the 20 years since the U.S. Navy warship Vincennes gunned down the IR655 civilian airliner, killing all 300 people on board, 71 of whom were children. And while the United States Government settled the incident in the International Court of Justice in 1996 at $61.1 million in compensation to the families, they, till this day, refuse to apologize...
'MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.
'QUESTION: – as requested by the Iranian Government. And actually, officials in the Iranian Government said today that they’re planning on a commemoration tomorrow and it would, you know, show a sign of diplomatic reconciliation if the United States apologized for this incident.
'MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.
'QUESTION: Do you think it sends a positive message if, on the 20th anniversary of this incident, the United States Government apologize?
'MR. MCCORMACK: You know, to be honest with you, I’ll have to look back and see the history of what we have said about this – about the issue. I honestly don’t know. Look, nobody wants to see – everybody mourns innocent life lost. But in terms of our official U.S. Government response to it, I can’t – I have to confess to you, I don’t know the history of it. I’d be happy to post you an answer over to your question.'
And the following, from the same blog, comes from Wiredispatch:
'Some 300 relatives of victims as well as artists and officials sailed from the southern port city of Bandar Abbas to the spot where the Iran Air Airbus A300 crashed into the water on July 3, 1988, killing all on board.
'The USS Vincennes shot down the airliner shortly after it took off from Bandar Abbas for Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Washington said the Vincennes mistook the airliner for a hostile Iranian fighter jet. Iran maintains it was a deliberate attack.
'In recent years, as tensions with the U.S. have increased, the anniversary has become an annual outpouring of anger at America, and it has drawn wider coverage in state media.
'Participants shouted "Death to America" and "We condemn U.S. state terrorism" as helicopters showered flowers on the crash site.
'"This crime will remain a disgraceful blot on the forehead of the United States (government). We are here today to say we will never forget the horrendous crime Americans committed against civilians," said Roya Teimourian, an Iranian actress.
'The participants released 66 white pigeons into the air in remembrance of the 66 children killed in the attack. Relatives of the victims tossed flowers into the water while a navy band played the Iranian national anthem and the song "Death to America."
'"How could a sophisticated warship like the USS Vincennes have mistaken a passenger plane for a fighter jet, which is two-thirds smaller?" said Mehdi Amini-Joz, who lost his father in the attack.
'Ali Reza Tangsiri, a military official, said the incident was a deliberate attack.
'"The airliner was increasing its altitude and was flying a commercial route. The Airbus has a general frequency which shows it is a nonmilitary plane. ... It was deliberately targeted by two missiles from the Vincennes," he said.
'Iran has called for the commander of USS Vincennes at the time, William C. Rogers III, to be brought to trial. In 1990, then-U.S. President George H. W. Bush awarded Rogers the Legion of Merit for his service as a commanding officer.
'Iran has said it received $130 million from a 1996 settlement that included compensation for families of the victims.'
Tuesday, 5 August 2008
Bush signs Libya compensation law
This is the headline over an article today on The Times website. It reads in part:
'President George Bush has signed legislation that paves the way for the US to settle all remaining lawsuits against Libya by American terrorism victims, and paves the way for complete rapprochement between the former rogue state and the US. ...
'The Libyan Claims Resolution Act creates a fund to compensate the victims, and grants Libya immunity from terror-related lawsuits. Under the arrangement, the country would not accept responsibility for the acts but would provide the money to compensate the victims. ...
'The bill will allow the Lockerbie and La Belle victims, who already have settlements with Libya, to recover the full amount they're owed. Libya has paid the 268 families involved in the Pan Am settlement $US8m (£4,065,000) each but it owes them $US2m (£1,016,200) more.'
The separate account on the Jurist website contains useful links to background material and reactions.
Henk Ruyssenaars' commentary can be read on the Storming Heaven's Gates blog.
'President George Bush has signed legislation that paves the way for the US to settle all remaining lawsuits against Libya by American terrorism victims, and paves the way for complete rapprochement between the former rogue state and the US. ...
'The Libyan Claims Resolution Act creates a fund to compensate the victims, and grants Libya immunity from terror-related lawsuits. Under the arrangement, the country would not accept responsibility for the acts but would provide the money to compensate the victims. ...
'The bill will allow the Lockerbie and La Belle victims, who already have settlements with Libya, to recover the full amount they're owed. Libya has paid the 268 families involved in the Pan Am settlement $US8m (£4,065,000) each but it owes them $US2m (£1,016,200) more.'
The separate account on the Jurist website contains useful links to background material and reactions.
Henk Ruyssenaars' commentary can be read on the Storming Heaven's Gates blog.
Friday, 1 August 2008
More from Dr De Braeckeleer
In his most recent article in OhMyNews International (the latest in a multi-part series on the background to the Lockerbie disaster) Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer has this to say:
'Just days after the downing [of Pan Am 103], the Iranian charge d'affaires in Beirut, Hussain Niknam, invited [Ahmed] Jibril at the Iranian Embassy. A few days later, several meetings occurred in Tehran. Among the participants, one finds Mohtashemi-Pur, Jibril and several representatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah.
'According to the minutes of one of these meetings obtained by a German magazine, [Quick] Iran ordered the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 to avenge the shooting down of an Iranian civilian jet by the US Navy in the Persian Gulf. Tehran paid Ahmed Jibril about $1 million in advance to carry out the attack.
'"We had advanced notice. The smoking gun came in July," Former CIA case officer Bob Baer told me earlier this month.
'"We had info that Iranian representatives of the Islamic Revolution Guards have signed an agreement with a Palestinian group to bring down a plane. The investigation data was superb. It couldn't have been better," Baer has said previously.
'Patrick Lang, chief of the US Defense Intelligence Agency's Middle East section at the time, told me that he stands by his statement that "the bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorized and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, the former Iranian minister of interior."
'According to a DIA memo, "the operation was contracted to Ahmad Jibril for $1 million." The remainder was to be paid after successful completion of the mission. (Jibril's organization did receive $10 million on Dec. 23, two days after the bombing of Pan Am 103.)
'Various media have quoted Lang as saying: "I still agree with that. We felt quite sure that this was a PFLP thing." In a recent e-mail, Lang told me that he meant the PFLP-GC -- that is, the group led by Ahmed Jibril. The PFLP is another group.'
The complete article can be read here.
'Just days after the downing [of Pan Am 103], the Iranian charge d'affaires in Beirut, Hussain Niknam, invited [Ahmed] Jibril at the Iranian Embassy. A few days later, several meetings occurred in Tehran. Among the participants, one finds Mohtashemi-Pur, Jibril and several representatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah.
'According to the minutes of one of these meetings obtained by a German magazine, [Quick] Iran ordered the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 to avenge the shooting down of an Iranian civilian jet by the US Navy in the Persian Gulf. Tehran paid Ahmed Jibril about $1 million in advance to carry out the attack.
'"We had advanced notice. The smoking gun came in July," Former CIA case officer Bob Baer told me earlier this month.
'"We had info that Iranian representatives of the Islamic Revolution Guards have signed an agreement with a Palestinian group to bring down a plane. The investigation data was superb. It couldn't have been better," Baer has said previously.
'Patrick Lang, chief of the US Defense Intelligence Agency's Middle East section at the time, told me that he stands by his statement that "the bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorized and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, the former Iranian minister of interior."
'According to a DIA memo, "the operation was contracted to Ahmad Jibril for $1 million." The remainder was to be paid after successful completion of the mission. (Jibril's organization did receive $10 million on Dec. 23, two days after the bombing of Pan Am 103.)
'Various media have quoted Lang as saying: "I still agree with that. We felt quite sure that this was a PFLP thing." In a recent e-mail, Lang told me that he meant the PFLP-GC -- that is, the group led by Ahmed Jibril. The PFLP is another group.'
The complete article can be read here.
Congress passes Libya immunity law
Yesterday both the US Senate and the House of Representatives passed the bill that grants Libya immunity from civil action in respect of past acts of terrorism, subject to Libya's paying around $800m into a fund to compensate those harmed. The bill now goes to President Bush for signature.
The fullest account that I can find is from Bloomberg and can be read here.
In Scotland, The Herald's coverage of the story can be seen here.
The fullest account that I can find is from Bloomberg and can be read here.
In Scotland, The Herald's coverage of the story can be seen here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)