[This is the headline over an exclusive report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. it reads as follows:]
The three judges who convicted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi were under “undue pressure” during the Lockerbie trial it is claimed, despite protestations from the High Court Information Officer Elizabeth Cutting, published today in the New York Times .
The New York Times published a letter from Cutting following earlier reports that had claimed the judges – who had never before been tasked with determining guilt or innocence in their judicial careers, had been placed under pressure to return a guilty verdict.
“I remember talking to one of the judges from the panel that convicted him. He said there was enormous pressure put on the court to get a conviction,” Professor Diedrik Vanderwalle was reported to have said by the New York Times. Today, Cutting’s letter on behalf of the judges attempted to undermine that claim.
“I’m authorized to say that to the best of their knowledge the three deciding judges on the panel — Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean — have never met Mr. Vandewalle,” she said.
“Moreover, they assert that none of them has ever said what Mr Vandewalle reports one of them to have said. They were never under any pressure to return any particular verdict.”
However the Firm has been told exclusively by sources close to Professor Vanderwalle that the crucial information had been passed to him by a member of the Scottish judiciary, not one of the three trial judges, at a conference in London organised by the Royal Institution of International Affairs after the Zeist trial, but before the appeal.
The source told the Firm that “a Scottish judge thought that some of the people involved – not necessarily the three judges in the court itself -- felt there had been a lot of pressure to get this case over and done with.”
The “Scottish judge” said he thought undue pressure was being put on people connected to the trial, and that if it went to appeal “his impression was that there would be some irregularities [revealed] that people would not want to come to light,” the source said.
The identity of the Scottish judge referred to was not disclosed.
Professor Robert Black QC has said publicly that he also believed subtle pressure had been present in the judges’ minds.
"I don’t think for a minute that political pressure of that nature was placed on the judges,” Black said in 2007.
“I think what influenced these judges was that they thought that if both of the Libyans accused are found not guilty, this will be the most fiendish embarrassment to the Lord Advocate."
Of course the Lord Advocate would be extremely embarrassed but the main reason why the judges had to find one guilty must be related to the sanctions imposed on Libya and the bombing of the country. If no Libyan was convicted then surely Libya could have made massive claims. And also with a Libyan convicted especially one from such an important tribe the UK and US could dictate terms.
ReplyDeleteRuth, do some research. Sanctions were imposed on Libya for both their terrorist actions long before Lockerbie.
ReplyDeletecorrection: .. for both their terrorist actions as well as human rights violations.
ReplyDeleteProspect of humiliation and financial loss to US and UK governments,
ReplyDelete+ prospect of humiliation of
CIA,
FBI,
Scottish police,
Scottish prosecutors including member of Scottish Cabinet,
and US Department of Justice,
including humiliation at bogus evidence from Giaka being provided to UN and the court,
+ presence at court throughout of staff from Department of Justice of most powerful nation on earth
= no pressure?
UN sanctions, binding on all member states, were imposed by Security Council Resolution 748 dated 31 March 1992, more than three years after Lockerbie. The United States had unilaterally imposed sanctions before the Lockerbie disaster.
ReplyDeleteBunntamas,
ReplyDeleteSecurity Council Resolution 748
put economic and diplomatic sanctions on Libya after failing to cooperate in Pan Am flight 103 investigations.
The bottom line is: From far before the 21 december 1988 till the start of the Zeist trial (and far beyond that date) there was a steadily growing propaganda campaign in the mainstream western media against Libya (whose leaders were not innocent in every case, btw).
ReplyDeleteSo if the Scottish judges were not blinded and not deaf all these years they knew very well what was at stake. The very reason for a trial in the Netherlands and without a jury was to minimize the mental impact of that international hysteria and to get a trial as fair as possible.
Unfortunately the judges did not stand the test.
Ruth wrote:
ReplyDelete"but the main reason why the judges had to find one guilty must be related to the sanctions imposed on Libya and the bombing of the country."
The "facts" are wrong and the logic is flawed.
1. Libya was bombed by the US (with British help) long before the Lockerbie disaster. In fact, some people even argued that Libya's motive for Lockerbie was to pay back the US for its action following the LaBelle bombing in Germany.
2. The UN sanctions were imposed because Libya did not turn over the suspects for trial. The UN never prejudged the Libyan suspects. If the court found them both not guilty, it would have been irrelevant to the sanctions that were imposed for failure to turn them over, not failure to demonstrate their guilt.
And further on logic to Mr. Adam:
Whether the judges had been exposed to negative coverage is one thing, but to jump from there to caliming they were influenced by it in a particular way, I think, is another case of fuzzy logic. Why couldn't the judges be biased by all the press that was in favor of the suspects? What do you take Scottish judges for? In any case, none of that psychoanalysis bears a whiff of significance because the Libyans agreed IN ADVANCE to the peculiar form, composition and venue of the court. Sure, one can argue they were mislead, maybe even duped and manipulated into believing the court would be of one inclination or another, etc. But whose fault is that, the judges? Isn't there a legal principle in Europe that ignorance, stupidity, and gulliblity are no excuse? Maybe that's just another bad American habit awaiting importation.
Suliman:
ReplyDelete"The UN sanctions were imposed because Libya did not turn over the suspects for trial."
Why Lockerbie? (I am not going to start discussing the history of US warcrimes.)
An enbargo has huge impact on a coutrys ability to provide fundamental needs - that includes also food and healthcare.
The numbers of Libyans dying because of the embargo outnumber the deaths of Lockerbie by orders of magnitudes.
Are they less innocent?
If a American man (presumed innocent until otherwise proven) refuses to cooperate with the police in USA, is it OK to take his children as hostages and deny them fundamental needs, until he gives in?
Such a suggestion would appear insane to most. But when it is only Libyans suffering and dying, no problem.
Suliman:
"The UN never prejudged the Libyan suspects."
'That we are willing to strangle your citizens and country until your leaders hand them over for a trial should in no way be taken as a presumtion of guilt.'
Suliman:
"If the court found them both not guilty, it would have been irrelevant to the sanctions that were imposed for failure to turn them over, not failure to demonstrate their guilt."
How academically interesting. I am sure it will comfort the Libyan mothers whose children died, unable to get the treatment they needed.
"The Terror Council!" Very fair indeed, depending on what side you are lucky/unlucky enough to be.
Suliman:
"Why couldn't the judges be biased by all the press that was in favor of the suspects?"
That was before the Internet. At the time (in Denmark) I don't recall seeing one single article ever not assuming the guilt of the two accused, and supporting the ever-repeated view of Gadaffi's Libya as a mad terrorist state.
I wonder just how different it would be in Scotland.
- - -
If all this would not create an immense pressure on the trial for a conviction, I think nothing ever could.
There seems to be a lot of sensitivity about the judges. I would say in convicting Megrahi they came under direct orders to safeguard the interests of the UK. This is quite consistent in what happens in courts in the UK in government sensitive cases where preserving illicit activities of the government comes before the interests of justice.
ReplyDeleteDear Suliman,
ReplyDeletedo youi agree that the "split vote" (Fhimah not guilty, Megrahi guilty) has no logic when you take the indictment as basis?
sfm: Your response is out of focus. The point is not whether the sanctions were justified, effective, ethical, harmful, etc. The point is on what basis they were imposed, which was to force the Libyan government to turn over the accused. As for the well being of my countrymen and their ailing mothers, I think from a Libyan point of view that Lockerbie is only one side effect of their true plight. Libyans are forced to seek medical treatment in poorer neighboring countries even today with no sanctions in place. And by using your arithmetic scale, could you compare the rate of death of Libyans under the sanctions vs. the rate in Tripoli's Abu Saleem prison where some 1200 prisoners were mowed down in about 90 minutes, which is almost exactly the length of time it took Gaddafi to deliver his incoherent diatribe at the UN. Of course, the mass killing of 1200 Libyans inside Libya does not attract much attention from the European fringe, not even after the criminal Libyan state breaks its decade-long coverup of the massacre. But again, that is beside the point, except for revealing the misdirected sob stories and crocodile tears one sees showering Libya from the north.
ReplyDeleteMr. Adam:
I have to tell you a couple of things: First, I am not a lawyer and not involved in any way with the "legal" profession. Second, your argument reminds me of what Gaddafi read from a prepared script in a news conference following the court ruling. It never made any sense to me then or afterward because I do not know that a court is required to pass the same ruling on all the accused in a given case, nor do I have any problem with that in principle. My understanding two people were accused, and one of them was found guilty. In principle that means the preponderance of the evidence was in favor of one but against the other. What's the problem?
What´s the problem? The problem seems to be that you do not know what is in the indictment.
ReplyDeleteThe Crown finally accepted that it had insufficient evidence to prove that the co accused was even a member of the Libyan Intelligence Service.The judges also ruled that his 0btaining the tags did not mean that he was involved in a plot to blow up an aircraft.As Abdul Majid`s evidence was not accepted by the judges there was nothing else of value to tie Fhimah to the bomb plot
ReplyDeleteThat is correct. The problem is that Mr. Giaka (Majeed) was rejected as a credible witness by the Court but on the other hand the whole indictment against the person of Mr. Megrahi is 95 percent based on Mr. Giaka´s assertions towards the CIA - and following: the FBI.
ReplyDeleteAnd so the decision against Mr. Megrahi by the three judges was based on assertions which the same judges rejected.
Suliman: "The point is on what basis they were imposed, which was to force the Libyan government to turn over the accused. "
ReplyDeleteUnderstood, but again, it does not help those hit by the results.
"...could you compare the rate of death of Libyans under the sanctions vs. the rate in Tripoli's Abu Saleem prison where some 1200 prisoners were mowed down..."
You are saying that sanctions might help overcome Gadaffi, and that this would be a good thing, right?
I don't have any such insight, all I am saying is, that sanctions kill people, and the wrong ones.
They usually do not lead to regime change.
It is for this reason that Aung San Suu Kyi now works with the Burmese junta to get sanctions lifted.
"Of course, the mass killing of 1200 Libyans inside Libya does not attract much attention from the European fringe, not even after the criminal Libyan state breaks its decade-long coverup of the massacre."
I agree with you, that the level of reporting has a poor correlation with how bad it actually is.
- - -
The discussion is highly relevant for why "terrorism" happens, and what can be done to remove the motivation. For a start, we can try to hold our own governments accountable, honest and fair. The Lockerbie case and current situation is a sad indicator of how far we are from success.
I remain sceptical that the Judges were "pressured" to return a guilty verdict.
ReplyDeleteI presume that Mr Megrahi and his advisors felt that "Camp Zeist" would increase the likelihood of an acquittal and I suspect the Judges believed that "Camp Zeist" was intended to undermine the Independence of the Judiciary and were determined to assert this independence and ensure such an experiment was never repeated.
Sanctions were ostensibly imposed because Libya failed to hand over the two suspects (contrary to Libya's obligations under the Montreal Treaty.)
Professor Black is quite right that UN SC Resolution 748 was introduced on the 31st March 1992 although the principle of Sanctions was expressed earlier by Security Council resolution 731. Professor Black makes the important point that the US had imposed unilateral sanctions of Libya in February 1986.
In my article "Lockerbie - criminal Justice or War by Other Means" at http://e-zeecon.blogspot.com I discuss the sanctions issue and argue that the object of the indictment was not to bring the two suspects to trial at all but to fulfill the US policy of transforming unilateral sanctions into a universal sanctions regime.
In January 1992 changes to the Security Council and the objectives of the permanent members at the time made this possible. Colonel Gaddafi's speech to the UN dealt at length with his complaints about the composition of the Security Council.
Significantly the demands made of Libya communicated on the 1st April 1992 went far beyond co-operation in the Lockerbie and UTA cases but demanded Libya renounce support for the IRA and other terrorist or liberation movements.
To some extent the above discussion of the significance of the evidence of Majid Giaka is missing the point. Whether his evidence was in some sense really accepted by the Judges (although the Judgement claims the bulk of it but not all was rejected) it was accepted by the US Grand Jury and (disgracefully) by the Crown Office as the basis for the Indictment. They didn't need sufficient evidence to convict but to indict. Megrahi's actual conviction was perhaops freaky and had more to do with the Judges' loathing of "Camp Zeist" that the evidence itself.