Tuesday 12 January 2010

Lockerbie bomber release rules 'followed'

Scotland's first minister has rejected claims he failed to work closely enough with Westminster over the release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber.

Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's early release by Scottish ministers on compassionate grounds in August sparked a political row.

MPs asked First Minister Alex Salmond whether there had been "buck passing" between the Scots and UK governments.

He said his government had to observe the rules of the legal process.

Mr Salmond told Westminster's Scottish affairs committee it had not been possible to involve the UK government too closely in the decision to release terminally ill Megrahi, an issue devolved to Scotland.

He was giving evidence to the committee, along with Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and Scotland's top civil servant, Sir John Elvidge, as part of an investigation into co-operation and communication between the Scottish and UK governments.

Scottish ministers have said the protocols were followed and the UK and US governments were informed prior to the release. (...)

[T]he Holyrood government said the move was in line with the ideals of the Scottish justice system.

[From a report on the BBC News website. Longer reports are available on The Herald website here and on The Guardian website here. The latter report reads in part:]

Tony Blair failed to tell two of his most senior cabinet colleagues about secret plans to include the Lockerbie bomber in a prisoner-for-trade deal with Libya, Alex Salmond has suggested.

The first minister suggested that Lord Falconer, one of Blair's most trusted political friends, and Jack Straw, the justice secretary, believed that the UK would block Libya's demands for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to be included in a new prisoner transfer treaty.

But the ministers were not "in the loop" with Blair's plans to include Megrahi in that treaty in his controversial "deal in the desert" with Muammar Gaddafi in May 2007 – plans that were eventually agreed with the Libyans by Gordon Brown in December 2007.

Salmond today told the Scottish affairs select committee at the Commons that, throughout the summer of 2007, Falconer and Straw had repeatedly reassured the Scottish government, both in letters and in face-to-face meetings, that Megrahi would be excluded from the treaty.

Salmond told the committee that the Scottish nationalist government in Edinburgh had consistently opposed the proposal to allow Megrahi to be included.

Salmond said that Falconer, who was justice secretary until Blair stood down in June 2007, had "explicitly said: 'This isn't a difficulty. We've told the Libyans that Megrahi won't be included,' and Jack Straw in July of that year said quite openly that he didn't see any great difficulty, they would just negotiate a PTA [prisoner transfer agreement] which would give us the assurances we desired."

Salmond believed that transferring Megrahi to Libya before his 26-year life sentence was over would breach an undertaking to the US government and US relatives before Megrahi's trial that the Libyan would remain in a Scottish jail.

But in December 2007, after Gordon Brown had become prime minister, the UK government reneged on that position and, Salmond alleged, the deal with the US, when it revealed that the prisoner transfer agreement did not exclude Megrahi.

Straw was forced to say the government now believed it was in the UK's "overwhelming national interests", claiming that the UK's business dealings, security and its desire to see Libya re-enter the international community, overrode Scotland's objections.

Salmond said there was "again an 'evolution' in the UK government's position over this period".

He told the committee, which is investigating inter-government relations between Edinburgh and London, that the prisoner treaty was wrong. "It was a mistake because it raised an expectation by the Libyan government that Mr Megrahi would be included in such a prisoner transfer," he said.

"It was a mistake because it cut across the due process of Scots law, because one of the provisions of prisoner transfer is that legal proceedings would have to come to an end.

"It was a mistake because it was cut across what we believe to be prior agreements with the United States government and the relatives." (...)

Straw and Falconer have been approached for a response.

[Further reports have now appeared in The Scotsman and The Wall Street Journal.]

15 comments:

  1. MISSION LOCKERBIE:

    13th of September 1996, the Crown Office received a Document from an unknown state about the MST-13 Timer under national security ?

    SECRET documents which could prove the innocence of the man Abdelbaset al Megrahi and Libya, convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, are being hold by a secret government. Prosecuting counsel Ronnie Clancy said the document had not come from the United States or its agencies like the CIA, although he did not disclose the country involved.

    On the 5th of November 2007 Lumpert's affidavit was also confirmed by the Canton of Zurich by an official apostille.

    The result:
    To prevent international legal assistance from Switzerland and the potential disgrace for the Scottish justice system and to divert at the same time from the explosive affidavit of Lumpert, the newspaper „The Herald" communicated on the third of October 2007 that behind ground 5 of the SCCRC-report a top secret classified document "under national security" was hidden and that its content is about the MST-13 timer. This after the editor of the Herald was feeded with information from the secret and unpublished 800 pages report of the commission's findings.

    At the first hearing on the 19th of October 2007 the Appeal court in Edinburgh suddenly confirmed after more than 3 months the existence of a document "under national security"; but keeps ist content closed.

    This important document the British justice was in possession of since 1996 was kept away from the judges at Camp Zeist, the judges at the first appeal and Megrahi's defence team...

    Entitled question:
    Was Switzerland the unknown state which had delivered 13th of September 1996, under national security, a document to the Crown Office, about the clear facts over the MEBO MST-13 Timerfragment ? (Polaroidphoto picture, Scottish Police no. PT/35)

    The Lord Justice General’s decision to keep the secret document under closure indicates again very clearly that the whole process against Megrahi and Libya was from the very beginning a political process and not a fair criminal trial !
    In addition we expect opening of the SCCRC documents, which was announced to the secretary of justice, Kenny MacAskill, and opening of the dubious employment of the defence team...
    More Information on our website: www.lockerbie.ch

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that is what you should find out, Ebol: whether it were Swiss authorities who sent that secret document. You are next to them. What about asking Mr Fluckiger?

    ReplyDelete
  3. And I kindly ask you not to restart your copy-and-paste-operations.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Babelfish:
    Guten Tag NME Adam
    oder Ebol

    Ich habe ein Ersuchen um nützliche Hilfe: Was (mindestens im Wesentlichen) von den Leuten in diesem Video gesagt wird

    an den Punkten
    7:50
    8:56 (sie dachten, dass es ein direkter Flug von Frankfurt? war)
    9:55, warum die erwähnten Zeitzonen sind?
    Aren' t diese Grafiken nett?
    16:30 Wilhelm Dietl - in den grundlegenden Ausdrücken, what' s seine Theorie hier dargestellt?

    Dank, wenn Sie eine Minute haben, zum zu helfen.
    ---
    Hi NME Adam
    or Ebol

    I have a request for useful help: What (at least in essence) is said by the people in this video
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7189474414697903771&ei=ctFNS9HjLYOGqQOqqfXmDg&q=Lockerbie+Anschlag&hl=en&view=3
    at the points
    7:50
    8:56 (they thought it was a direct flight from Frankfurt?)
    9:55 why are time zones mentioned?
    Aren't these graphics nice?
    16:30 Wilhelm Dietl - in basic terms, what's his theory presented here?

    Thanks if you have a minute to help.

    ReplyDelete
  5. First of all: It is a co-production BBC/ZDF("Second German TV"). So there must be an English version as well. Last time the German version was aired was November 2009. It would be extremely telling if the BBC didn´t dare to present the English version to the public.
    Details later.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The above post took that one minute you asked for. The following needed a bit more. Bjt here it is:
    At 7:30
    - At the airport Frankfurt the BKA (BundesKriminalAmt, the German FBI) found no evidence that a (suspicious) suitcase coming from Malta was introduced (“eingeschleust”).

    (This is later repeated as quotation from the final BKA report on Lockerbie.)

    - There was a flight from Malta and there was only a fragmented (lückenhafte) documentation of the match of baggage and passengers.

    - The Leiter der Internationalen Terror Fahndung des BKA (head of the international terror investigation of the BKA), Manfred Klink, says: “There was a possibility that – possibly – here I want to be very cautious – possibly there was a suitcase that went through to the PanAm 103.”

    - There were feeder flights for PA 103 not only from Malta but from 12 more airports.

    At 8:55 to 9:55

    - International flight security expert Siegfried Niedeck doubts that the terrorists intended to let the plane crash over Lockerbie. He speculates that the plane either 1) should explode over the Irish Sea or 2) that the terrorists intended to blow up the plane when on the tarmac at Heathrow. But they confused it due to the different time zones. He merely speculates. To that a wrong animation is shown according to which it was a flight from Frankfurt to the USA. (One of the minor errors in the film).

    At 16:30

    - Wilhelm Dietl tells: I know (from the stasi archives) of the cooperation between the GDR/Stasi and arab governments, arab intelligence organizations. They were invited to the GDR for training courses, starting with Marxism-Leninism and ending with exercises with handgrenades.

    At 18:45

    - Wilhelm Dietl denies the possibility that the Stasi was involved in the Lockerbie case: “The GDR was not in the terror bussiness”, he says.

    All in all it is a fine documentary (with tiny errors) that shows us the main absurdities of the case but does not strongly advocate any special alternative theory.

    This service is free of charge for all truth-seeking human beings.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The above post took that one minute you asked for. The following needed a bit more.

    Danke! I took two years of German in High School, but it didn't stick and I can only read a bit, say a few words, and when it comes to interpreting normal speech, es ist nicht frei.

    At 7:30
    - At the airport Frankfurt the BKA (BundesKriminalAmt, the German FBI) found no evidence that a (suspicious) suitcase coming from Malta was introduced (“eingeschleust”).

    (This is later repeated as quotation from the final BKA report on Lockerbie.)


    Okay - the document I could work the key words, and wondered - the FBI had a similar memo on file, yet they decided there WAS a transfer for sure. The Germans I know resisted this, at the time. Surely by now they've come around?

    - There was a flight from Malta and there was only a fragmented (lückenhafte) documentation of the match of baggage and passengers.

    At the Malta end it wasn't fragmentary at all. But Frankfurt's records were gutted, missing the whole middle until Bogomira's printout turned up.

    - The Leiter der Internationalen Terror Fahndung des BKA (head of the international terror investigation of the BKA), Manfred Klink, says: “There was a possibility that – possibly – here I want to be very cautious – possibly there was a suitcase that went through to the PanAm 103.”

    Thanks for a translation worthy of quotes. :) That herr Klink conveys the same early skepticism even this late in interesting.

    See our thread if you're interested in the evidence FOR that bag
    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155657

    - International flight security expert Siegfried Niedeck doubts that the terrorists intended to let the plane crash over Lockerbie. He speculates that the plane either 1) should explode over the Irish Sea or 2) that the terrorists intended to blow up the plane when on the tarmac at Heathrow. But they confused it due to the different time zones. He merely speculates
    Safely on the tarmac (usually the WRONG place to blow up) and the Irish Sea seem about an hour apart, but it blew up halfway between. Unless they considered half-zones, I'm not seeing it. Also, it was really introed in London I think so time zones don't matter.

    To that a wrong animation is shown according to which it was a flight from Frankfurt to the USA. (One of the minor errors in the film).

    They mean that was the flight, not Niedeck's idea that the terrorists thought it was like that? No, he mentioned tarmac at London. How odd - it keeps mystery on Frankfurt, from Malta or wherever, and completely elimninates Heathrow as a possibility. Visually anyway, to German audience ... probably just a simplification error thing. Maybe not.

    Dietl didn't add much for me. The Stasi may have had MST-13s that weren't Libyan, but I'm sure that chip was provided by Anglo-American types (afterwards).

    As for different versions, the closest is the BBC's Conspiracy Files show. Much of the same footage, music, graphics, but none of the Germans. I don't think it ever mentioned a Heathrow introduction either, though it did of course acknowledge the plane taking off from there. It calls the German leg "a connecting flight".

    So both version (it seems) draw attention to their nation's connecting point as the origin and minimize the others' - and neither mentions a possibility of the bomb going on a Heathrow, let alone how much sense that makes. It's all from Germany, from Malta, or, if you don't like that, it could be.. ?? (cue mystery music, roll end credits)

    I'd like to get a partial transcription of this show, for some analysis. It seems interesting.

    Holy cow we're off topic by now. Oh wait, we started there. Thanks ebol! Now it's a free-for-all!

    ReplyDelete
  9. MISSION LOCKERBIE:

    Annauncement: BBC World TV, time 18:10 on Saturday 16th of January, 2010.

    See the film of BBC World: The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie
    Link: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-327765978162851498

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  10. OMG a two year old show is being shown again. You were in it, ebol. It's where you "admitted" Triploi was gonna give you $200 milllion to do your MISSION.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You know, this is mildly interesting. Someone commented that the Newsnight article suggested the BBC was turning round and giving some credence to the sceptical viewpoint on the conviction. However, the Conspiracy Files production did its usual thing of spending 45 minutes setting out the "conspiracy theory" and the last 15 knocking it down.

    In the case of the Lockerbie episode, that last was accomplished by trotting out David Shayler, God help us all, the most reality-challenged spook on the planet, to tell us that there was stacks of evidence Megrahi did it and the trial verdict is good enough for him.

    I thought that was a bit odd at the time, but now, two years later, can they really get away with presenting Shayler as a credible commentator?

    Conversely, I note that in this week's episode, about bin Laden, Robert Baer is given respect as a credible commentator. Funny how all these credible, respected people suddenly turn into raving CTers the minute Lockerbie becomes the subject!

    Is it too much to hope that this time of showing, the gambit of using Shayler to support the official story will be obvious for what it is? (Assuming they don't re-edit it.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. MISSION LOCKERBIE: attn. Caustic Logic

    I want to clarify the $ 200 million reward I would receive from Libya for my assistance in Megrahi's release.
    I answered the question in the BBC movie The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie: "So if Mr. Megrahi is released you get U$ 200 million?" with "Yes".
    Many TV spectators may have wondered why I answered that question, usually people don't talk about money publicly.
    The reason is that one sequence of my interview was cut out and my statement was only partially quoted leading so to a wrong connotation. I was asked by BBC: "Will Libya pay you for your work in the Lockerbie case?" My answer was: "No, if we win the case and the compensation for the victims (US$ 2.7 billion) is refunded I will get a success honorary of US$ 200 million."
    Then BBC asked the next question: "So if Mr. Megrahi is released you get U$ 200 million?" What should I answer? Staying close to my first answer I said. "Yes." Better I should have insisted on my more precise first statement. But how could I know that my first statement was cut out later and my statement such distorted.
    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  13. You know what, Herr Bollier?

    I believe you. That completely figures.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I certainly would believe that program was deceitful with its editing. What they removed, then, was where you said it was an honorary reward if a case was won and they got their compensation - to the families - repaid?

    I've never heard of this big court case. All I've seen in websites full of nonsense and spamming this blog. It's done at best zero to help the case, really.

    Besides, if I were Libya, I'd be paying someone else to get some compensation from YOU, with the Spanish keys and excuses, and the bogus evidence given at trial to secure the conviction that led to the compensation in the first place.

    But you had $4 million offered to help the FBI, helped them secure a conviction anyway, and yet refused the money as "immoral" (per BBC translator). You know who else is that upright? Abdul Majid Giaka, trial transcript:
    "I did not ask them [CIA] for money, but they decided to allot $1,000 per month to me, but I did not ask for that sum. They offered larger sums, but I turned that offer down."

    Three main witnesses who gave testimony against the accused - that one, Mr. $2 million Gauci (with $1 million brother), and you. $200 million, from LIBYA, IF you get the families to pay Libya back. Hmmm...

    Anyway, don't let me interrupt the mission. Carry on with the important alerts.

    ReplyDelete