[The following are excerpts from a report published today by Agence France Presse.]
Libya agreed to compensate Lockerbie relatives to resolve a diplomatic row, not because Tripoli was behind the 1988 bombing, Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi has said in a television interview.
"This is a peaceful settlement to resolve the problems between us," Kadhafi told Australian television channel SBS's Dateline programme, to be aired on Sunday.
He said Tripoli had agreed to the settlement to abide by a court ruling that found Libya guilty of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner over the Scottish town of Lockerbie that killed 270 people.
"We, at the end, accepted the judgement that was made, even though it is not a legal judgement but a political one," Kadhafi said in a transcript of the interview released by SBS ahead of the broadcast. (...)
Kadhafi denied Megrahi, who was controversially freed from his Scottish prison in August 2009 because he is suffering from terminal cancer and was given only months to live, was a Libyan agent.
"He is not an intelligence officer. He is a university professor," Kadhafi said.
The attack strained Libya's relations with the West, and in 1992 the UN imposed sanctions to force the handover of Megrahi and another suspect, who was acquitted by the court.
More than two years later, Libya took responsibility for the bombing in a letter to the UN Security Council, and signed a 2.7 billion-dollar deal to compensate families of the Lockerbie bombing victims.
Kadhafi said in the interview that "nobody accepts actions against civilian targets and downing planes."
He added Libya was blamed for the bombing because, "at the time, they'd blame everything on Libya" because it was leading an international liberation movement against the West.
[The only evidence at the Zeist trial that Megrahi was an intelligence agent came from the Libyan defector and CIA asset, Abdul Majid Giaka. The court rejected Giaka's evidence on every other issue on the grounds that he was a fantasist and was actuated by mercenary motives. The judges gave no reasons for accepting his evidence regarding Megrahi's alleged position as a Libyan intelligence operative.]
Prof Black said:
ReplyDelete"The judges gave no reasons for accepting his evidence regarding Megrahi's alleged position as a Libyan intelligence operative"
It's the kind of reason one doesn't just "give," I suspect. They needed to have the perps attached to an arganization of the state, running right up to Col. Gaddafi. This would give them something to whine about (the big fish got away) after the conviction, perhaps to exert more leverage.
I myself have been agnostic on a JSO role for either accused, but it just didn't prove anything if so, given the evidence they, as agents of anyone, did the bombing at all, is so laughable.
I had the impression there was more evidence than Giaka, for such a role, but other than circumstantial hints (Swiss accounts, the coded passport, etc.) I can't think of what it was. Huh. Can anyone help?
Al-Megrahi was Head of Security for Libyan Arab Airlines until some time in 1988. Airline security chiefs are often former or current intelligence officers, sometimes former police officers or former military officers. Sometimes the post is filled by someone on secondment from one of these agencies. The job is usually based in the airline's home country with lots of travel across the airline's network.Al-Megrahi's base was Tripoli. When he left the airline job, he was appointed Director of the Libyan Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli. Startegic studies centres around the world are another example of posts often filled by former spooks or soldiers. He was also the director of a company with offices sub-let from MEBO. The company's mission seems to have been to sanctions bust and procure equipment for the Libyan government. It has been suggested on many occasions that he was also doing this while at Libyan Arab Airlines and was particularly involved in getting hold of aircraft spares for the Libyan Arab Airlines fleet. If the above is true (and I believe it to be), then Al-Megrahi would have been very close to Libyan intelligence and, more likely, a full-time intelligence officer.
ReplyDeleteNow Mr. Megrahi is a college professor according to his government! For what purpose would a college professor have for a "coded" passport? Give me a break. I think the Colonel has already forgotten his admission of guilt--even before Mr. Megrahi was convicted. I think Aku's analysis above is very good!.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with Aku in this. He detailed my suspicions pretty exactly. And of course Mr. Marquise makes a good point that a university professor isn't likely to be running around on a coded passport. Gadaffi isn't all that bothered about the accuracy of much of what he says, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteOf course, that's not terribly relevant regarding whether or not Megrahi was guilty. There are a fair number of spooks around the globe, whose governments aren't going to be admitting to their status. Did they all blow up PA103?
One of the defence problems at Camp Zeist was, just what was Megrahi doing at Luqa that morning with that coded passport? My feeling is that if the real reason for the journey had been to put a bomb into the baggage system, there would have been a nice, plausible, innocent cover story all prepared. But there wasn't. Seems to me Gadaffi was quite prepared to let Megrahi rot in jail for the rest of his natural, if the alternative was revealing exactly what he was doing there that day.
I always welcome when Mr Marquise dares to appear here. That colours the debate.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can remember Mr Megrahi voluntarily handed over his passport to you, Mr Marquise, (or to your collegues), even before you could really ask for it.
If that is so should that not prompt you - as an old FBI investigator - to rethink what happened?
Why should a man who knows that you accuse him of multiple manslaughter hand over a decisive piece of evidence?
Could it not be that he handed it over because he was convinced that this was no piece of evidence at all?
Hoohooh, Richard Marquise, hooh hooh! Do you have no answer to my questions?
ReplyDeleteAku: wow, thanks. That was a great post. These are all circumstantial points, but there's quite a few pointing that way and they're not even the uber-bogus intelligence often called on. I'm remaining agnostic but leaning towards JSO or some similar placement anyway.
ReplyDeleteNennt mich einfach Adam! said...
ReplyDeleteHoohooh, Richard Marquise, hooh hooh! Do you have no answer to my questions?
RMarq Simulator word salad generator responds:
"Dear Adam
That's a good question, but no one, not I, or Stuart Henderson, or any of the other fine investigators can say for sure why al Megrahi handed us that vital clue. Perhaps he thought he'd beat the rap? Does it really matter what he was thinking at the time? The basic fact is we have it, and it's a false passport used only once, on the day of the bombing. It put him at Malta airport just as the bomb was sent on to Lockerbie.
That is certainly not the actions of, as Mr. Khaddafi states, a "college professor." As long as you people continue believing everything Col. Kaadafhi tells you, perhaps you'll take a look at the actual facts and evidence which we worked so hard to assemble."
Adam-- I will never be able to explain why some people do what they do. I do know that evidence was developed in Libya which had confirmed that Megrahi was Abdusamad despite his claims to the contrary. I am not familiar exactly when he turned over the coded passport--the one "he did not have." I am not sure he really knew what we had for evidence.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your answer, Mr Marquise. I am sure that you at least have heard about the use of profiling methods in criminal cases. Those methods deal exactly with questions like: why do people what they do?
ReplyDeleteWe both surely aggree that there is no material evidence that links Mr Megrahi to the assumed embarkation of the assumed suitcase that is assumed to have contained a bomb.
The only thing that his passport shows is that Mr Megrahi was on a stopover in Malta that day in question.
Can we aggree that there were multiple reasons to be in Malta, even that day?
But he used a "coded" passport! you say.
Even then: Can we aggree that there may have been several reasons for him to use that passport? He had been on a journey around Europe on that passport.
And can we aggree that it is quite normal for a person who uses a "coded" passport for his purposes to deny that use in the first time?
First--I do not know what "RMarq Simulator word salad generator" is and have no idea who crafted that response posted by Caustic Logic.
ReplyDeleteAdam-- you have to appreciate and understand the logic of circumstantial evidence--it was the preponderance of evidence which convicted Mr. Megrahi. It was not just one thing. Mr. Megrahi was not on a stopover in Malta that day--he made a deliberate one day trip from Tripoli to Malta to Tripoli. The time spent in Malta was about 15 hours--for what? We only know what he said--"I was not there (Malta) at that time, I was here in Tripoli with my family..." I have no idea who else gets a "coded" passport on days when the office is closed other than someone connected in the Government. Why would (as his leader now claims) a college professor need a "coded" passport?
Certainly, the "coded" passport indicates that he was/is connected to the authorities. And even more: that he was on a duty where he assessed that it was better to use a "coded" passport. Since I am an independent person I do not believe everything that comes out of Tripolis.
ReplyDeleteBut I am sure that also your friends from the CIA produce thousands if not more "coded" passports in a year. And there are certainly some college professors among the people who use those passports. That does not mean that they are all terrorists who blow up airplanes or things alike.
I fully understand the logic of circumstantial evidence. The problem here is that almost every piece of evidence is questionable. There were three key witnesses for the prosecution. All three are now proven unreliable.
Preponderance of evidence???
Dear Mr Marquise, in your interesting book you were so honest to state that both the CIA and you yourself were convinced that you had a very weak case.
And since then, Mr Marquise, the SCCRC joined you in your doubts.
I think we could at least aggree that - on the basis of the SCCRC decision - an inquiry into the case would be appropriate. It would be great if you could join this call.
I think it's reasonable to acknowledge that Megrahi was a JSO agent (I'm not nearly so sure about Fhimah, to put it mildly), and engaged on something extremely sensitive on 21st December 1988. I also note that he lied in his teeth on a number of occasions regarding his whereabouts on that day and a number of other aspects pertinent to the enquiry.
ReplyDeleteDoes that make him guilty? Probably. But guilty of what? Something, for sure, but whether that something is the bombing of Pan Am 103 is another matter entirely. It's perfectly conceivable that a spy's masters will allow him to go down on a charge of which he is entirely innocent, if the alternative is revealing details of a completely successful and entirely unrumbled mission he was engaged in at the time.
What points did the count have to connect Megrahi to this specific incident?
1. Giaka's evidence. Giaka was supposed to be the star witness whore detailed evidence about Megrahi and Fhimah was going to deliver solid guilty verdicts in both cases. The rest of the stuff was peripheral. Supporting evidence, no more. However, it was conclusively shown at trial that Giaka was making stuff up to order for the CIA, in order to stay in their favour and latterly in their comfotrable witness protection programme. Nobody reading what came out in court could, in my opinion, continue to give any credence to a word that guy said. I have a feeling, nevertheless, that Mr. Marquise still thinks he was telling the truth. It would explain his otherwise baffling insistence that Megrahi is guilty despite the tissue-paper nature of the rest of the evidence.
Unfortunately, once Giaka had been ruled inadmissible, the prosecution was forced to elevate the circumstantial, supporting evidence to the status of main event. That it held up to the point of securing a conviction is to my mind testimony more to the ability of the judges to indulge in circular reasoning to avoid the huge embarrassment of the case collapsing altogether, than to Megrahi's actual guilt.
2. Gauci's evidence. It would appear (leaving aside a few doubts I harbour about the entire episode) that Tony Gauci really did sell some clothes to one of the terrorist group. However, was it Megrahi? This seems to have been the main plank of the SCCRC report. The documents released by Megrahi himself (expert witness reports from psychologists on that testimony) say it better than I could. The balance of probabilities tilts very much against the purchaser being Megrahi. The best fit for the purchase date was 23rd November, and it was admittedly the fact that Megrahi wasn't in the island that day, but was there on 7th December, which swayed the investigation towards the latter date. The initial descriptions of the purchaser are way off beam for Megrahi, describing an older, taller and more heavily built man, and Gauci's eventual (tentative and partial) identification of Megrahi looks much more like an exercise in training the witness than in discovering the truth.
3. The Erac printout. The sole piece of evidence suggesting a stray piece of luggage might have come off KM180 at Frankfurt. Personally, I would cheerfully give an arm to know what happened to the baggage records from Frankfurt for that day. All those computer records, held for a week, and then a crash of a flight known to originate from Frankfurt happens, and nobody thinks of preserving them until it's too late? Really? These, and the backup discs and the routine printouts, all shredded through a complete oversight?
Even if we accept that as nothing more culpable than negligence, the Erac printout on its own is pathetically inadequate to prove that anything unaccompanied travelled on KM180, especially in the teeth of the evidence to the contrary supplied by Air Malta and Luqa airport. Again, it's that circular reasoning. Megrahi was at Luqa when KM180 took off, and Megrahi bought the clothes from Gauci, so that must be what luggage tray 8849 means!
[contd....]
[contd....]
ReplyDeleteCertainly, Megrahi was at Luqa that morning. However, he had to be somewhere. If he didn't buy the clothes, as it appears he didn't, the entire connection breaks down. Without the rest of the Frankfurt baggage records, we have no idea what tray 8849 signifies, and the fact that it might be linked up to Malta, where the clothes in the bomb bag originated, is a coincidence that doesn't really include Megrahi.
Mr. Marquise perhaps believes, with Mr. Cannistraro, that the authorities of the entire island of Malta are or were totally corrupt and in the pay and service of Libya. That the Luqa baggage records that showed conclusively that there was no unaccompanied bag on KM180 were fabricated, and all the personnel involved (from the head of security to the loaders) were lying their heads off, and not one of them ever cracked despite the horrific events at Lockerbie that night. As a cover-up, it's a pretty unlikely one, but beyond that, where's the evidence? An assertion like this doesn't weigh a feather without even the tiniest scrap of evidence - and we know how hard Mr. Cannistraro tried to find that evidence, too.
4. The MST-13 timer fragment and Herr Bollier. Leaving aside the huge suspicions over the provenance of that fragment, note again how tenuous all this is. Bollier supplied these timers to Libya, and Megrahi had business dealings with Bollier. However, there's no evidence at all that Megrahi ever had an MST-13 timer in his possession. Electronic devices can become quite well-scattered in 2 years. If he didn't buy the clothes, and the bomb bag wasn't on KM180, the timer fragment doesn't even begin to stand as evidence against Megrahi.
5. The Toshiba radio, which was white, but then suddenly was black, and which was only identified because of a piece of paper which survived, legible, in spite of being right beside a pound of exploding Semtex. Yeah, right.... This radio, of a model which oh so conveniently was mostly supplied to Libya. Again, even if we accept the improbable preservation of that remarkably resilient sheet of paper, there's no evidence of Megrahi ever having had such a radio.
Indeed, there are coincidences here. The clothes being sourced from Malta, and the Erac printout apparently pointing to KM180 as the source of an orphan luggage tray. And Megrahi (who had business connections with the manufacturer of the MST-13) being at Luqa airport when KM180 took off.
But hey, coincidences happen. Like Abu Talb, originally suspected of the bombing, having a huge stash of clothes sourced from Malta in his flat in Stockholm. Like the plane blowing up 38 minutes after taking off, and Marwan Khreesat, Talb's accomplice, making bombs that exploded between 35 and 45 minutes after takeoff. Except the 38 minutes, we're supposed to believe, was just sheer stupidity on the part of the bomber, who set the MST-13 ridiculously early, risking an explosion on the tarmac and actually providing all that evidence to the police, when setting it 5 hours later would have destroyed the lot. Like John Bedford just happening to see a suitcase answering to the description of the bomb bag, in pretty much the exact position of the bomb bag, in container AVE4041 before PA103A even landed at Heathrow. Pure coincidence.
You can't just point to one set of mildly odd coincidences and insist it's conclusive proof of guilt, but ignore the others. Mr. Marquise, if the evidence that Megrahi bought these clothes doesn't stand up (as the SCCRC thinks it doesn't), and there was no unaccompanied bag on KM180 (as the Maltese authorities have proved and the Erac printout does not contradict), where exactly is your case?
Rolfe: tl;dr for the moment. wrif
ReplyDeleteMr. Marquise: Apologies, I presumed you wouldn't answer (a reasonable assumption) when guessing what you might say (an amateur attempt) just to keep the conversation going. That was a bit rude of me.
However it should be noted your answers, when they come, are getting predictable. You're on a rather narrow ledge, fact-wise, with limited room to maneuver. So don't even bother trying to answer away the following:
I laugh at the flimsy and bizarre evidence of ANY suspect Giaka Samsonite/B8849 IED suitcase, replacing the TWO such bags Mr. Bedford saw loaded to the same spot prior to 103A's arrival. Therefore, Megrahi's presence so far from Heathrow is rather an exculpation, even if it contains evidence of some other mystery action that surely made him stand out as the guy to frame.
Actually, if you would like to answer, I've got space I can offer at my new site where you can put your points up and we can debate stuff or something? So far every aspect of you guys' case is coming under withering critique and attrition.
NME Adam said:
ReplyDeleteI fully understand the logic of circumstantial evidence. The problem here is that almost every piece of evidence is questionable. There were three key witnesses for the prosecution. All three are now proven unreliable.
Preponderance of evidence???
Indeed, just to narrow it down, this might mean the three main witnesses against al Megrahi in a specific sense related to the crime, and these are:
Tony Gauci:
"It wasn't raining. It wasn't raining. It was just drizzling. I can't remember the dates. I don't want to say -- I don't want to give out dates if I am not that sure, sir."
etc...
AM Giaka (as he's called)
said he was asked to find out if a bomb could be put on a plane, handed his report in to Megrahi, had Megrahi whisper to him of his calmed eagerness to do that. Was allowed to view Megrahi at Malta airport with Fhimah and the brown Samsonite on Dec 21. Only felt "safe" enough to remember all this once the FBI had show a willingness to stoop that low. Was the main basis of the original indictment that allowed sanctions et al, and evenntually the trial where he was exposed ruthlessly as a liar. CIA exposed for knowing this and hiding it. Others exposed for naivety at the least.
Edwin Bollier: We all know ebol!
Seriously, who can be proud of that? Where does one draw the line accepting intelligence/evidence like this?
Rolfe, above, has summed up al of it amazingly. Mr, Marquise, that right there, if you could spend some time analyzing and debunking these claims (we can provide you with the sources, one point at a time, etc.)
ReplyDeleteThat two-comment sequence is spot-on across the board, except as she's noted elsewhere, it wasn't "a piece of paper which survived" that convinced investigators, but that and a few other bits of pages that were at least crumpled and even burnt a little. The Jdges focused only on these, and tried not to even mention that joke PK 689. Mr. Marquise, can you verify if that thing is for real supposed evidence of Libyan guilt, or was the BBC pranking us?
Is full retirement starting to seem a bit sweeter now? Or would you like to do some more battle?
caustic_logic@yahoo.com
Mr Marquise, maybe you could answer a simple factual question: In February 1991 Lord Fraser announced that there will be an indictment in the Lockerbie case. Who did he intend to indict? And why did the CIA try to stop him?
ReplyDeleteWell, OK, but I'd still prefer him to address the actual evidence.
ReplyDeleteMr. Marquise, supposing an appeal were to rule that the evidence supports the purchase of the clothes having occurred on 7th December, and the purchaser being an older and larger-built man than Megrahi.
Where does that leave your certainty of Megrahi's guilt?
Then can we also suppose (which wasn't part of the SCCRC report) that an appeal takes the view that Mr. Bedford's evidence about the Samsonite suitcase in AVE4041 is held to be stronger than the Erac printout as regards pinpointing the probable route of introduction of the IED. I submit that this view is at least as tenable as the opposite view.
Where does your case stand?
We can discuss dodgy scientists and possibly manipulated evidence till we're blue in the face, and that's all very interesting. However, the principle reason for disbelieving Megrahi's guilt is the appreciation that both these major planks of the prosecution case are as shoogly as hell, and for the judges to have decided this conviction was "beyond reasonable doubt" is perverse, to put it mildly.
Any comment?
I would like to respond to all but "retirement" does not mean sleep--I do have many other responsibilities and do not spend my life obsessing over this case. It was a significant part of my career but not everything. I believe in the evidence, the ID and the conviction. I have no idea how any "appeal"--since there are none pending-- which could change the date of the clothing purchase. So many of you who write here think that some abstract commission which did not see one witness testify under oath could or should change the decision of three senior Scottish judges who did--are sadly mistaken. It could not and should not change the verdict which will be--for all time--guilty. So many have asked me my opinion of a piece of evidence or what Lord Fraser may have said--nothing of what I think or believe matter any longer. The investigation was conducted--correctly--by experienced police officers and FBI agents. The evidence--which was not created or manipulated--was examined and all these facts were presented to the court--GUILTY. I wish the others involved could be prosecuted but I doubt it will ever happen. Until then-- have your debates but they will not change the outcome.
ReplyDeleteMy own drunken challenge has resulted in the largest one day-spike of US viewers the site's ever seen - eight - straight from 5th place (36 viewers) the 3rd place (44).
ReplyDeleteFlag counter is awesome, but that's seven more than Mr. Marquise, so I'm feeling a little anxious, or something.
But seriously, I don't feel threatened or challenged by offering space on the site to the official story to explain itself. It would be quite an honor to get any input from Mr. Marquise, or Duggan, etc. just like Mr. Swire and Forrester have sent in material. Oh, and Haseldine of course.
sry, above I meant MY site, not this one.
ReplyDeleteRichard Marquise said...
"I believe in the evidence, the ID and the conviction. I have no idea how any "appeal"--since there are none pending-- which could change the date of the clothing purchase."
The SCCRC (that's Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission) was recommending a second appeal be heard, back in 2007, since there was a good chance there'd been a "miscarriage of justice." Yes, that appeal is not pending now. Megrahi dropped it for unclear reasons shortly before the controversial 3-month prognosis. The SCCRC weren't trying to change anything, just pointed out the official reading of the date evidence was troubling. You do understand the criticisms, don't you? Rainfall, football game, Chrsitmas lights? I recall asking you about this once before. I have a good article on it now. These facts should not be ignored.
As for who did the changing, years ago, one example is in that link...
"So many of you who write here think that some abstract commission which did not see one witness testify under oath
I'm not certain if it was under oath or what, but they did indeed interview the people they could call in to testify. One was DCI Harry Bell, whom I think you know.
DI Bell SCCRC interview (25-26/7/06)
"...The evidence of the football matches was confusing and in the end we did not manage to bottom it out..."
"...I am asked whether at the time I felt that the evidence of the football matches was strongly indicative of 7th December 1988 as the purchase date. No, I did not. Both dates 23rd Nov & 7th Dec 1988 looked likely.
"...It really has to be acknowledged how confusing this all was. No date was signficant for me at the time. Ultimately it was the applicant's [Megrahi’s] presence on the island on 7th December 1988 that persuaded me that the purchase took place on that date."
Richard Marquise:
"It could not and should not change the verdict which will be--for all time--guilty."
Really? If it could be shown Megrahi was never the clothes buyer? After these same judges you effuse over tossed almost all of your evidence from Giaka? That shouldn't change anything? There must be a misunderstanding here, because that sounds just Orwellian. Or even Bushian.
What was the date and nature of Libya`s admission to the bombing , which Mr Marquise refers to?
ReplyDeleteTo be fair to Mr. Marquise, he is an ex policeman and not an ex spook and cops are often too credulous of the "intelligence" they receive. We must remember that trials often reject evidence which investigators "instictively" trust. In fact,at time "instinct" is an important weapon in a detective`s armoury. However it is disappointing that , in spite of seeing his main witness dicredited in court, and your own, detailed, dismantling of the rest of the prosecution case, Mr Marquise still sticks to the line, "look, he was found guilty, so that`s all that matters to me!" One wonders if the judges had gone the other way, would he just have accepted the verdict and moved on?
"Give me that old time religion...its good enough for me" - Dear Mr Marquise, your answer reminds me of Mr Brady in that famous film "Inherit the wind".
ReplyDeleteWhat I really do not understand is: In your readable book you were much more thoughtful. Why are you stepping back from that?
It appears that Mr. Marquise rejects not only the appeals process, but even the intellectual exercise of examining the evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe SCCRC did indeed take evidence from witnesses. The depth of the investigation they undertook was the principle reason for the 4-year delay between the application and the granting of the appeal. The commission even identified possible grounds for appeal that hadn't been highlighted by the defence. Why should we not take account of the conclusions from so much work?
Frankly, anyone who can look at the original evidence and the grounds for appeal, and then say they're absolutely certain Megrahi bought those clothes, is being willfully obtuse. And if it is not absolutely certain Megrahi bought the clothes, then it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask where the case against Megrahi would stand if indeed he didn't.
I'm afraid I see Mr. Marquise's answers as both complacent and evasive. I don't see the point of posting here simply to display intransigence and a determination not to address the issues raised.
Rolfe said: "It appears that Mr. Marquise rejects not only the appeals process, but even the intellectual exercise of examining the evidence."
ReplyDeleteYes, it seems he is only a little cop.
Yay we win! Long live mob mentality! Poor Mr. marquise! He did have the balls to come here in person and roll on the floor, kicking and bawling "but the judges said so! The juuuudgeeees!"
ReplyDeleteThe final paragraph of this very significant story reads,
ReplyDelete"He (Colonel Gaddafi) added Libya was blamed for the bombing because "at the time they'd blame everything on Libya because it was backing an international liberation movement against the West"".
This as far as I am aware is the only time Colonel Gaddafi has publicly acknowledged the link between Libya being blamed for Lockerbie and the regime's foreign policy of supporting and in indeed arming virtually any separatist group. In my view the object of the indictment was to facilitate sanctions in order to change the Libyan regime's external behaviour.