Tuesday, 1 June 2010

'Envoy of death'

[This is the headline over an article in the Embassy Row section of the website of The Washington Times. It reads in part:]

The Libyan foreign minister — linked to the Lockerbie bombing and an attack on a disco in Berlin that killed American soldiers and expelled from Britain for plotting to kill Libyan dissidents — will be honored this week in Washington by US and Arab business executives.

Musa Kousa [or Mousa Kousa or Mousa Kusa or Musa Kusa] is scheduled to discuss a recent Commerce Department mission to Libya and the new US-Libyan trade framework agreement when he attends a reception in his honor sponsored by the National US-Arab Chamber of Commerce on Thursday [3 June] at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel.

Mr Kousa's terrorist background extends to the 1980s when he was accused of sending hit men around the world to kill critics of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. In London, he was known as the "envoy of death" when he was the head of the Libyan diplomatic mission to Britain, according to reports in the London newspapers, The Times and The Independent.

After his expulsion from Britain in 1980, Mr Kousa went on to serve as Mr Gadhafi's top spymaster for 15 years. Mr Kousa was reportedly complicit in the 1986 Berlin disco bombing that led to President Reagan's decision to attack Mr. Gadhafi's residence in Tripoli. He was also accused of plotting the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. One hundred ninety victims were Americans. (...)

The refurbishment of Mr Kousa's image began with his appointment as Libya's envoy to talks that led to a $2.7 billion compensation fund for the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster.

The foreign intelligence chief is also reported to have given London information on spies operating in Britain. (...)

President Obama sent career Foreign Service officer Gene A Cretz to serve as US ambassador in Tripoli in December 2008. Libyan Ambassador Ali Suileiman Aujali presented his credentials to Mr Obama in January 2009.


  1. That's diplomacy I'm afraid, folks!

    a. Mr Abdelbaset al-Megrahi didn't do it;
    b. Libya wasn't responsible; and,
    c. The relatives got $2.7 billion under false pretences.

    So the US government should not only honour the visiting Libyan Foreign Minister: they should hand Mr Mousa Kousa a nice big fat refund cheque for $2.7 billion!

  2. Mr Moussa Koussa (sic) was interviewed by the French examining magistrate Juge Bruguiere over the matter of the destruction of UT-772. He refused to answer questions, but apparently showed some emotion and turned pale at their nature, when they were put to him.

    It is my belief that had the list of accused been extended beyond the six who were, Mr Moussa's name would have been there.

    Why was he not included? One theory I have is that the man had been turned by the Brits and had become an asset for MI6. That would explain the prominent part he has played in recent year in Libyan international relations, which I believe allowed him to travel to the UK despite being implicated over Ms Fletcher's death.

    I am sure that the Colonel knows of the Mr Mousa's double-dealing, for there is a strong rumour he is family, a son of the Colonel, and he appears to lead a charmed life.

    That just leaves the issue: why are the policies of MI5 and MI6 so very different over Lockerbie? The one promoted the theory of the guilt of Mr Megrahi and developed the evidence. An aspect of this might be the long term support the Libyans gave some Irish nationalists as a genuine liberation movement in accordance with the policy of the Mathaba movement. But MI6 had more traditional relations with the elite in power in Tripoli - the Ghadaffi regime simply being seen as the legitimate successors to the Idris/Senoussi monarchy, a relationship which goes all the way back to British intervention with Benghazi based tribes during WWII and the role they played in evicting the Italians from Libya.

    Nothing is ever quite as it seems, I fear.

  3. I thought this was quite a fair article and again was astonished to find myself in agreement with the first two paragraphs of Charles' comments. Having looked at the evidence in the UTA772 case (see my article at http://e-zeecon.blogspot.com) I thought the evidence against Mousa Kousa was as strong as the circumstantial case against the six Libyans charged in particular the very weak case against Mr Senoussi.

    It is indeed curious that a man of Mr Mousa Kousa's antecedents was appointed Foreign Minister.

  4. It is a privilege to have Baz agree with me for once.

    What do you think of the possibility of a policy split between Mi5 and MI6?


  5. Baz,

    One of the UTA relatives (no names no pack-drill, whose opinion I trust) says that Mr Senoussi was included by the Juge only to give the case more bottom. Had the gent deigned to appear before the Court of Grand Instance in Paris in 1999, it is generally considered that the charges against him could not have been sustained. To that extent, Mr Senoussi was a "political target", not a substantive one.

    French doctrine of sovereignty meant that a case could not be brought against the head of a foreign power - the doctrine of "sovereign immunity" - and the case that a UTA relative tried to bring against the Colonel was thrown out without ceremony.

  6. I am loathe to speculate about such things as policy splits between MI5 and MI6. However you touch on "the long term support the Libyans gave some Irish nationalists." In fact they armed the IRA to the teeth and I believe this, and in particular the interception of the Eksund in November 1987 that led to "Lockerbie" being utilised and exploited as an issue with which to punish Libya. I suspect the turf wars over the role of combatting the IRA may be of some relevance.

    As I have pointed out before I think it was of crucial importance that in the 1994 Dimbleby Lecture Mrs Rimmington claimed "it was MI5 who identified the two Libyan culprits" whilst in the official transcript of her lecture these words are rendered as "MI5 supported the Lockerbie investigation up to ther point where the atrocity wa laid at the door of Libya." In my view blaming Libya was a pretty neat idea but irrelevant to actually bombed flight PA103!

  7. Last line should read "irrelevant to who actually bombed flight PA103.

  8. Fascinating that Baz should mention the Eksund. It was identified by the Juge, and always appears in any back story regarding Libya, the Irish, the French and terrorism!

    Are we yet at the position where between ourselves we could put forward the "most credible story", denuded of spin from the various agencies?

  9. "President Obama sent career Foreign Service officer Gene A Cretz to serve as US ambassador in Tripoli in December 2008."

    Innacurate reporting. While Obama was elected in 2008, he did not take official oath of office until 2009; so he had no actual power to send an ambassador to Tripoli in December of 2008.

  10. While it escapes me who the "Juge" is the Eksund incident is central to my article "Lockerbie - Criminal Justice or War by Other Means" so it is no great surprise that I mention it.

    Since writing that article I learned a great deal more from about this key incident from reading Ed Moloney's "A Secret History of the IRA". (Penguin £10.99).

    For an excellent online summary see the section "Libyan Arms" from chapter 6 "Going Slightly Constitutional" from Brendan O'Brien's "The Long War" at http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/abstentionism/obrien99.htm//chap6.

    Part II of Peter Taylor's documentary series "The Age of Terror" juxtaposes the Eksund incident with the Iniskillen bombing.

  11. The Juge is Juge Jean Louis Bruguiere (apologies for the missing grave accent), now Vice-President of the Court of Grand Instance, Paris, and celebrated (or resented) leading French terrorist examining magistrate, eleventh generation of a magisterial family.

    Said by Richard Marquise to me to feed above his pay scale, the man warrants that most formidable of French adjectives "formidable".

    His critics would say he ran an inquisition system within an inquisition system.

    In my opinion over UTA, he got his men, (though they were not to be jailed in France), but the atrocity is about two orders of magnitude simpler to solve than Lockerbie.

    I did not know about Brendan O'Brien, so I shall source that one.

  12. Apart from the grave accent aren't you also missing a "d"?

    Please source the extract from Brendan O'Brien's book - it was a footnote to my article Lockerbie - Criminal Justice or War by Other Means?

    I cannot agree that UTA772 was relatively simple to solve but concede you probably know a great deal more about it than I. I do not think it was proven how the bomb got aboard that plane due to lax or non-existent security. Was it really a "mule"?

  13. Baz,

    I don't think so. Mind you the keyboards of the translators for Crowell and Moring had no key for e-grave and so the Juge ended being reduced to "Bruguire", but what's funny foreign letters amongst friends? And there never was a "d".

    I have read all the UTA transcripts - some 80 documents with the exception of those relating to the FBI which the plaintiffs chose not to present as part of their case. I do not know what horrors lie in that direction.

    I am pretty confident that the Juge was nearer the truth in his case than that was officially produced in Lockerbie, partly because there are about 8 times as many clues in UTA.

    Admittedly, the story relates to a "confession", but Mr Yanga was not the mule or a perpetrator and only a colleague and fellow party member of the disaffected Congolese splinter as was poor Mr Mangatany.

    I have no reason not to accept the story. Mr Pierre Pean (acute accent over the e) has written a book to say the UTA attribution is fabricated. He does not have the similar following those who disbelieve the official Lockerbie story do. And as we know all but one of the other attributions in Lockerbie (22 at my count) must be false as well as the official one.

    Again I invite Mr Duggan and Mr Marquise to send me their snail-mail addresses so I can send them a copy of "A Tale of Three Atrocities", which tells you what happened.

  14. You don't think there is a "d" in the word Judge? We are writing in English.

    My article "The Bombing of UTA772" noted the major flaws in the official version of events particularly in relation to the evidence Bernard Yanga was a "mule". (I also noted some mistranslations in the Crowell and Moring documents which mistranslated "Lebanaise" as "Libyan".) There was a great deal of circumstantial evidence of Libyan involvement.

    I researched this article following Patrick Haseldine's claim (on this site) UTA772 and Lockerbie were very similar or identical. I thought the relationship was more tangential and the recovery of the timers in Senegal was of particular interest.

    I don't believe "Lockerbie" was that complicated but the bombing itself and the creation of the "Libyan solution" and essentially distinct issues. Indeed the Police substantially solved the case but discounted "the bleeding obvious".

    It was the creation of the "Libyan solution" the politicisation of the judicial process (initially by the western powers, and the creation of various false solutions (notably the "drug conspiracy theory") as well as the nonsensical ramblings of other dimwits that endlessly muddied the waters.

    Anyway good luck with finding Dick and Frank's e-mail addresses!

  15. I thought you meant there should be a "d" in Bruguiere. I stick to the French spelling of Juge, for that is how the French call that position/job.

    I had noted the "Lebanaise" translation, but decided to ignore it. The translation is a bit basic, and not elegant. Bernard Yanga was not the mule. Mr Mangatany was. He, not Mr Yanga, lost his life.

    I could see no parallels between Lockerbie and UTA, and early on I drew attention to the differences to argue for a different aetiology of the two atrocities.

    There is perhaps, in the Libyan attribution to Lockerbie by the CIA, the attempt to draw out the issue of Mr Fhimah setting up a travel tour company in Malta, which bears some resemblance to two Libya military officers being sent to the Congo as auditors for the joint Libyan-Congolese forest products company. (For that read a shameless Libyan attempt to strip Congo of its fast disappearing forest cover).

    If Lockerbie is not a complicated bombing, it is surprising that between us all that we have not come to a common, if tacit, agreement as to what the elements of its were!

    It is made much harder by the double cover-up or re-attribution, first to PFLP GC or PPSF and then to Libya.

    I have both Frank's and Dick's email addresses, and have communicated with both of them on occasion. They are very different kettles of course.

    If you have Bob's or Vincent's that works, I'd like them, if you are willing to share.


  16. Yes you are quite right - Bernard Yanga was the "witness" whose evidence was manipulated. Mr Mangatany was the mule or at least the alleged mule. with the manipulation of Yanga's evidence it is by no means certain that the bomb was in or rather was Mangatany's suitcase.

    Perhaps one could come to a common agreement about what transpired at Lockerbie if some people did not extrapolate from the known facts, construct fantastic and untenable theories about "sets" of luggage, invent facts, made fantastical claims unsupported by a shred of evidence then it is unlikely anybody could come to an agreement. If Dick Marquise complimented you on your clarity and depth of thought then he must have dropped acid too! (or was taking the p***).!

    p.s. Who is "Bob"?

  17. Having read the reconstruction of events about the UTA bombing very carefully, I know there are bits that are missing. Particularly the reconstruction of the deployment of the bomb. It's based on Mr Yanga, the Juge's interviews with him, for the Libyans didn't co-operate. Just as Mr McKee was not in a position to co-operate with telling us about the fate of his suitcase (which, and I'll say it again, did not contain a bomb, but a radio transmitter).

    Yanga says Elazragh, Naeli and Musbah present Mr Mangatany with a suitcase for his trip to Paris. It happens sometime the day, before; was it in the evening?

    That suitcase must have been primed with a detonating circuit and set. A reasonable argument could be made out that it was set by the conspirators at 13:00 UTC on 18 September 1989 (but that restriction might not be necessary if the device were a mite more sophisticated.

    Mr Mangatany might have been unfamiliar with suitcases, and would therefore not have been knowledgeable enough to know it had been "prepared". He was certainly unfamiliar with tying a tie and got his friend Yanga to tie one for him. After all, he seems to have been told by his Libyan manipulators that his trip to Paris was important.

    I have no reason to doubt that the bomb suitcase was Mr Mangatany's therefore.

    For heaven's sake Baz, Bob is Bob Baer, of course.

  18. It could be Bob Black!

  19. Methinks St Robert of Zeist should not be mentioned in the same breath as the sinner of Silvertown, Arizona

  20. I return to being baffled by Charles'. If he has messrs. Marquise's and Duggan's e-mail addresses why did he (5th June)invite them to send them to him so they could be favoured with a copy of "A Tale of Three Atrocities".

    Charles also wrote (7th June) "He (Mangatany) was certainly unfamiliar with tying a tie and got his friend Yanga to tie one for him". "Certainly?" The story, which is significant, is almost certainly untrue, a creation of Congolese Military Intelligenge as I pointed out in my article The Bombing of UTA 772 and references. The evidence that Mangatany was an unwitting "mule" is extremely tenuous!

  21. Oh Baz, why don't you think before setting pen to paper.

    I have said I distribute the green ATOTA only by snail mail. I have neither Mr Duggan's nor Mr Marquise's ground addresses. So I can not send it to them!

    Why is the fact that Mr Mangatany was unfamiliar with tying a tie, necessarily untrue. If it is it is an immensely small point that yet again Baz's gags at!

    It is without doubt the fact that Mr Mangatany was a mule. If he was not, what is Baz's theory about UTA.

  22. Sorry - I thought snail mail was just one of your typos! I wouldn't tell you where I lived!

    Mr Mangatany's tie is not a trivial point at all.. According to the story the Congolese were trying to create Mangatany was to spirited off the plane at N'Djama and he would be recognised by his bright red tie. (It may also represent Mangatany as a stupid or uncivilised person if he didn't even know how to tie a necktie.) The man who "tied" his tie Ngalina ("witnessed" by Yanga) also supposedly p=rimed the bomb. This was according to Yanga's initial statement made under duress in which Congolese Military Intelligence made "suggestions".

    Yanga's voluntary statement was allegedly almost similar save that Ngalina did not go onto Mangatany's "plot" and therefore did not prime the bomb. The differences in the two statements cast doubt on whether Mangatany was a "mule". He may have been or the suitcase may have been introduced at the Airport (where the three Libyans were that morning or put in the luggage container left at the Hotel.) I am merely pointing out that the "evidence" Mangatany was a "mule". As you pointed out the suitcase bomb would have to be primed, if not by Ngalina, then the previous day and would have suspicious wiring ect. when packed.

  23. If you don't mind Baz, a Mr Mangatany was killed in the atrocity of UT-772, and was buried, so what was the role of that dead body: a non-existent, simply someone who died, the usually agreed mule, a genuine perpetrator, or someone believed solely by yourself. Perhaps an empty grave?

    I am deeply perplexed, as I have spent some years trying to understand UTA as well as Lockerbie, and to find that my understanding of both is wrong is certainly disconcerting.

    You need to realise that getting a different version of the truth out as I am doing is very difficult, and I expect my critics to reach a very high level of proof.

    Let alone the rest of the world. I am still looking forward to the book you claim to be writing.

    On proof, you don't even begin to reach it.

    Neither can you use grammar accurately.

  24. Charles, you need to work on your own "high level of proof". Saying "this is what I think happened" doesn't cut it. Even "this is what I am absolutely certain happened" doesn't cut it.

    Show the evidence.

  25. Once again, Rolfe, you need to think before you blog.

    I think by now you must have a good idea of what I say here.

    What is your problem: acute obtuseness.

    I have explained to you exactly what my theory is, its gaps and everything else.

    So, what is your problem?

  26. Problem? Your persistent attempts to claim that what is simply your theory "must" be what happened, even though you have no evidence to support it. In fact, in places it actually runs counter to the evidence we know about.

    We can all theorise - maybe this happened, or maybe it could have been that way. And yes, we test theories for plausibility and accordance with the evidence, and reject or modify them as necessary. You, however, have a theory that's immutable. You cling to it in the face of any evidence or logic that exposes its fantastical nature.

    Another poster explained to you that the baggage containers are not pre-allocated days in advance, and nobody could possibly have known which containers were going on PA103 before the airport opened that morning. However, you simply didn't listen to him.

    Several people have explained to you that AVE4041 wasn't found in one piece on the ground with a recognisably blown-up suitcase inside it. In reality it was brought in in several pieces, over several days, and what you see in the evidential photographs is the result of piecing it back together. No brown Samsonite suitcase was found - only a handful of fragments, and its role as the bomb bag was deduced from the blast damage, and the relative positioning of things that had been blasted into other things.

    When the AAIB report says there was only one IED, that's what they mean. They are not implying there was also a piece of military ordnance they're not telling us about! They may be mistaken, but there is no hidden subtext such as you fondly imagine.

    Your idea about the tracker on McKee's case isn't ridiculous per se, assuming the tales about the CIA interference with that suitcase are true. It would explain why the case was found so quickly (if it was), and why a hole was cut in it rather than it simply being opened (assuming the tracker was incorporated into the side of the case and had to be cut out). I have no problem with the idea that the CIA were wetting themselves trying to get hold of the luggage carried by their operatives before the Scottish cops did.

    However, it's just an idea. You have nothing to support it. So it remains a nice idea. But more importantly, the house of cards you've built on it is completely without foundation. It's impossible for any such tracker to have led the CIA to AVE4041, because AVE4041 was in bits all over the landscape. Also, you're only guessing that McKee's case was even in that container. There were undoubtedly more than five, or even seven, cases interlined into Heathrow for that flight. Some, indeed most, must have been in other containers. I've seen nothing to indicate that the cases that were in AVE4041 before departure were from the Larnaca flight rather than any other.

    This is what happens when you fantasise scenarios without looking at the basics of the evidence. If you've spent years working this out, so much so that you can't bear the thought that you might be wrong, I'm sorry for you. However, until you realise that all you have is a theory, not a divine revelation, you'll be stuck.

  27. "Mr Mangatany was killed in ther atrocity of UTA 772." Very likely but his body was never identified.(As were the bodies of many of the victims many horribly burned.) I'm sure he was killed in the bombing but that does not prove he was a "mule" and there is very little evidence "the Libyans" supplied him with a suitcase. I find it a little disconcerting that Charles is defending what is "usually agreed".

    As with the fictitious incident with th necktie (which Charles thought was "certainly" true) "evidence" was manipulated and created to support the "mule" theory. Of course facts and evidence aren't really Charles' forte. He has himself "deduced" many facts that are wildy untrue.