Friday, 27 August 2010

The right response?

Tony Hayward, the outgoing chief executive of BP, has refused to testify for the second time before a US Senate hearing about BP’s role in the release of the Lockerbie Bomber.

Mr Hayward, who also refused to testify in July shortly after resigning from BP, wrote to US Sen Robert Menendez that he is focused on ensuring a “smooth and successful leadership change” at the company and will be unable to testify. (...)

BP has admitted that Sir Mark Allen, an adviser to the firm, spoke to Jack Straw, the former Justice Secretary, about Britain introducing a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya. Mr Menendez initially planned the hearing for last month, but was forced to postpone it when he could not get Mr Hayward or officials from Britain and Scotland to testify. (...)

Citing public comments from British and Scottish officials saying they found no evidence that BP played a role in al-Megrahi’s release, Mr Hayward in his latest letter said, “BP has nothing to add to these clear, unequivocal statements.”

Mr Menendez has said that although the committee cannot compel foreign nationals to testify at a hearing in the U.S., the committee will look into whether Mr Hayward could be subpoenaed because BP conducts business in the US.

[From a report in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph.

The Washington Post's Spy Talk blog has a post headed "CIA retirees call for escalated probe of Pan Am 103 bomber's release". The Association of Former Intelligence Officers, an organization of CIA and other ex-intelligence officers, is calling for Scotland, Britain and all relevant branches of the US government to cooperate with a US Senate investigation into the circumstances surrounding the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. A number of US intelligence officers were amongst the victims of Pan Am 103. Now, if AFIO were to call for an inquiry into the circumstances of Mr Megrahi's conviction and to call for the US and other governments to make available all documents and evidence pertinent to that issue, that really would be a news story.]



    Why does the Scottish Justiciary and the security service MI6, strive persistent the responsibility for the "Lockerbie-Tragedy" with Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Libya to hold ?

    Article only in german language:

    Wieso bemüht sich die Scottish Justiciary und der Security Service MI6, hartnäckig die Verantwortung für die Lockerbie-Tragödie weiterhin bei Abdelbaset al-Megrahi und Libya zubelassen?

    3* facts, which a Scottish Miscarriage of Justice provokes:

    3* Tatsachen, welche ein Scottish Miscarriage of Justice herausfordern:

    Wenn wirklich Aufklärung in dieser Angelegenheit in Scotland gefragt ist, können mit 72 Stunden Zeitaufwand durch eine polizeiliche Nachprüfung, zusammen mit professionellen Fachleuten und Experten, die wahren entlastenden Fakts 1-3 bestätigt werden:

    1) Es kann zum heutigen Zeitpunkt auf einfache Art nachweislich bewiesen werden, dass von Air Malta Flug KM-180, am 21. Dezember 1988, kein Gepäckstück im Airport Frankfurt auf PanAm Flug PA-103/B transferiert wurde. Damit wird die Behauptung hinfällig, Mr. al-Megrahi hätte ein "Bomb-Bag" im Airport Luqa auf Flug KM-180 eingeschleust !

    2) Es kann zum heutigen Zeitpunkt auf einfache Art nachweislich bewiesen werden, dass das MST-13 Timer-Fragment (PT/35) nicht von einem nach Libyen gelieferten MST-13 Timer abstammt, sondern aus einem **entwendeten MST-13 Circuit-Bord (Prototyp) welches von offiziellen Personen zu diesem Zweck manipuliert wurde. Dadurch ist eine Verbindung zu Libyen über das MST-13 Timer Fragment ebenfalls hinfällig !
    (see **Affidavit vom 18. Juli, 2007))

    3) Aus Beweisunterlagen z.B. (Regenfall in Malta) hätte man bei seriöser Gerichtsverhandlung im "Lockerbie-Prozess" (Kamp van Zeist) bereits beweisen können, dass der fragwürdige Kleider-Verkauf bei Gauci in Malta, am Mittwoch den 23. November 1988 abgewickelt wurde. An diesem Datum hielt sich Mr. al-Megrahi nachweislich nicht in Malta auf.
    Mr. Megrahi kann dadurch als Kleider-Käufer am 7. Dezember 1988 bei Gauci's Boutique "Mary's House" definitiv ausgeschlossen werden!

    Wichtig: Mr. Megrahi's Besuch am 20.-21. Dezember 1988 in Malta
    mit falschem Passport und codiertem Namen, "Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad", hatte mit einer angeblichen Einschleusung eines "Bomb-Bag" auf Air Malta, KM-180 nichts zutun !
    Da kein unbegleitetes "Bag" auf Air Malta, KM-180 geladen und in Frankfurt auf PanAm 103/B transferiert wurde, unterstützt die Tatsache, dass Megrahi's Besuch in Malta mit einen normalen subversiven Auftrag im Zusammenhang steht..

    Sollte sich Scottish Secretary of Justice Kenny MacAskill nicht getrauen sein Versprechen aus "begreiflichen" Gründen einzulösen, das heisst die SCCRC Dokumente zu veröffentlichen, hätte er jetzt Gelegenheit mit den Tatsachen 1-3, Libyen und Mr. Al-Megrahi zuentlasten.
    US senators hearing has been called to examine BP’s alleged role in Scotland’s decision last August to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi would not be then necessary...

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

    Für eine gute Übersetzung des obigen Artikels in English sind wir dankbar. > e-mail:

  2. Tony Hayward should be attending the Senate Hearing.
    Let’s not confuse our present disdain for US political manoeuvrings with our concern over the Lockerbie affair.
    Hayward is (or was) operating a business in the US, and is therefore unquestionably accountable to some degree (if not legally, then morally) to US government scrutiny. It does not matter whether he is a US national, or not – so, if he had been a US citizen, his attendance would have been mandatory? This seems to uncover a paradox – depending on the nationality of the CEO, a Senate committee could, or could not, get answers to questions of national interest. A loophole that must be addressed, in the future.
    He is paid handsomely (in 2009, £1,045,000 plus a bonus of £2,090,000) to be the accountable head of BP; so surely explaining the actions of his company, when requested to attend a US Senate Committee hearing, is entirely part of his job remit – if not, who has operational accountability for BP?
    The motivation behind the committee’s quest is also irrelevant. That should not influence his motivation to attend, or not.

    His refusal is yet another symptom of the greed culture in the ranks of modern business: at the top, they take, and take to excess, when the sun is shining… but as soon as there is a cloud on the horizon, they execute their 'exit strategy'.

    His position is entirely different from a UK or Scottish Government official – who are not accountable to the US Government, and whose attendance is discretionary on their part. Hayward seems to have hit on the idea that if they are not attending he can merge in with the crowd, and not be singled out.
    Tony Hayward has not conducted himself in this whole affair with any degree of distinction – he looks a slippery character – an ill fit for a CEO, in my opinion.
    He should turn up and tell the truth.

  3. Whatever Blogiston. The US have short memories tho. I remember 167 men dying in the North Sea on the Piper Alpha because of THEIR refusal to have good Health and Safety regulations. I have a brother who worked on that rig at one point. I just thank God he wasn't there when it went up in flames although he lost many friends. I don't remember Occidental being overly keen to take responsibility for that!

  4. Jo G: Operating tit-for-tat because the US have sharp practices is wrong. Scotland is a wee country - and I think it is in our nature to try and act honourably - and we pride ourselves in that quality. Maybe this is why we are so annoyed at what has happened following Lockerbie.
    Look at other small countries whose culture is 'do anything for money', like Switzerland, for example - they are not respected. If you judge every issue on individual merit alone and apply our principles, you don't get into a complex mess - and this is what MacAskill was doing when he rejected lobbying by Lord Trefgarne. We know the US in a similar situation would have signed that PTA - I've worked for US companies all my life and they are just imperialists (like Great Britain was in the nineteenth century).
    [I am happy to hear your brother was lucky.]

  5. I'm not judging incident by incident Bloggy really I'm not. I'm judging along the lines of the only philosophy the US seems to live by: "Do as I say, not as I do." I won't defile the word principle by calling their approach such a thing. For principles usually involve honour.

    You can see that philosophy of theirs in operation in many places throughout the world right now, too many to mention.

    The US in the North Sea hasn't changed much when it comes to health and safety. The hint of concern from anyone about it usually leads to them being "let go" next pay day. And there's the hypocrisy in what they're doing to BP right now because that happened in the States, not in foreign waters where men faced the choice of burning alive or jumping into the merciless North Sea to pretty much certain death.

    Occidental didn't want to know and the treatment of the dead by this country never mind the US was disgusting. Worst of all health and safety still isn't a priority out there which is why so many veterans of the oil industry do not care to work in the UK sector. Its still dangerous. These guys face trips out to those rigs on machines that need to fly low enough to stay out of the cloud and high enough to stay out of a perilous sea. That's bad enough. You'd think when they got to the rig they could say, "Phew, I'm safe now." That isn't necessarily true. Oil is still just about money and the human cost of getting to it and managing the flow doesn't matter at all. Twas always thus.