The Lockerbie Case: Hope for Lockerbie bombing truth

Wednesday, 23 November 2011

Hope for Lockerbie bombing truth

[This is the headline over a report published this evening on the Herald Scotland website from The Press Association news agency. It reads in part:]

The reported capture of the man thought to be behind the Lockerbie bombing gives the UK an opportunity to discover the truth about some of the crimes of the former Libyan regime, a Foreign Office minister says.

Lord Howell of Guildford said that no effort should be spared in bringing former intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi to justice.

At question time in the House of Lords, Lord Selkirk of Douglas [RB: formerly Lord James Douglas-Hamilton], a former Scotland minister who was on the scene of the Lockerbie bombing within hours of it taking place, said the capture of Al-Senussi and intelligence archives could "finally provide the information that would assist the Lord Advocate with his ongoing inquiries". (...)

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, thought to have been recruited by Al-Senussi, was jailed for mass murder in 2001 but was returned to Tripoli in 2009 on compassionate grounds after doctors treating him for prostate cancer gave him an estimated three months to live. He is still alive.

Conservative peer Lord Selkirk asked Lord Howell: "In order to bring closure for the families of the 270 dead victims, is it not highly desirable that they should learn from any new evidence exactly what it was that happened 23 years ago and precisely what was the background to this monstrous crime?"

Lord Howell replied that the Government was seeking "confirmation" about Al-Senussi's "reported detention".

"We have been clear that no effort should be spared in bringing him to justice," he said.

"Abdullah al-Senussi's arrest, if confirmed, would offer an opportunity to uncover the truth behind some of the former regime's dreadful crimes.

"The Government will continue to support the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary's investigation into the bombing. We would want any new evidence to be made available to them and to the Lord Advocate."

2 comments:

SM24 November, 2011
It's understandable that editors need to cut to save space in the printed version, which again must be the same as the on-line version.

Since this blog has no such constraints, I am happy to bring the correct final statement:

"The Government will continue to support the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary's completely inactive investigation into the bombing, which we at times use as an excuse for calling this something 'ongoing that we should not interfere with'. We would want any new evidence to be made available to them and to the Lord Advocate, provided that it supports the theory of the guilt of Al-Megrahi, regardless of whether the evidence is reliable or not."
ReplyDelete
Replies
Robert Black01 December, 2011
I have deleted a comment because it did not relate to the Lockerbie case.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Comments

Readers are invited to comment on blog posts. All comments require to be pre-moderated by me, and I shall reject all (a) that are not related to the Lockerbie disaster or (b) that fail to meet my -- perhaps idiosyncratic -- standards of courtesy towards other contributors. Comments will not be rejected simply because I disagree with them or because I, or other contributors, find them irritating. But comments will be rejected if they distort or misrepresent the evidence; are defamatory; or if they risk embroiling me, as publisher, in defamation proceedings. I am perfectly relaxed about being sued in respect of material which I personally have posted -- but not in respect of material that others wish to post as comments and which, in any case, I often strongly disagree with.

Particularly during my sojourns in South Africa, it may not be possible for me to perform the moderation function speedily. I regret the necessity of moderation but it has been rendered inevitable by the behaviour of a particular commentator whose contributions will always and without exception be rejected.

No correspondence will be entered into regarding moderation decisions.