Friday, 30 December 2011

Will Abdelbaset al-Megrahi die before Saif al-Islam takes the stand?

[This is the headline over an item published today on the Anorak website.  It reads in part:]

Will Abdelbaset al-Megrahi die before Saif al-Islam takes the stand?

Human Rights Watch says Colonel Gaddafi’s son is being held in solitary confinement in Zintan, in the Nafusa Mountains of western Libya. He has no access to lawyers. Saif al-Islam has had the ends of his right-hand forefinger and thumb amputated – they became infected after being damaged in a Nato air strike.

Saif al-Islam faces two trials on corruption and war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court. (...)

Al-Megrahi denies being a killer.  The headline in The Times quotes him:These are my last words: I am innocent”. (...)

If not al-Megrahi, who? The NY Daily News tosses up names:
"Last week, FBI Director Robert Mueller and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder met with Scotland’s Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, to start a new investigation into who, exactly, brought down the jetliner.
"Part of the reason a new probe could bear fruit is that the fall of Moammar Khadafy’s regime has suddenly made former Libyan government functionaries more willing to speak honestly about his policy of state-sponsored terrorism — perhaps for no other reason than to settle old scores.
"That’s all well and good, as long as they tell the truth about Lockerbie.
"Among the potential witnesses are former Justice Minister Mustafa Abdul-Jalil and former Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, who may finally be eager to talk about what role their government played in the attack — and who else was involved.
"One obvious candidate is Lamin Khalifa Fhimah, who stood trial with Megrahi but was acquitted. Also suspected are Khafady’s brother-in-law Abdullah Senussi, who then led Libya’s intelligence services, and Ibrahim Nayili, former head of airline security."
Names and lies and money. Who now speaks for the 270?


  1. Saif won’t be put on trial. The last thing the American’s want is another Zeist.

    The ICC arrest warrants were issued to help facilitate the assassination of Gaddafi and Saif, not their arrest.

    As payback the Americans wanted the rebels (whoever they are) to take full responsibility for Lockerbie.

    But things didn’t go to plan and in a ruined country no Libyan government would survive agreeing to the Lockerbie blood-libel.

    Instead the big lie is repeated, ‘if they’re Libyan, they must know something’, when in truth, our own government knows far more.

  2. "Who now speaks for the 270?"
    Well it is 270 if you include Majid Giaka supposedly in the Witness Protection Programme for more than a decade. Who is he now being protected from?

    There were however in my view four or five further victims.

  3. I would not take the ICC seriously. Their top guy actually stated publicly it wasn't important whether Saif Gaddafi got a fair trial. What a quote from anyone remotely connected with the International Criminal Court.

    And of course the elephant in the room - the SCCRC report - doesn't even get a mention in this piece. To use a Scottish saying, "Ye couldnae make it up."