[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads as follows:]
Supporters of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi say he should be allowed to return to Scotland to avoid being extradited to the United States.
The Justice for Megrahi group is calling on the Scottish Government to offer him an "open door" after American senators declared last week that they hoped to persuade Libyan rebels to hand him over if they gain control of the country.
Megrahi's supporters say the Scottish Government should pre-empt such a plan by bringing him back to Scotland to prevent a "diplomatic disaster".
Robert Forrester, of the Justice for Megrahi group, wrote: "It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction."
His comments come after US politicians stepped up their war of words over Megrahi's release after TV images of the bomber were broadcast at a pro-Gaddafi event in Libya last week.
Democrat Senator Robert Menendez said he hoped to persuade a new Libyan government "to extradite Mr al-Megrahi to the United States to pay for his crimes".
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "East Renfrewshire Council, as the supervising local authority, is responsible for monitoring al-Megrahi's release licence, and the council has been able to maintain regular contact with Mr al-Megrahi during the recent conflict in Libya."
[The same newspaper publishes a long article by Eddie Barnes headlined As the anniversary of the Lockerbie bomber's release looms are we any closer to solving the riddle? This focusses on the release of Megrahi and the medical evidence that underpinned it. There are extensive quotes from representatives of US relatives of Pan Am 103 victims but, strangely enough, none from UK relatives whose attitude has always been markedly different. The article does at least recognise that there are doubts about the Megrahi conviction in the following passage:]
Under pressure once again, MacAskill last week repeated the now familiar words he had used two years ago when he told the world that the man found guilty of Britain's worst terrorist atrocity could pack his bags and go home. Megrahi was suffering from a terminal illness; his fate was in the hands of a higher power; the Scottish Government had acted in good faith - and not with reference to any "deals in the desert".
And while MacAskill will find himself under greater pressure, it may be that the focus moves away from the decision to set him free to the decision to convict him in the first place. Last week, Salmond repeated his pledge to publish a confidential report, compiled by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which sets out its reasons for sending Megrahi's conviction back to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh.
If published, the report, which was locked away after Megrahi dropped his appeal, is likely to put fresh scrutiny on his involvement in the bombing. (...)
Inquiries by Scottish prosecutors remain "ongoing". The Crown Office is examining new evidence to establish whether it can retry Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, Megrahi's co-accused who was found not guilty at the Camp Zeist trial in 2001. Prosecutors are re-examining evidence to see whether it is strong enough to invoke the new double jeopardy law, which allows prosecutors to try someone twice for the same offence.
Meanwhile, US Senators are hoping to use the Libyan revolution to spirit Megrahi back out of Libya to the US. Having watched Megrahi on the TV, Democrat Senator Robert Menendez said last week: "I will continue to work to ensure that any new government in Libya co-operates with efforts to extradite Mr al-Megrahi to the United States to pay for his crimes."
Menendez and veteran fellow Democrat Frank Lautenberg have written to Hillary Clinton urging her to act. As we report today, the Justice for Megrahi group - which insists he is innocent - are calling on the SNP Government to offer Megrahi the option of returning to Scotland if he wishes to avoid what they describe as the threat of his "rendition" to the US. Robert Forrester, the secretary of the group, says: "It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction."
Such a move would be seen as the ultimate betrayal by families in the US, however, many of whom - such as [Frank] Duggan [President of Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc] - believe 100 per cent in Megrahi's guilt, and view those who consider him innocent as hopelessly naive. As he approaches a second anniversary which none of them ever dreamed of experiencing, Duggan's view of matters is understandably cynical. "There is no credible medical evidence. So the conclusion is that the man was let go for what were diplomatic, commercial and political reasons," he says. It may also be a case that a very sick man is clinging on to life, now that he has something to live for. If he continues to do so, he may finally see the riddle of his life finally brought to light.
A commentary on the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted of the murder of 270 people in the Pan Am 103 disaster.
Sunday, 31 July 2011
Saturday, 30 July 2011
Lockerbie: The Pan Am bomber
[This is the headline over a feature just published on the Newsnet Scotland website. It reads as follows:]
An antidote to BBC Scotland's carnival of ignorance
It’s taken on the form of a regular parade on the airwaves of BBC Scotland, a bandwagon hitched to ignorance and manned by misrepresentation is once again being whipped up to high speed.
Mr al-Megrahi, the man whose conviction is now considered so unsafe by so many people that a (posthumous?) pardon now surely beckons, has refused to die on schedule. His appearance, frail and gaunt, sitting in a wheelchair at a rally in Tripoli was seized on by Pacific Quay who have spent the last few days questioning the decision to release him.
On Friday the state broadcaster ran yet another phone in with Shereen Nanjiani in the chair as the usual half-truths, misinformation and ignorance were broadcast to a bewildered nation. Labour’s Iain Gray was invited on to provide the same nauseating politicised commentary that has so infected the debate since the decision was taken to release Mr al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. Gray's party’s role in oil deals, secret negotiations with Libyans and arms sales to Gaddafi an apparent irrelevant detail.
Only in Scotland would the ‘national’ broadcaster and opposition amplify and promulgate with relish any and all accusations against the nation's medical profession, government and centuries old law. The Lockerbie bombing has been used, abused and spat out by these politically motivated ghouls, who parade faux outrage as the real victims are forgotten.
Newsnet Scotland has chronicled the excesses of the Scottish media on this issue, mainly BBC Scotland, and few of their presenters, with the exception of Revel Alderson, emerge with any credit. For almost £150 per year per licence we expect more than poorly informed tabloid style sensationalism - we expect journalism of the highest quality and we are being let down.
The one aspect of the whole affair that has been all but ignored by what’s left of the Scottish media is the soundness of Megrahi’s conviction. So, rather than waste time on what’s left of the BBC in Scotland, Newsnet Scotland invites you to instead form your own judgement on the conviction of Mr Abdel Basset al-Megrahi by watching a documentary that sought to investigate some of the key evidence presented at his trial.
Lockerbie: The Pan Am bomber?
An antidote to BBC Scotland's carnival of ignorance
It’s taken on the form of a regular parade on the airwaves of BBC Scotland, a bandwagon hitched to ignorance and manned by misrepresentation is once again being whipped up to high speed.
Mr al-Megrahi, the man whose conviction is now considered so unsafe by so many people that a (posthumous?) pardon now surely beckons, has refused to die on schedule. His appearance, frail and gaunt, sitting in a wheelchair at a rally in Tripoli was seized on by Pacific Quay who have spent the last few days questioning the decision to release him.
On Friday the state broadcaster ran yet another phone in with Shereen Nanjiani in the chair as the usual half-truths, misinformation and ignorance were broadcast to a bewildered nation. Labour’s Iain Gray was invited on to provide the same nauseating politicised commentary that has so infected the debate since the decision was taken to release Mr al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. Gray's party’s role in oil deals, secret negotiations with Libyans and arms sales to Gaddafi an apparent irrelevant detail.
Only in Scotland would the ‘national’ broadcaster and opposition amplify and promulgate with relish any and all accusations against the nation's medical profession, government and centuries old law. The Lockerbie bombing has been used, abused and spat out by these politically motivated ghouls, who parade faux outrage as the real victims are forgotten.
Newsnet Scotland has chronicled the excesses of the Scottish media on this issue, mainly BBC Scotland, and few of their presenters, with the exception of Revel Alderson, emerge with any credit. For almost £150 per year per licence we expect more than poorly informed tabloid style sensationalism - we expect journalism of the highest quality and we are being let down.
The one aspect of the whole affair that has been all but ignored by what’s left of the Scottish media is the soundness of Megrahi’s conviction. So, rather than waste time on what’s left of the BBC in Scotland, Newsnet Scotland invites you to instead form your own judgement on the conviction of Mr Abdel Basset al-Megrahi by watching a documentary that sought to investigate some of the key evidence presented at his trial.
Lockerbie: The Pan Am bomber?
Allan Francovich's The Maltese Double Cross
Allan Francovich's 1994 film can be viewed here. For the avoidance of doubt, I provide the link simply to be helpful, not because I necessarily support the thesis that the film advances.
Al-Megrahi "could live for years"
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of the News & Star, a newspaper circulating in the Carlisle area. It reads in part:]
A leading cancer specialist has predicted the convicted Lockerbie bomber could live for several more years.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison two years ago on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer.
He had served nearly eight years of a 27-year sentence after being convicted of killing 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, four days before Christmas in 1988.
But the Scottish Government accepted advice that he had about three months to live, prompting his release and return to Libya in 2009.
This week, following his appearance on Libyan television, foreign secretary William Hague labelled this move a “great mistake”.
Now Professor Roger Kirby, one of the world’s leading prostate surgeons and founder of The Prostate Centre, said he may have years left to live.
“I am not surprised that Mr Al-Megrahi is still alive as the decision to release him was based on flawed medical advice. It was always foolhardy to put a three-month prognosis on his survival, because advances in treatment, such as new chemotherapy and immunotherapy techniques that he is likely to be receiving, could keep him alive for a while yet, maybe even several more years.
“What used to be a hopeless situation for patients at advanced stages of prostate cancer is now more favourable. The silver lining to this story is that other patients with similarly advanced disease should not give up hope and should ask their doctor about the possibility of having these new treatments.”
Earlier this week Mr Hague claimed the footage – at what appeared to be a pro-government rally in Libya – demonstrated that the medical advice was “pretty much worthless”.
A leading cancer specialist has predicted the convicted Lockerbie bomber could live for several more years.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison two years ago on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer.
He had served nearly eight years of a 27-year sentence after being convicted of killing 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, four days before Christmas in 1988.
But the Scottish Government accepted advice that he had about three months to live, prompting his release and return to Libya in 2009.
This week, following his appearance on Libyan television, foreign secretary William Hague labelled this move a “great mistake”.
Now Professor Roger Kirby, one of the world’s leading prostate surgeons and founder of The Prostate Centre, said he may have years left to live.
“I am not surprised that Mr Al-Megrahi is still alive as the decision to release him was based on flawed medical advice. It was always foolhardy to put a three-month prognosis on his survival, because advances in treatment, such as new chemotherapy and immunotherapy techniques that he is likely to be receiving, could keep him alive for a while yet, maybe even several more years.
“What used to be a hopeless situation for patients at advanced stages of prostate cancer is now more favourable. The silver lining to this story is that other patients with similarly advanced disease should not give up hope and should ask their doctor about the possibility of having these new treatments.”
Earlier this week Mr Hague claimed the footage – at what appeared to be a pro-government rally in Libya – demonstrated that the medical advice was “pretty much worthless”.
Friday, 29 July 2011
Salmond on the spot over Megrahi miscarriage report
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
Professor Robert Black QC has challenged the First Minister Alex Salmond’s intention, repeated yesterday at Cabinet in Fort William, to introduce primary legislation to facilitate the publication of the report which ruled the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi may have been a miscarriage of justice.
Black says that the matter can be dealt with by a simple statutory instrument, without resort to primary legislation, which must pass through the entire Parliamentary process.
“There is still no explanation given of why primary legislation is being resorted to in order to permit publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission report.” Black said.
“It can, and should be done by Statutory Instrument (secondary legislation) just as the Scottish Government did earlier when it permitted publication but only if those who supplied the information to the SCCRC consented. An unqualified permission to publish can be given through exactly the same legal mechanism as the earlier qualified permission.”
The confidentiality condition imposed on them is being strictly construed by the SCCRC, who have interpreted Megrahi’s statement that the full report could be released with the agreement of other concerned parties, as conditional upon the disclosure of all material held by the commission
“I intend to publish in full the findings of the SCCRC. It hasn't been done to date because under the current law you have to have an agreement from all parties. It hasn't been possible to secure the agreement from all parties and therefore the statement is in limbo,” Salmond said yesterday.
“However, we believe that we can change the law so that the matter can be published under the full discretion of the SCCRC, and that is what we intend to do."
The First Minister has not addressed the issue of why primary legislation is preferred over a statutory instrument.
[For a fuller discussion of the primary v secondary legislation issue, see Scottish Government obfuscation over removal of SCCRC consent requirement.]
Professor Robert Black QC has challenged the First Minister Alex Salmond’s intention, repeated yesterday at Cabinet in Fort William, to introduce primary legislation to facilitate the publication of the report which ruled the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi may have been a miscarriage of justice.
Black says that the matter can be dealt with by a simple statutory instrument, without resort to primary legislation, which must pass through the entire Parliamentary process.
“There is still no explanation given of why primary legislation is being resorted to in order to permit publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission report.” Black said.
“It can, and should be done by Statutory Instrument (secondary legislation) just as the Scottish Government did earlier when it permitted publication but only if those who supplied the information to the SCCRC consented. An unqualified permission to publish can be given through exactly the same legal mechanism as the earlier qualified permission.”
The confidentiality condition imposed on them is being strictly construed by the SCCRC, who have interpreted Megrahi’s statement that the full report could be released with the agreement of other concerned parties, as conditional upon the disclosure of all material held by the commission
“I intend to publish in full the findings of the SCCRC. It hasn't been done to date because under the current law you have to have an agreement from all parties. It hasn't been possible to secure the agreement from all parties and therefore the statement is in limbo,” Salmond said yesterday.
“However, we believe that we can change the law so that the matter can be published under the full discretion of the SCCRC, and that is what we intend to do."
The First Minister has not addressed the issue of why primary legislation is preferred over a statutory instrument.
[For a fuller discussion of the primary v secondary legislation issue, see Scottish Government obfuscation over removal of SCCRC consent requirement.]
Decision to free Megrahi was right
[This is the heading over a letter from David McEwan Hill published in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
The fact that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, is refusing to die on schedule makes no difference whatsoever to the decision to release him – based carefully and correctly on all the legal conditions required to justify this (“So daft to expect Gaddafi to retire to Dun-dictating, The Herald, July 28).
The trial of this man at Camp Zeist remains a blot on Scotland’s record. It cannot be described as a “fair trial”, as Hans Koechler, the UN observer at the court, observed. I find it painful to have it described as a Scottish trial.
[A letter from David Stevenson in today's edition of The Scotsman reads as follows:]
You say that "Megrahi is a living rebuke to (justice secretary, Kenny] MacAskill" (leader, 28 July).
MacAskill followed the rules and in my view should be commended for doing so and for showing common sense and compassion.
Along with many other Scots, I see Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi as a living rebuke to a legal system which condemned him on very shaky evidence and which has failed properly to re-examine his case and what really happened at Lockerbie. It is still not too late to do this.
The fact that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, is refusing to die on schedule makes no difference whatsoever to the decision to release him – based carefully and correctly on all the legal conditions required to justify this (“So daft to expect Gaddafi to retire to Dun-dictating, The Herald, July 28).
The trial of this man at Camp Zeist remains a blot on Scotland’s record. It cannot be described as a “fair trial”, as Hans Koechler, the UN observer at the court, observed. I find it painful to have it described as a Scottish trial.
[A letter from David Stevenson in today's edition of The Scotsman reads as follows:]
You say that "Megrahi is a living rebuke to (justice secretary, Kenny] MacAskill" (leader, 28 July).
MacAskill followed the rules and in my view should be commended for doing so and for showing common sense and compassion.
Along with many other Scots, I see Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi as a living rebuke to a legal system which condemned him on very shaky evidence and which has failed properly to re-examine his case and what really happened at Lockerbie. It is still not too late to do this.
Should the Scottish government offer to bring al-Megrahi back to Scotland?
[This is the headline over an article by Robert Forrester published yesterday on the Newsnet Scotland website. It reads as follows:]
When Mr al-Megrahi was repatriated, he returned to Libya in a climate of ‘back to the oil business as usual’. Once the Arab uprisings of North Africa and the Middle East had taken hold in Libya, the US and other NATO members promptly rode roughshod over the UN and converted a civil war into one of international dimensions.
For months now, we have been hearing wholly unsubstantiated claims from Mr Abdel-Jalil, Chairman of the National Transitional Council (NTC) of Libya, that Mr al-Megrahi carried out the Lockerbie bombing. The only time Mr Abdel-Jalil has come close to producing any evidence on this score was on the 1st of April 2011 when he said he knew what he was claiming was true as Colonel Gaddafi had provided financial and legal assistance to Mr al-Megrahi whilst the latter was incarcerated in Scotland.
It seems that Mr Abdel-Jalil was a judge in his previous employ. If this is the standard of evidence he used to find acceptable in courts where he was presiding, one dreads to think how many miscarriages of justice he has been responsible for.
The NTC has now been recognised as the legitimate government of Libya by the US, France and now the UK. There is a strong likelihood that if members of the NTC lay their hands on Mr al-Megrahi, he may quickly find himself in possession of a one way ticket to the USA, with all the dire consequences that that could hold in store for him.
It hardly requires to be pointed out that if this were to occur, it would be deeply embarrassing to Scotland, its government and the Crown Office. In short, it would be a diplomatic disaster for Scotland. Now that the US and others have recognised the NTC as the legitimate government of Libya, the door will clearly be open for these countries to take a much more active role in bringing down Colonel Gaddafi, thus making Mr al-Megrahi's rendition to the US an ever more realistic proposition.
Mr al-Megrahi still falls under Scottish jurisdiction. He was convicted by the Kamp van Zeist Court under terms the US agreed to. In recent times, the US has demonstrated a complete disregard for the codes and conventions of international law to the extent that she has invaded countries, kidnapped and murdered individuals on foreign soil and transported 'undesirables' for the purposes of torture to locales where such practices are par of the course.
It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction.
Robert Forrester is the Secretary of the ‘Justice for Megrahi’ group
When Mr al-Megrahi was repatriated, he returned to Libya in a climate of ‘back to the oil business as usual’. Once the Arab uprisings of North Africa and the Middle East had taken hold in Libya, the US and other NATO members promptly rode roughshod over the UN and converted a civil war into one of international dimensions.
For months now, we have been hearing wholly unsubstantiated claims from Mr Abdel-Jalil, Chairman of the National Transitional Council (NTC) of Libya, that Mr al-Megrahi carried out the Lockerbie bombing. The only time Mr Abdel-Jalil has come close to producing any evidence on this score was on the 1st of April 2011 when he said he knew what he was claiming was true as Colonel Gaddafi had provided financial and legal assistance to Mr al-Megrahi whilst the latter was incarcerated in Scotland.
It seems that Mr Abdel-Jalil was a judge in his previous employ. If this is the standard of evidence he used to find acceptable in courts where he was presiding, one dreads to think how many miscarriages of justice he has been responsible for.
The NTC has now been recognised as the legitimate government of Libya by the US, France and now the UK. There is a strong likelihood that if members of the NTC lay their hands on Mr al-Megrahi, he may quickly find himself in possession of a one way ticket to the USA, with all the dire consequences that that could hold in store for him.
It hardly requires to be pointed out that if this were to occur, it would be deeply embarrassing to Scotland, its government and the Crown Office. In short, it would be a diplomatic disaster for Scotland. Now that the US and others have recognised the NTC as the legitimate government of Libya, the door will clearly be open for these countries to take a much more active role in bringing down Colonel Gaddafi, thus making Mr al-Megrahi's rendition to the US an ever more realistic proposition.
Mr al-Megrahi still falls under Scottish jurisdiction. He was convicted by the Kamp van Zeist Court under terms the US agreed to. In recent times, the US has demonstrated a complete disregard for the codes and conventions of international law to the extent that she has invaded countries, kidnapped and murdered individuals on foreign soil and transported 'undesirables' for the purposes of torture to locales where such practices are par of the course.
It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction.
Robert Forrester is the Secretary of the ‘Justice for Megrahi’ group
Thursday, 28 July 2011
Megrahi report 'will be published'
[This is the headline over a Press Association news agency report just published on the website of the Kirriemuir Herald. It reads as follows:]
The First Minister has reaffirmed his intention to publish a confidential report which raises questions over the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber.
Alex Salmond said legislation will be brought forward early in the next Scottish Parliament to allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to publish its statement of reasons for referring Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's conviction back to senior judges at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh.
The appeal was ultimately dropped before Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds almost two years ago because of a prognosis that he had terminal cancer and may have had just three months to live.
Speaking after a summer meeting of the Cabinet in Fort William, Mr Salmond said: "I intend to publish in full the findings of the SCCRC. It hasn't been done to date because under the current law you have to have an agreement from all parties... it hasn't been possible to secure the agreement from all parties and therefore the statement is in limbo.
"However, we believe that we can change the law so that the matter can be published under the full discretion of the SCCRC, and that is what we intend to do."
He continued: "My own feeling is that this statement, insofar as anyone can ever have questions answered about this, will give more important information to people who have got a legitimate interest in the case."
He added: "If I paraphrase the issue, the SCCRC believe that the forensic evidence that Scottish investigators brought forward was sound. It was actually a triumph for forensic investigation. However, they raised question marks about the identification evidence that was brought forward during the trial, and they wanted this tested before a court of appeal."
The Scottish Government came under renewed criticism for releasing Megrahi by Foreign Secretary William Hague on Wednesday when video footage of Megrahi attending a rally in war-torn Libya emerged.
Commenting on the footage, Mr Salmond said: "Let's be clear. I don't think Mr Megrahi should be out running rallies, but I think it's pretty evident from the pictures that this is somebody who's in a very severe medical condition.
"Mr Megrahi is going to die of terminal cancer. Are we meant to want to accelerate his death? I'm not quite certain where the question goes. If someone has got terminal cancer, he will die of that illness."
[This news agency report was posted as a comment to an earlier blog post by Grendal, to whom I am grateful. Rolfe responded to that comment as follows:]
Regarding that last post, perhaps somebody needs to point out to Alex Salmond that the forensic work of the Scottish officers contributed precisely nothing to the incrimination of Megrahi.
Harry Bell contributed a lot to the "lean on Tony Gauci till he says what we want to hear" effort, of course. And there was the bizarre assertion that Megrahi had somehow levitated an invisible suitcase on to KM180, all without actually going airside. But hey, that wasn't forensics either.
So if that's all he's worried about, let him have it. The Scottish forensics effort was stellar. Just acknowledge the rest of the dreck that happened afterwards.
[There is still no explanation given of why primary legislation is being resorted to in order to permit publication of the SCCRC report. It can, and should, be done by Statutory Instrument (secondary legislation) just as the the Scottish Government did earlier when it permitted publication but only if those who supplied the information to the SCCRC consented. An unqualified permission to publish can be given through exactly the same legal mechanism as the earlier qualified permission.]
The First Minister has reaffirmed his intention to publish a confidential report which raises questions over the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber.
Alex Salmond said legislation will be brought forward early in the next Scottish Parliament to allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to publish its statement of reasons for referring Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's conviction back to senior judges at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh.
The appeal was ultimately dropped before Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds almost two years ago because of a prognosis that he had terminal cancer and may have had just three months to live.
Speaking after a summer meeting of the Cabinet in Fort William, Mr Salmond said: "I intend to publish in full the findings of the SCCRC. It hasn't been done to date because under the current law you have to have an agreement from all parties... it hasn't been possible to secure the agreement from all parties and therefore the statement is in limbo.
"However, we believe that we can change the law so that the matter can be published under the full discretion of the SCCRC, and that is what we intend to do."
He continued: "My own feeling is that this statement, insofar as anyone can ever have questions answered about this, will give more important information to people who have got a legitimate interest in the case."
He added: "If I paraphrase the issue, the SCCRC believe that the forensic evidence that Scottish investigators brought forward was sound. It was actually a triumph for forensic investigation. However, they raised question marks about the identification evidence that was brought forward during the trial, and they wanted this tested before a court of appeal."
The Scottish Government came under renewed criticism for releasing Megrahi by Foreign Secretary William Hague on Wednesday when video footage of Megrahi attending a rally in war-torn Libya emerged.
Commenting on the footage, Mr Salmond said: "Let's be clear. I don't think Mr Megrahi should be out running rallies, but I think it's pretty evident from the pictures that this is somebody who's in a very severe medical condition.
"Mr Megrahi is going to die of terminal cancer. Are we meant to want to accelerate his death? I'm not quite certain where the question goes. If someone has got terminal cancer, he will die of that illness."
[This news agency report was posted as a comment to an earlier blog post by Grendal, to whom I am grateful. Rolfe responded to that comment as follows:]
Regarding that last post, perhaps somebody needs to point out to Alex Salmond that the forensic work of the Scottish officers contributed precisely nothing to the incrimination of Megrahi.
Harry Bell contributed a lot to the "lean on Tony Gauci till he says what we want to hear" effort, of course. And there was the bizarre assertion that Megrahi had somehow levitated an invisible suitcase on to KM180, all without actually going airside. But hey, that wasn't forensics either.
So if that's all he's worried about, let him have it. The Scottish forensics effort was stellar. Just acknowledge the rest of the dreck that happened afterwards.
[There is still no explanation given of why primary legislation is being resorted to in order to permit publication of the SCCRC report. It can, and should, be done by Statutory Instrument (secondary legislation) just as the the Scottish Government did earlier when it permitted publication but only if those who supplied the information to the SCCRC consented. An unqualified permission to publish can be given through exactly the same legal mechanism as the earlier qualified permission.]
Lautenberg statement on Megrahi's appearance at pro-Qaddafi rally
[What follows is the text of a press release issued yesterday by Senator Frank Lautenberg:]
US Senator Frank R Lautenberg (D-NJ) released the following statement today after video footage showed Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi attending a pro-Qaddafi rally in Libya. Megrahi is the only person convicted of the Pan Am 103 bombing and was released from prison on August 20, 2009, under the presumption he had only three months to live.
“The families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 have suffered so much already, and the images of Megrahi at a pro-Qaddafi rally in Libya only add salt to their wounds,” said Lautenberg. “Parading one terrorist out to support another is an affront to justice and further affirmation that Megrahi was released from prison on false pretenses. We will continue to fight for justice on behalf of the Pan Am 103 families.”
Last month, Lautenberg and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder to continue working to bring to justice those responsible for the Pan Am 103 bombing, which killed 189 Americans, as well as to return convicted terrorist Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to prison. A copy of their letter can be found here.
US Senator Frank R Lautenberg (D-NJ) released the following statement today after video footage showed Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi attending a pro-Qaddafi rally in Libya. Megrahi is the only person convicted of the Pan Am 103 bombing and was released from prison on August 20, 2009, under the presumption he had only three months to live.
“The families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 have suffered so much already, and the images of Megrahi at a pro-Qaddafi rally in Libya only add salt to their wounds,” said Lautenberg. “Parading one terrorist out to support another is an affront to justice and further affirmation that Megrahi was released from prison on false pretenses. We will continue to fight for justice on behalf of the Pan Am 103 families.”
Last month, Lautenberg and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder to continue working to bring to justice those responsible for the Pan Am 103 bombing, which killed 189 Americans, as well as to return convicted terrorist Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to prison. A copy of their letter can be found here.
Campaign group challenges Scots authorities on “duty of care” to Megrahi as Libyan regime changes
[This is the headline over a news item just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
The likelihood of rendition by US authorities of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in the aftermath of the UK’s recognition of the former Libyan rebel forces as the new Government of Libya, has prompted the Justice for Megrahi campaign group to challenge the Scottish prison service, First Minister, Justice Minister and Lord Advocate to explain what commitments have been made to ensure his safety.
Megrahi remains a Scottish prisoner under licence to East Renfrewshire Council, to whom he reports back on a regular basis following his compassionate release.
“In light of the fact that Mr. Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi currently finds himself in a war zone, we wish to ascertain whether or not the Scottish Government, the Scottish Prison Service, Crown Office or other responsible Scottish authorities has any ongoing responsibility for his safety and care and if so what those commitments are?” said Robert Forrester, secretary of the Justice for Megrahi Committee.
“Has he been or will he be offered assistance or advice or the opportunity to return to Scotland, where his safety and medical requirements can be catered for in the company of his family until such time as the conflict in Libya has resolved itself?”
The letter warns of the “additional and very real threats” to Megrahi from the National Transitional Council of Libya, which Foreign Secretary William Hague confirmed was now recognised as the official government of Libya by the UK
“To compound this, demands have been made over the past few months by American officials to arrest and retry Mr. al-Megrahi in the US. Clearly, having been tried and convicted under the arrangements laid down for the Kamp van Zeist trial, to which the United States agreed, Mr. al-Megrahi is still subject to Scottish jurisdiction. One assumes, therefore, that Scotland has a duty of care for the prisoner.”
Professor Robert Black QC has previously said that the United States has no locus or jurisdiction to retry Megrahi without applying for a resolution of the United Nations Security Council.
Proposals floated recently by US Senators and echoed in US media included sending in Navy SEAL "snatch squads" to kidnap and render Megrahi into US custody.
Black has previously warned that the US could "simply ignore international legality, as it did, with the UK's supine support, in launching the invasion of Iraq, and seize Megrahi by force, with or without the connivance of a new Libyan regime."
The Justice for Megrahi Committee have successfully lobbied the Holyrood Petitions Committee to refer their call for an inquiry into the entire Pan Am 103 debacle to the Justice Committee. The matter will be reviewed after the Parliamentary recess.
The letter can be read here.
The likelihood of rendition by US authorities of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in the aftermath of the UK’s recognition of the former Libyan rebel forces as the new Government of Libya, has prompted the Justice for Megrahi campaign group to challenge the Scottish prison service, First Minister, Justice Minister and Lord Advocate to explain what commitments have been made to ensure his safety.
Megrahi remains a Scottish prisoner under licence to East Renfrewshire Council, to whom he reports back on a regular basis following his compassionate release.
“In light of the fact that Mr. Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi currently finds himself in a war zone, we wish to ascertain whether or not the Scottish Government, the Scottish Prison Service, Crown Office or other responsible Scottish authorities has any ongoing responsibility for his safety and care and if so what those commitments are?” said Robert Forrester, secretary of the Justice for Megrahi Committee.
“Has he been or will he be offered assistance or advice or the opportunity to return to Scotland, where his safety and medical requirements can be catered for in the company of his family until such time as the conflict in Libya has resolved itself?”
The letter warns of the “additional and very real threats” to Megrahi from the National Transitional Council of Libya, which Foreign Secretary William Hague confirmed was now recognised as the official government of Libya by the UK
“To compound this, demands have been made over the past few months by American officials to arrest and retry Mr. al-Megrahi in the US. Clearly, having been tried and convicted under the arrangements laid down for the Kamp van Zeist trial, to which the United States agreed, Mr. al-Megrahi is still subject to Scottish jurisdiction. One assumes, therefore, that Scotland has a duty of care for the prisoner.”
Professor Robert Black QC has previously said that the United States has no locus or jurisdiction to retry Megrahi without applying for a resolution of the United Nations Security Council.
Proposals floated recently by US Senators and echoed in US media included sending in Navy SEAL "snatch squads" to kidnap and render Megrahi into US custody.
Black has previously warned that the US could "simply ignore international legality, as it did, with the UK's supine support, in launching the invasion of Iraq, and seize Megrahi by force, with or without the connivance of a new Libyan regime."
The Justice for Megrahi Committee have successfully lobbied the Holyrood Petitions Committee to refer their call for an inquiry into the entire Pan Am 103 debacle to the Justice Committee. The matter will be reviewed after the Parliamentary recess.
The letter can be read here.
No justice until we find the truth surrounding Lockerbie
[This is the heading over a letter from Ruth Marr in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Many years ago, doctors told a family friend that his heart and lungs were in a very bad way, and he had around six months to live; he lived for another 20 years.
Probably most people could recite similar situations, and Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi would also appear to be in that category, still alive almost two years after doctors pronounced that he had approximately three months to live (“Megrahi attends pro-Gaddafi rally”, The Herald, July 27).
It is totally understandable that those who believe Megrahi to be guilty of the Lockerbie bombing atrocity should feel anger and bitterness, but many worrying questions which demand answers hang over the Lockerbie case, and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has identified six areas which suggests the possiblity that Mr Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
The Justice for Megrahi Group has campaigned tirelessly for a public inquiry into all the facts surrounding Lockerbie, and the Public Petition which it raised with the Scottish Parliament, calling for an inquiry, and which garnered huge support from the public, is to be considered by the Parliament’s Justice Committee.
Until we get at the truth surrounding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, and the conviction of Mr Megrahi for that heinous crime, we cannot get justice – not only for Megrahi, but for the victims who perished, the grieving families left behind, and everyone connected with the Lockerbie case, who more than 20 years later, still carry the scars of that terrible tragedy.
[In stark contrast is the article by Iain Macwhirter (with whose views I normally, unlike today, find myself in agreement) in the same newspaper. It reads in relevant part:]
Sometimes in life, you just have to admit you got it wrong.
With hindsight it was a mistake to release Adelbasset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, on compassionate grounds in 2009.
The Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, did the right thing by the tenets of Scots law.
He thought long and hard and, on the basis of medical advice that Megrahi had three months to live, he made the wrong call. So did I, by the way, so I’m not exercising 20/20 hindsight here.
Why was it wrong? First of all, because of the impact on the Lockerbie victims’ families, who have had to endure two years of seeing Megrahi celebrated as a national hero by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s murderous regime in Tripoli.
He has become a potent symbol of defiance by the regime against Western “imperialism”. He was paraded again this week in the latest show of strength by the Libyan dictator.
Of course, we didn’t know in 2009 that we would be at war, effectively, with Gaddafi but Megrahi has now turned into a major propaganda asset for the enemy.
Damage has also been caused to Scotland’s image in America and the rest of the world and it has made our justice system look absurd. Kenny MacAskill took guidance on Scots law on compassionate release, but he was not bound to follow it.
In retrospect he should have said that this involved such an exceptional crime, under such extraordinary circumstances, that it would be morally deficient, if legally correct, to release him from jail. Megrahi could have been allowed compassionate time with his family in Scotland, while still a prisoner.
And yes, I realise there were serious doubts about Megrahi’s guilt. The key prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, was allegedly paid $2 million by the US authorities.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board appeared minded to give him another appeal. But the fact remains that he was convicted by the judges in Camp Zeist in a fair trial; found guilty of the worst terrorist single atrocity in British history. That stands.
Megrahi’s release also fuelled the conspiracy stories that, for some reason, Alex Salmond had become Tony Blair’s best friend and had agreed to spring the Lockerbie bomber so that BP could get its hands on Libyan oil.
The infamous “deal in the desert” did involve a prisoner transfer agreement , though the Scottish Government had no involvement in that, and did not repatriate him under any kind of guidance from London.
It was, as Salmond said, a Scottish decision taken in Scotland. The wrong one – albeit for the right reasons.
[Related news reports in The Herald can be read here and in The Scotsman here. An editorial in The Scotsman can be read here.]
Many years ago, doctors told a family friend that his heart and lungs were in a very bad way, and he had around six months to live; he lived for another 20 years.
Probably most people could recite similar situations, and Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi would also appear to be in that category, still alive almost two years after doctors pronounced that he had approximately three months to live (“Megrahi attends pro-Gaddafi rally”, The Herald, July 27).
It is totally understandable that those who believe Megrahi to be guilty of the Lockerbie bombing atrocity should feel anger and bitterness, but many worrying questions which demand answers hang over the Lockerbie case, and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has identified six areas which suggests the possiblity that Mr Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
The Justice for Megrahi Group has campaigned tirelessly for a public inquiry into all the facts surrounding Lockerbie, and the Public Petition which it raised with the Scottish Parliament, calling for an inquiry, and which garnered huge support from the public, is to be considered by the Parliament’s Justice Committee.
Until we get at the truth surrounding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, and the conviction of Mr Megrahi for that heinous crime, we cannot get justice – not only for Megrahi, but for the victims who perished, the grieving families left behind, and everyone connected with the Lockerbie case, who more than 20 years later, still carry the scars of that terrible tragedy.
[In stark contrast is the article by Iain Macwhirter (with whose views I normally, unlike today, find myself in agreement) in the same newspaper. It reads in relevant part:]
Sometimes in life, you just have to admit you got it wrong.
With hindsight it was a mistake to release Adelbasset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, on compassionate grounds in 2009.
The Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, did the right thing by the tenets of Scots law.
He thought long and hard and, on the basis of medical advice that Megrahi had three months to live, he made the wrong call. So did I, by the way, so I’m not exercising 20/20 hindsight here.
Why was it wrong? First of all, because of the impact on the Lockerbie victims’ families, who have had to endure two years of seeing Megrahi celebrated as a national hero by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s murderous regime in Tripoli.
He has become a potent symbol of defiance by the regime against Western “imperialism”. He was paraded again this week in the latest show of strength by the Libyan dictator.
Of course, we didn’t know in 2009 that we would be at war, effectively, with Gaddafi but Megrahi has now turned into a major propaganda asset for the enemy.
Damage has also been caused to Scotland’s image in America and the rest of the world and it has made our justice system look absurd. Kenny MacAskill took guidance on Scots law on compassionate release, but he was not bound to follow it.
In retrospect he should have said that this involved such an exceptional crime, under such extraordinary circumstances, that it would be morally deficient, if legally correct, to release him from jail. Megrahi could have been allowed compassionate time with his family in Scotland, while still a prisoner.
And yes, I realise there were serious doubts about Megrahi’s guilt. The key prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, was allegedly paid $2 million by the US authorities.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board appeared minded to give him another appeal. But the fact remains that he was convicted by the judges in Camp Zeist in a fair trial; found guilty of the worst terrorist single atrocity in British history. That stands.
Megrahi’s release also fuelled the conspiracy stories that, for some reason, Alex Salmond had become Tony Blair’s best friend and had agreed to spring the Lockerbie bomber so that BP could get its hands on Libyan oil.
The infamous “deal in the desert” did involve a prisoner transfer agreement , though the Scottish Government had no involvement in that, and did not repatriate him under any kind of guidance from London.
It was, as Salmond said, a Scottish decision taken in Scotland. The wrong one – albeit for the right reasons.
[Related news reports in The Herald can be read here and in The Scotsman here. An editorial in The Scotsman can be read here.]
Lockerbie convict appears at rally in Libya
[This is the headline over an item published yesterday on The Lede blog on The New York Times website. It reads in part:]
Video broadcast on Libyan state television on Tuesday of a rally in support of Col Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government appeared to show Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people.
The public appearance in Libya comes nearly two years after Mr Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds and said to have just three months to live.
In a copy of the video posted online by London’s Telegraph, Mr Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence agent, was seated in a wheelchair, wearing a surgical mask. (...)
Britain’s foreign secretary, William Hague, said the footage would stoke further “anger and outrage” at Mr Megrahi’s release from jail in 2009 and was “a further reminder that a great mistake was made,” by Scotland’s local government, the BBC reports. (...)
His continued survival is likely to further anger from some of the families of the victims killed in the bombing. Several American families objected to the release of Mr Megrahi, who served only 8 years of a 27-year minimum sentence. Of the 259 people killed on the plane, 198 were American, and the United States strongly opposed his release. Other victims were killed as the wreckage of the plane plunged to earth in Lockerbie.
Scottish politicians from opposition parties reacted to the footage with anger, Scotland’s STV reports. Iain Gray, of the Scottish Labour Party, called Mr Megrahi’s appearance an “embarrassment” for Mr MacAskill, and the leader of the Scottish government, Alex Salmond. Mr MacAskill and Mr Salmond are leaders of the ruling Scottish National Party.
John Lamont, a Scottish Conservative, said: “The last thing relatives of the 270 people murdered by the Lockerbie bomber need to see is the sight of him alive and well and free, almost two years after he was released by the SNP government.”
Complicating the debate is the fact that the relatives of some people killed in the bombing continue to doubt that Mr Megrahi was responsible for the attack and have called for a fresh inquiry.
Christine Grahame, a member of the Scottish Parliament’s justice committee from the Scottish National Party told STV that she believes Mr Megrahi was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, and is “not unhappy” to see him alive.
[This report at least recognises that serious concerns exist over the conviction of Megrahi, something very unusual, and very welcome, in coverage of Lockerbie in the United States. It also (unlike most UK newspapers apart from The Herald) refers to Megrahi as the "Lockerbie convict", which he is, and not as the "Lockerbie bomber", which, on the evidence, he is not.
An altogether more sensationalist and unbalanced report appears in today's edition of the British tabloid Daily Mirror under the headline Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could be put back behind bars. It reads in part:]
Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could be sent back to prison after Foreign Secretary William Hague dismissed the medical evidence that clinched his freedom. (...)
Mr Hague said: “His appearance on television is a further reminder that a great mistake was made when he was released. This was absolutely the wrong thing to do.
“It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless.
“I think the anger and outrage of many people, particularly the families of those killed at Lockerbie, will be further intensified by what we have seen.”
Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said: “Seeing al-Megrahi as a cheerleader for a dictator indicted for war crimes has turned the stomach of our nation.”
A senior Foreign Office source said Libyan rebels could hand al-Megrahi, 59, back to Britain or extradite him to the US if they topple Gaddafi.
[Yet more coverage of William Hague's defamatory comments about the medical advice on which Kenny MacAskill acted. Don't newspapers have their reports legalled any more?
A typically inflammatory editorial in the Daily Mail headed "Libya is a stain on Britain’s conscience" can be read here.]
Video broadcast on Libyan state television on Tuesday of a rally in support of Col Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government appeared to show Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people.
The public appearance in Libya comes nearly two years after Mr Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds and said to have just three months to live.
In a copy of the video posted online by London’s Telegraph, Mr Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence agent, was seated in a wheelchair, wearing a surgical mask. (...)
Britain’s foreign secretary, William Hague, said the footage would stoke further “anger and outrage” at Mr Megrahi’s release from jail in 2009 and was “a further reminder that a great mistake was made,” by Scotland’s local government, the BBC reports. (...)
His continued survival is likely to further anger from some of the families of the victims killed in the bombing. Several American families objected to the release of Mr Megrahi, who served only 8 years of a 27-year minimum sentence. Of the 259 people killed on the plane, 198 were American, and the United States strongly opposed his release. Other victims were killed as the wreckage of the plane plunged to earth in Lockerbie.
Scottish politicians from opposition parties reacted to the footage with anger, Scotland’s STV reports. Iain Gray, of the Scottish Labour Party, called Mr Megrahi’s appearance an “embarrassment” for Mr MacAskill, and the leader of the Scottish government, Alex Salmond. Mr MacAskill and Mr Salmond are leaders of the ruling Scottish National Party.
John Lamont, a Scottish Conservative, said: “The last thing relatives of the 270 people murdered by the Lockerbie bomber need to see is the sight of him alive and well and free, almost two years after he was released by the SNP government.”
Complicating the debate is the fact that the relatives of some people killed in the bombing continue to doubt that Mr Megrahi was responsible for the attack and have called for a fresh inquiry.
Christine Grahame, a member of the Scottish Parliament’s justice committee from the Scottish National Party told STV that she believes Mr Megrahi was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, and is “not unhappy” to see him alive.
[This report at least recognises that serious concerns exist over the conviction of Megrahi, something very unusual, and very welcome, in coverage of Lockerbie in the United States. It also (unlike most UK newspapers apart from The Herald) refers to Megrahi as the "Lockerbie convict", which he is, and not as the "Lockerbie bomber", which, on the evidence, he is not.
An altogether more sensationalist and unbalanced report appears in today's edition of the British tabloid Daily Mirror under the headline Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could be put back behind bars. It reads in part:]
Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could be sent back to prison after Foreign Secretary William Hague dismissed the medical evidence that clinched his freedom. (...)
Mr Hague said: “His appearance on television is a further reminder that a great mistake was made when he was released. This was absolutely the wrong thing to do.
“It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless.
“I think the anger and outrage of many people, particularly the families of those killed at Lockerbie, will be further intensified by what we have seen.”
Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said: “Seeing al-Megrahi as a cheerleader for a dictator indicted for war crimes has turned the stomach of our nation.”
A senior Foreign Office source said Libyan rebels could hand al-Megrahi, 59, back to Britain or extradite him to the US if they topple Gaddafi.
[Yet more coverage of William Hague's defamatory comments about the medical advice on which Kenny MacAskill acted. Don't newspapers have their reports legalled any more?
A typically inflammatory editorial in the Daily Mail headed "Libya is a stain on Britain’s conscience" can be read here.]
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Defamation, anyone?
[The following are excerpts from the report on The Telegraph website of Foreign Secretary William Hague's press conference comments following the television pictures of Abdelbaset Megrahi at a Tripoli rally yesterday:]
"The Prime Minister and I, when we were in opposition, both strongly disagreed with that position by Scottish ministers", said Mr Hague at a press conference in London when he announced the expulsion of Libyan diplomats loyal to Gaddafi.
"We disagreed with what has subsequently been revealed about the facilitation by the previous Labour government at Westminster of moves towards the release of al-Megrahi."
He added: "This was absolutely the wrong thing to do. It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless." (...)
The Scottish Government stood by its decision to release al-Megrahi on Wednesday and defended the medical advice that led to it.
“Al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds based on the recommendations of the Parole Board, the prison governor and the medical report of the Scottish Prison Service’s most senior health professional,” a spokesman from the Scottish government said.
“This material is all in the public domain – including the medical report – and it all vindicates the Scottish Government’s position.”
"Indeed, it is clear that only the Scottish Government played with a straight bat on this matter, while the UK Government said one thing in public and another in private," the spokesman insisted.
“The Scottish Parliament Justice Committee examined all relevant aspects of this issue, and concluded that the decision was taken ‘in good faith’.
“Instead of criticising a senior health professional, Mr Hague should understand that the medical advice to the Justice Secretary came from Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, a professional of impeccable integrity."
[To accuse a senior doctor of supplying medical advice which was "pretty much worthless" is grossly defamatory. Mr Hague was speaking at a press conference, not in Parliament. His comments are accordingly not subject to absolute privilege. Dr Fraser should consider suing for defamation.
In this and the previous post, I should not, of course, have disseminated the defamatory imputation. But since The Independent, The Telegraph and countless other organs of the media have done so, I'm prepared to live (just a little) dangerously.]
"The Prime Minister and I, when we were in opposition, both strongly disagreed with that position by Scottish ministers", said Mr Hague at a press conference in London when he announced the expulsion of Libyan diplomats loyal to Gaddafi.
"We disagreed with what has subsequently been revealed about the facilitation by the previous Labour government at Westminster of moves towards the release of al-Megrahi."
He added: "This was absolutely the wrong thing to do. It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless." (...)
The Scottish Government stood by its decision to release al-Megrahi on Wednesday and defended the medical advice that led to it.
“Al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds based on the recommendations of the Parole Board, the prison governor and the medical report of the Scottish Prison Service’s most senior health professional,” a spokesman from the Scottish government said.
“This material is all in the public domain – including the medical report – and it all vindicates the Scottish Government’s position.”
"Indeed, it is clear that only the Scottish Government played with a straight bat on this matter, while the UK Government said one thing in public and another in private," the spokesman insisted.
“The Scottish Parliament Justice Committee examined all relevant aspects of this issue, and concluded that the decision was taken ‘in good faith’.
“Instead of criticising a senior health professional, Mr Hague should understand that the medical advice to the Justice Secretary came from Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, a professional of impeccable integrity."
[To accuse a senior doctor of supplying medical advice which was "pretty much worthless" is grossly defamatory. Mr Hague was speaking at a press conference, not in Parliament. His comments are accordingly not subject to absolute privilege. Dr Fraser should consider suing for defamation.
In this and the previous post, I should not, of course, have disseminated the defamatory imputation. But since The Independent, The Telegraph and countless other organs of the media have done so, I'm prepared to live (just a little) dangerously.]
William Hague condemns Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report just published on The Independent website. It reads in part:]
The appearance of the convicted Lockerbie bomber on Libyan television has confirmed that a "great mistake" was made in releasing him from jail, Foreign Secretary William Hague said today.
Mr Hague said Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's release from a Scottish prison almost two years ago on compassionate grounds was "absolutely the wrong thing to do".
In footage seen by the BBC last night, a television presenter introduced Megrahi at what appeared to be a pro-government rally, and said his conviction was the result of a "conspiracy". (...)
He returned to Libya in August 2009 after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. The Scottish Government accepted advice that he had about three months to live.
At a press conference in central London, Mr Hague said the footage demonstrated that this advice was "pretty much worthless".
He said: "I think the appearance of Mr al-Megrahi on our television screens is a further reminder that a great mistake was made when he was released.
"The Prime Minister and I, when we were in opposition, both strongly disagreed with that position by Scottish ministers.
"We disagreed with what has subsequently been revealed about the facilitation by the previous Labour government at Westminster of moves towards the release of al-Megrahi."
He added: "This was absolutely the wrong thing to do. It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless and I think many people, particularly the families of those killed at Lockerbie, I think their anger and outrage at this release will be further intensified by what we have seen. [RB: Not much anger and outrage seems to be emanating from the UK relatives of those killed over Lockerbie.]
"So it has always been our view this was a mistake and this simply confirms that."
The appearance of the convicted Lockerbie bomber on Libyan television has confirmed that a "great mistake" was made in releasing him from jail, Foreign Secretary William Hague said today.
Mr Hague said Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's release from a Scottish prison almost two years ago on compassionate grounds was "absolutely the wrong thing to do".
In footage seen by the BBC last night, a television presenter introduced Megrahi at what appeared to be a pro-government rally, and said his conviction was the result of a "conspiracy". (...)
He returned to Libya in August 2009 after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. The Scottish Government accepted advice that he had about three months to live.
At a press conference in central London, Mr Hague said the footage demonstrated that this advice was "pretty much worthless".
He said: "I think the appearance of Mr al-Megrahi on our television screens is a further reminder that a great mistake was made when he was released.
"The Prime Minister and I, when we were in opposition, both strongly disagreed with that position by Scottish ministers.
"We disagreed with what has subsequently been revealed about the facilitation by the previous Labour government at Westminster of moves towards the release of al-Megrahi."
He added: "This was absolutely the wrong thing to do. It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless and I think many people, particularly the families of those killed at Lockerbie, I think their anger and outrage at this release will be further intensified by what we have seen. [RB: Not much anger and outrage seems to be emanating from the UK relatives of those killed over Lockerbie.]
"So it has always been our view this was a mistake and this simply confirms that."
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Megrahi at rally broadcast by Libyan state television
[What follows is from a report on the BBC News website:]
The man convicted of blowing up a plane over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988 has appeared at a rally broadcast by Libyan state television.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from prison in Scotland almost two years ago on health grounds.
Introducing him at a televised rally of members of Megrahi's tribe, the presenter said his conviction was the result of a conspiracy.
He said his release had been a victory against oppression. (...)
Megrahi returned to Libya where has rarely been seen.
During the broadcast from Tripoli, which was described as live, Megrahi was seen in a wheelchair.
After playing the national anthem, a presenter said "half of the world conspired against" Megrahi.
[In a comment on this blog, Rolfe wrote:
"I saw Megrahi on TV about an hour ago. It was a clip from a pro-Gadaffi rally in Tripoli, and he was sitting in a wheelchair watching the proceedings. He was wearing a large white head-dress, like a big turban. He didn't look too bad, from what I could see, though it was a short clip and not close-up.
"No doubt this will enrage the Americans even further."
A friend in Scotland e-mailed me this:
"Reporting Scotland had on, right at the very end, saying they had just got the video in, a brief (10-ish seconds) video of Megrahi in a wheelchair supposedly at a pro-government rally in Libya. There was some Arabic title underneath and the date as 2011-07-26.
"He was looking appropriately frail. Either coughing or lifting an oxygen mask to his face – couldn’t make out exactly. The wheelchair was itself on a dais, alongside other spectators of whatever was going on (which they didn’t show)."
A report on The Herald website can be read here, one on The Guardian website can be read here, and one on the CNN website can be read here. The report on The Telegraph website contains the following:]
The pictures compounded embarassment in the Scottish Executive which appears to have seized on a misdiagnosis to grant parole on medical grounds in 2009.
He was expected to live less that 90 days but has since passed more than 400 days in his native Libya.
The man convicted of blowing up a plane over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988 has appeared at a rally broadcast by Libyan state television.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from prison in Scotland almost two years ago on health grounds.
Introducing him at a televised rally of members of Megrahi's tribe, the presenter said his conviction was the result of a conspiracy.
He said his release had been a victory against oppression. (...)
Megrahi returned to Libya where has rarely been seen.
During the broadcast from Tripoli, which was described as live, Megrahi was seen in a wheelchair.
After playing the national anthem, a presenter said "half of the world conspired against" Megrahi.
[In a comment on this blog, Rolfe wrote:
"I saw Megrahi on TV about an hour ago. It was a clip from a pro-Gadaffi rally in Tripoli, and he was sitting in a wheelchair watching the proceedings. He was wearing a large white head-dress, like a big turban. He didn't look too bad, from what I could see, though it was a short clip and not close-up.
"No doubt this will enrage the Americans even further."
A friend in Scotland e-mailed me this:
"Reporting Scotland had on, right at the very end, saying they had just got the video in, a brief (10-ish seconds) video of Megrahi in a wheelchair supposedly at a pro-government rally in Libya. There was some Arabic title underneath and the date as 2011-07-26.
"He was looking appropriately frail. Either coughing or lifting an oxygen mask to his face – couldn’t make out exactly. The wheelchair was itself on a dais, alongside other spectators of whatever was going on (which they didn’t show)."
A report on The Herald website can be read here, one on The Guardian website can be read here, and one on the CNN website can be read here. The report on The Telegraph website contains the following:]
The pictures compounded embarassment in the Scottish Executive which appears to have seized on a misdiagnosis to grant parole on medical grounds in 2009.
He was expected to live less that 90 days but has since passed more than 400 days in his native Libya.
Anders Behring Breivik and Abdelbaset al-Megrahi
[As might have been expected, US commentators are drawing parallels between the sentence facing Anders Breivik if convicted of the Utoya killings and the sentence served by Abdelbaset Megrahi. Here is Michael Rubin in Commentary magazine:]
Alana Goodman pens an excellent post regarding how little jail time the confessed Norwegian terrorist and killer can expect for killing scores of civilians, both in his initial truck bomb blast and then in his shooting spree on Utoya island. According to some Norwegian analysts, he might expect a maximum of 21 years, or approximately 83 days per murder and, as Alana points out, will serve his time in relative luxury.
This certainly is outrageous, but unfortunately it’s the rule rather than the exception in many European states as postmodern theories of compassion and rehabilitation trump the importance of justice. Just take a look at that other mass murderer on the other side of the North Sea: On August 20, 2009, a Scottish court released Libyan agent and Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi after serving just 11.5 days per murder for downing Pan Am Flight 103 and killing 270 people. Scottish authorities defended Megrahi’s release on the grounds of compassion: He had, after all, only weeks to live. Never mind that today he appears to be doing quite fine in Tripoli.
It’s well past time for Europe to put justice first and reserve compassion for the victims of crime and terror, not the perpetrators.
[And here is Debra Saunders in the San Francisco Chronicle:]
Now 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik stands accused of killing 76 individuals, many of them teenagers, in a vicious rampage that began with a bombing in Oslo on Friday. If convicted, he can expect to be a free man in his 50s. (...)
There is a lesson for Americans in this tale. Politicians in some states, including California, are pushing to end their state's death penalty. There are consequences.
Our Betters in Europe got rid of capital punishment decades ago. Next, Western European leaders went after life without parole. As Eurocrats focused on the redemption of offenders, they seemed to forget their obligation to protect the innocent and serve as a voice for silenced victims.
Hoover Institution legal fellow Abraham D Sofaer sees the 21-year cap as "absurdly inadequate" for this type of heinous crime. "I'm sure it's well intentioned. Maybe it works in most cases," he added. "But then you get these cases, where one would think almost anyone would agree that 21 years is an insult."
This wouldn't be a first time a modern terrorist won short time for a long list of victims on European soil. In 2001, three Scottish judges found former Libya intelligence operative Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi guilty in the 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, which killed all 270 aboard. Scotland's life sentence made him eligible for parole in 27 years.
But after eight years, Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill granted Megrahi "compassionate" release on the grounds the Libyan had terminal cancer and was not expected to live more than three months. Almost two years later, Megrahi is alive and living large in Libya - having served mere weeks per victim.
When a country's justice system dispenses with the death penalty, then life sentences, it has no mechanism to redress evil.
Alana Goodman pens an excellent post regarding how little jail time the confessed Norwegian terrorist and killer can expect for killing scores of civilians, both in his initial truck bomb blast and then in his shooting spree on Utoya island. According to some Norwegian analysts, he might expect a maximum of 21 years, or approximately 83 days per murder and, as Alana points out, will serve his time in relative luxury.
This certainly is outrageous, but unfortunately it’s the rule rather than the exception in many European states as postmodern theories of compassion and rehabilitation trump the importance of justice. Just take a look at that other mass murderer on the other side of the North Sea: On August 20, 2009, a Scottish court released Libyan agent and Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi after serving just 11.5 days per murder for downing Pan Am Flight 103 and killing 270 people. Scottish authorities defended Megrahi’s release on the grounds of compassion: He had, after all, only weeks to live. Never mind that today he appears to be doing quite fine in Tripoli.
It’s well past time for Europe to put justice first and reserve compassion for the victims of crime and terror, not the perpetrators.
[And here is Debra Saunders in the San Francisco Chronicle:]
Now 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik stands accused of killing 76 individuals, many of them teenagers, in a vicious rampage that began with a bombing in Oslo on Friday. If convicted, he can expect to be a free man in his 50s. (...)
There is a lesson for Americans in this tale. Politicians in some states, including California, are pushing to end their state's death penalty. There are consequences.
Our Betters in Europe got rid of capital punishment decades ago. Next, Western European leaders went after life without parole. As Eurocrats focused on the redemption of offenders, they seemed to forget their obligation to protect the innocent and serve as a voice for silenced victims.
Hoover Institution legal fellow Abraham D Sofaer sees the 21-year cap as "absurdly inadequate" for this type of heinous crime. "I'm sure it's well intentioned. Maybe it works in most cases," he added. "But then you get these cases, where one would think almost anyone would agree that 21 years is an insult."
This wouldn't be a first time a modern terrorist won short time for a long list of victims on European soil. In 2001, three Scottish judges found former Libya intelligence operative Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi guilty in the 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, which killed all 270 aboard. Scotland's life sentence made him eligible for parole in 27 years.
But after eight years, Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill granted Megrahi "compassionate" release on the grounds the Libyan had terminal cancer and was not expected to live more than three months. Almost two years later, Megrahi is alive and living large in Libya - having served mere weeks per victim.
When a country's justice system dispenses with the death penalty, then life sentences, it has no mechanism to redress evil.
Sunday, 24 July 2011
Barlinnie unlocked: Gaddafi Cafe gets a world famous guest
[This is the headline over a story in today's edition of the Sunday Mail (not to be confused with the Mail on Sunday). I reproduce it here simply because it links Abdelbaset Megrahi and South Africa, my second home.]
Huge crowds greeted Nelson Mandela as he travelled from South Africa to meet Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
He met the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in 2002 on a diplomatic excursion to see how he was being treated.
The former president of South Africa also discussed a campaign for Megrahi to serve his sentence in a Libyan prison.
Everyone who has met Mandela speaks of his kindness, gentleness and good manners.
His visit to Gaddafi's Cafe, the nickname given to the area of Barlinnie where Megrahi was held, underlined the humanity of the man.
After all, Mandela himself spent 18 of his 27 years in jail on Robben Island after being locked up by the South Africa's apartheid government.
Most of the crowd hoping to meet him were positioned around the reception and the main gates. Everyone on the staff wanted a glimpse of the great man. The wellwishers were rows deep.
But as he passed through the throng, Mandela stopped, looked to the edge of the crowd and spotted a young prison officer right at the back.
He said: "You sir, step down here."
When the officer got to the front, Mandela shook his hand, giving him a moment he would never forget.
Mandela remarked that he, too, knew what it was like to be at the back row and not noticed.
The great leader then went inside to meet Megrahi.
But he declined an offer to visit the cell blocks.
Mandela had seen enough to last a lifetime.
[My South African friends are in mourning over the miserable Springbok performance in yesterday's match against the Wallabies. In the bar at Gannaga Lodge while the game was in progess I greatly expanded my knowledge of demotic Afrikaans. Every cloud has a silver lining.]
Huge crowds greeted Nelson Mandela as he travelled from South Africa to meet Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
He met the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in 2002 on a diplomatic excursion to see how he was being treated.
The former president of South Africa also discussed a campaign for Megrahi to serve his sentence in a Libyan prison.
Everyone who has met Mandela speaks of his kindness, gentleness and good manners.
His visit to Gaddafi's Cafe, the nickname given to the area of Barlinnie where Megrahi was held, underlined the humanity of the man.
After all, Mandela himself spent 18 of his 27 years in jail on Robben Island after being locked up by the South Africa's apartheid government.
Most of the crowd hoping to meet him were positioned around the reception and the main gates. Everyone on the staff wanted a glimpse of the great man. The wellwishers were rows deep.
But as he passed through the throng, Mandela stopped, looked to the edge of the crowd and spotted a young prison officer right at the back.
He said: "You sir, step down here."
When the officer got to the front, Mandela shook his hand, giving him a moment he would never forget.
Mandela remarked that he, too, knew what it was like to be at the back row and not noticed.
The great leader then went inside to meet Megrahi.
But he declined an offer to visit the cell blocks.
Mandela had seen enough to last a lifetime.
[My South African friends are in mourning over the miserable Springbok performance in yesterday's match against the Wallabies. In the bar at Gannaga Lodge while the game was in progess I greatly expanded my knowledge of demotic Afrikaans. Every cloud has a silver lining.]
Exploding Lockerbie
[This is the title of a two-part article in the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly by David Wolchover, barrister and Head of Chambers Emeritus at 7 Bell Yard, London. It examines in detail the evidence led at Camp Zeist about the ingestion of the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. Part I of the article can be read here and Part II here. The conclusion of the two-part article reads as follows:]
It will have become apparent from the analysis of the evidence before the court offered here that wherever the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103 was built the Samsonite hardshell bag in which it was packed could not have come from Luqa as an anonymous item of baggage on KM180, or from Frankfurt on PA103A. It should have been as “plain as a pikestaff” that it was smuggled into the system at Heathrow.
Why the Judges lost sight of the wood for the trees is not a matter which warrants conjecture. That they did so is beyond doubt. When asked by Lord MacLean to confirm that al-Megrahi’s Abdusamad passport was never used again after December 21, 1988, William Taylor QC said “We don’t know that”, to which Lord Maclean riposted “Yes I do” and gave the reference. The Judge got the acerbic reply he truly deserved: “Thank you. I am corrected. So your Lordship has asked me a question to which your Lordship already had the answer.” The application of a sight more judicial cleverness and rather less too cleverness by half might have delivered a truer verdict.
[An earlier Lockerbie article by Mr Wolchover "Masking justice with 'mercy'" can be accessed here.]
It will have become apparent from the analysis of the evidence before the court offered here that wherever the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103 was built the Samsonite hardshell bag in which it was packed could not have come from Luqa as an anonymous item of baggage on KM180, or from Frankfurt on PA103A. It should have been as “plain as a pikestaff” that it was smuggled into the system at Heathrow.
Why the Judges lost sight of the wood for the trees is not a matter which warrants conjecture. That they did so is beyond doubt. When asked by Lord MacLean to confirm that al-Megrahi’s Abdusamad passport was never used again after December 21, 1988, William Taylor QC said “We don’t know that”, to which Lord Maclean riposted “Yes I do” and gave the reference. The Judge got the acerbic reply he truly deserved: “Thank you. I am corrected. So your Lordship has asked me a question to which your Lordship already had the answer.” The application of a sight more judicial cleverness and rather less too cleverness by half might have delivered a truer verdict.
[An earlier Lockerbie article by Mr Wolchover "Masking justice with 'mercy'" can be accessed here.]
Thursday, 21 July 2011
Retrying Megrahi in the United States
In the light of suggestions that have been made over the past few months by American officials and commentators that the United States might wish to have Abdelbaset Megrahi handed over to the United States for retrial in America, it is perhaps worthwhile to consider some of the legal problems that would be faced in bringing this about.
As I said in a blog post on 6 March 2011:
"The United States Government, along with that of the United Kingdom, proposed the UN Security Council resolutions that set up the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist. Both governments thereby undertook internationally binding obligations to comply with the legal processes thus set in motion. The United States cannot lawfully renounce those obligations either unilaterally or in conjunction with whatever new government it chooses to recognise in Libya. To have Abdelbaset Megrahi lawfully handed over to the US would require a further UN Security Council resolution. The United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council could, of course, propose such a resolution. But would the other members support it? The US could also, naturally, simply ignore international legality (as it did, with the UK's supine support, in launching the invasion of Iraq) and seize Megrahi by force (with or without the connivance of a new Libyan regime)."
Furthermore, the Constitution of the United States, provides (art VI, clause 2): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". This means that the binding international obligation entered into by the United States in respect of the Lockerbie trial precludes any US court from trying Megrahi since that would be a breach of the international agreement regarding Lockerbie jurisdiction which the US itself co-sponsored.
Moreover, during the Camp Zeist trial, US government lawyers sat amongst the prosecutors and when their presence was questioned the Crown Office responded that the Lord Advocate could select whomsoever he chose to form part of the prosecution team. It can be strongly argued that this active participation by United States officials, as part of the prosecution team, in a trial which the US co-sponsored, personally bars (estops) the US from instituting its own national criminal proceedings.
As mentioned above, the US could sponsor a new UN Security Council resolution permitting it to retry Megrahi. But is there any realistic prospect of such a resolution being passed? The United States could also seek to pass internal US legislation permitting a retrial. But, in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution amending the existing ones, would not any such legislation be liable to be struck down under art VI clause 2 of the Constitution?
[This post has now been picked up in a news item on Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.
Because I shall be on duty at Gannaga Lodge for the next few days, it is unlikely that there will be further blog posts before Sunday, 24 July.]
As I said in a blog post on 6 March 2011:
"The United States Government, along with that of the United Kingdom, proposed the UN Security Council resolutions that set up the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist. Both governments thereby undertook internationally binding obligations to comply with the legal processes thus set in motion. The United States cannot lawfully renounce those obligations either unilaterally or in conjunction with whatever new government it chooses to recognise in Libya. To have Abdelbaset Megrahi lawfully handed over to the US would require a further UN Security Council resolution. The United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council could, of course, propose such a resolution. But would the other members support it? The US could also, naturally, simply ignore international legality (as it did, with the UK's supine support, in launching the invasion of Iraq) and seize Megrahi by force (with or without the connivance of a new Libyan regime)."
Furthermore, the Constitution of the United States, provides (art VI, clause 2): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". This means that the binding international obligation entered into by the United States in respect of the Lockerbie trial precludes any US court from trying Megrahi since that would be a breach of the international agreement regarding Lockerbie jurisdiction which the US itself co-sponsored.
Moreover, during the Camp Zeist trial, US government lawyers sat amongst the prosecutors and when their presence was questioned the Crown Office responded that the Lord Advocate could select whomsoever he chose to form part of the prosecution team. It can be strongly argued that this active participation by United States officials, as part of the prosecution team, in a trial which the US co-sponsored, personally bars (estops) the US from instituting its own national criminal proceedings.
As mentioned above, the US could sponsor a new UN Security Council resolution permitting it to retry Megrahi. But is there any realistic prospect of such a resolution being passed? The United States could also seek to pass internal US legislation permitting a retrial. But, in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution amending the existing ones, would not any such legislation be liable to be struck down under art VI clause 2 of the Constitution?
[This post has now been picked up in a news item on Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.
Because I shall be on duty at Gannaga Lodge for the next few days, it is unlikely that there will be further blog posts before Sunday, 24 July.]
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
US ambassador repeats "try Megrahi" nonsense
[An interview with the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, Stephen Rapp, published today on The Guardian website, contains the following:]
On Libya, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues confirmed that Washington is interested in bringing the former Libyan intelligence officer, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, to trial for his role in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 above Lockerbie in 1988.
Megrahi, who was convicted in Scotland, was returned to Libya from the UK on grounds of ill health in 2009.
"The majority of those [on the Pan Am flight] were US citizens and there's a strong interest in the US to achieve justice. It was an act of terror.
"There's jurisdiction in the UK and US over individuals who were involved. I can't speak for the [US] department of justice, but there would be an interest in the US … in continuing the investigation and going beyond Mr Megrahi and determining whether other individuals [were involved]."
[As I have written elsewhere on this blog: "Megrahi has already faced trial and been convicted -- wrongly, in my view -- in a process supported by the United States. He could not be tried again in the USA unless Federal Law were changed to allow it."]
On Libya, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues confirmed that Washington is interested in bringing the former Libyan intelligence officer, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, to trial for his role in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 above Lockerbie in 1988.
Megrahi, who was convicted in Scotland, was returned to Libya from the UK on grounds of ill health in 2009.
"The majority of those [on the Pan Am flight] were US citizens and there's a strong interest in the US to achieve justice. It was an act of terror.
"There's jurisdiction in the UK and US over individuals who were involved. I can't speak for the [US] department of justice, but there would be an interest in the US … in continuing the investigation and going beyond Mr Megrahi and determining whether other individuals [were involved]."
[As I have written elsewhere on this blog: "Megrahi has already faced trial and been convicted -- wrongly, in my view -- in a process supported by the United States. He could not be tried again in the USA unless Federal Law were changed to allow it."]
General Magnus Malan
The obituary in The Telegraph of General Magnus Malan, South Africa's defence minister at the time of the Lockerbie disaster, who died on 18 July, can be read here. That in the Cape Times can be read here. The controversy over whether a South African delegation to the United Nations, including Malan, was initially booked on Pan Am 103 but transferred onto an earlier flight to New York is explored in blog posts and comments that can be read here and by typing "Magnus Malan" into the blog's Google search facility.
[Yesterday, for the first time in a month, this blog was accessed from within Libya.]
[Yesterday, for the first time in a month, this blog was accessed from within Libya.]
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
Blame Iran, not Libya, for Pan Am Flight 103 bombing
[This is the headline over an article by Arthur F Bethea published today on the website of the Massachusetts newspaper South Coast Today. It reads as follows:]
In a late June press conference, President Obama said that Col Gadhafi, "prior to Osama bin Laden, was responsible for more American deaths than just about anybody on the planet."
Ignoring George Bush's needless invasion of Iraq that led to the deaths of more than 4,400 US soldiers, Obama linked Gadhafi and bin Laden to deceive less-informed viewers into thinking that the two are one and the same. They aren't. In 1998, Libya issued the first official Interpol arrest warrant against bin Laden, and Gadhafi condemned 9/11. An enemy of bin Laden, Gadhafi opposes radical Islamic fundamentalism.
Obama was also alluding to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that murdered 189 Americans. This indirect smearing is reminiscent of Bush, who implied falsely (but never directly asserted) that Saddam sponsored 9/11. If Obama wants to accuse Gadhafi of Lockerbie, he should man up and state the charge directly.
Many people assume that Gadhafi is guilty of the Lockerbie bombing because a Libyan intelligence officer (Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi) was eventually convicted. What few Americans know is that the trial's fairness has been convincingly disputed. Key witnesses appear to have been paid for their testimony, evidence may have been fabricated, one crucial witness has admitted to perjury, and the witness who identified Megrahi has had his reliability attacked by the prosecutor who brought the original charges.
A former professor of Scottish law at Edinburgh University, Robert Black, said, "No reasonable tribunal, on the evidence heard at the original trial, should or could have convicted" Megrahi. The conviction was "an absolute disgrace and outrage." Megrahi is "an innocent man."
Some readers will protest, "But Gadhafi paid damages; he must be guilty." Yes, Libya paid more than $2.5 billion in reparations, but, according to one source, sanctions had cost the country $30 billion. Saif al-Islam, Gadhafi's son and former heir apparent, explained, "We wrote a letter to the Security Council saying we are responsible for the acts of our employees," but this "doesn't mean that we did it in fact." "What can you do?" he asked. "Without writing that letter we would not be able to get rid of sanctions."
Compelling evidence implicates Iran in the Lockerbie bombing. Thinking it was about to be attacked by a fighter jet, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airbus in July 1988, killing 290 people, most of them Iranians. Iran's religious dictator, the Ayatollah Khomeini, promised that the skies would rain with American blood. Iran offered a huge reward for revenge; a Palestinian terrorist organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, apparently accepted the offer; and 5½ months after the Vincennes disaster, 189 Americans were murdered.
A senior CIA officer in 1988, Robert Baer, worked the case from the start and concluded that Iran sponsored the bombing. According to Baer, now retired from the CIA, financial records indicate that Iran transferred $11 million to the Swiss bank account of the PFLP-GC two days after the bombing. Obviously, if Iran did transfer $11 million to a Palestinian terrorist group two days after the atrocity, this is overwhelming evidence of Iranian involvement. England's Sunday Herald said it saw the "CIA paperwork that supports" Baer's claims.
In 2009, Baer told England's Sunday Mail that the CIA had "hard evidence" of Iranian involvement "almost from the moment the plane exploded."
Another American intelligence organization also linked the bombing to Iran. A September 1989 memo from the Defense Intelligence Agency states: "The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorized and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran's former interior minister."
There are many good reasons to oppose Obama's Libyan adventure but no good ones [to support it], including false revenge for Lockerbie.
In a late June press conference, President Obama said that Col Gadhafi, "prior to Osama bin Laden, was responsible for more American deaths than just about anybody on the planet."
Ignoring George Bush's needless invasion of Iraq that led to the deaths of more than 4,400 US soldiers, Obama linked Gadhafi and bin Laden to deceive less-informed viewers into thinking that the two are one and the same. They aren't. In 1998, Libya issued the first official Interpol arrest warrant against bin Laden, and Gadhafi condemned 9/11. An enemy of bin Laden, Gadhafi opposes radical Islamic fundamentalism.
Obama was also alluding to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that murdered 189 Americans. This indirect smearing is reminiscent of Bush, who implied falsely (but never directly asserted) that Saddam sponsored 9/11. If Obama wants to accuse Gadhafi of Lockerbie, he should man up and state the charge directly.
Many people assume that Gadhafi is guilty of the Lockerbie bombing because a Libyan intelligence officer (Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi) was eventually convicted. What few Americans know is that the trial's fairness has been convincingly disputed. Key witnesses appear to have been paid for their testimony, evidence may have been fabricated, one crucial witness has admitted to perjury, and the witness who identified Megrahi has had his reliability attacked by the prosecutor who brought the original charges.
A former professor of Scottish law at Edinburgh University, Robert Black, said, "No reasonable tribunal, on the evidence heard at the original trial, should or could have convicted" Megrahi. The conviction was "an absolute disgrace and outrage." Megrahi is "an innocent man."
Some readers will protest, "But Gadhafi paid damages; he must be guilty." Yes, Libya paid more than $2.5 billion in reparations, but, according to one source, sanctions had cost the country $30 billion. Saif al-Islam, Gadhafi's son and former heir apparent, explained, "We wrote a letter to the Security Council saying we are responsible for the acts of our employees," but this "doesn't mean that we did it in fact." "What can you do?" he asked. "Without writing that letter we would not be able to get rid of sanctions."
Compelling evidence implicates Iran in the Lockerbie bombing. Thinking it was about to be attacked by a fighter jet, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airbus in July 1988, killing 290 people, most of them Iranians. Iran's religious dictator, the Ayatollah Khomeini, promised that the skies would rain with American blood. Iran offered a huge reward for revenge; a Palestinian terrorist organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, apparently accepted the offer; and 5½ months after the Vincennes disaster, 189 Americans were murdered.
A senior CIA officer in 1988, Robert Baer, worked the case from the start and concluded that Iran sponsored the bombing. According to Baer, now retired from the CIA, financial records indicate that Iran transferred $11 million to the Swiss bank account of the PFLP-GC two days after the bombing. Obviously, if Iran did transfer $11 million to a Palestinian terrorist group two days after the atrocity, this is overwhelming evidence of Iranian involvement. England's Sunday Herald said it saw the "CIA paperwork that supports" Baer's claims.
In 2009, Baer told England's Sunday Mail that the CIA had "hard evidence" of Iranian involvement "almost from the moment the plane exploded."
Another American intelligence organization also linked the bombing to Iran. A September 1989 memo from the Defense Intelligence Agency states: "The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorized and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran's former interior minister."
There are many good reasons to oppose Obama's Libyan adventure but no good ones [to support it], including false revenge for Lockerbie.
Monday, 18 July 2011
Libyan foreign minister admits Lockerbie bombing involvement
[This is the headline over a report published this evening on The Telegraph website. It amplifies the AFP news agency report that was the subject of the immediately preceding blog post. The report reads in part:]
A former Libyan foreign minister has admitted the country was involved in the Lockerbie bombing but said for the first time it was part of a wider conspiracy.
The former minister, Abdul Rahman al-Shalgham, who was ambassador to the United Nations when he defected in February, revealed a new theory about who was responsible for the explosion on board Pan-Am Flight 103 in an interview with an Arabic newspaper.
"The Lockerbie bombing was a complex and tangled operation" he said, when asked to describe the background to the disaster.
"There was talk at the time of the roles played by states and organisations. Libyan security played a part but I believe it was not a strictly Libyan operation."
He went on to say that the compensation payment to the families he helped negotiate on behalf of the regime – while disclaiming responsibility – angered the Libyan leader, Col Muammar Gaddafi.
"He used to say, 'We had no role in Lockerbie, so why should we have to pay compensation'," Mr Shalgham said.
Two Libyan state employees were put on trial in The Hague [RB: Actually, of course, Camp Zeist, near Utrecht] under Scottish law for the bombing of Flight 103, in which 270 people died in 1988. One, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, though he was released on medical grounds in 2009.
Libya always denied involvement, and alternative theories state that it was the work of Iranian intelligence, or a Palestinian terrorist group.
Mr Shalgham's revelations are the first serious suggestion that there could be elements of truth to both stories.
Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the former minister of justice who defected at the beginning of the uprising against the Gaddafi regime in February and is now chairman of the opposition Transitional National Council, claimed in an earlier interview that Col Gaddafi personally ordered the bombing.
But Mr Abdul Jalil was only involved in politics from 2007, having been a provincial judge most of his career. Mr Shalgham, by contrast, was Libyan ambassador to Rome at the time of the bombing and later at the heart of government.
[See my comment at the end of the preceding blog post.]
A former Libyan foreign minister has admitted the country was involved in the Lockerbie bombing but said for the first time it was part of a wider conspiracy.
The former minister, Abdul Rahman al-Shalgham, who was ambassador to the United Nations when he defected in February, revealed a new theory about who was responsible for the explosion on board Pan-Am Flight 103 in an interview with an Arabic newspaper.
"The Lockerbie bombing was a complex and tangled operation" he said, when asked to describe the background to the disaster.
"There was talk at the time of the roles played by states and organisations. Libyan security played a part but I believe it was not a strictly Libyan operation."
He went on to say that the compensation payment to the families he helped negotiate on behalf of the regime – while disclaiming responsibility – angered the Libyan leader, Col Muammar Gaddafi.
"He used to say, 'We had no role in Lockerbie, so why should we have to pay compensation'," Mr Shalgham said.
Two Libyan state employees were put on trial in The Hague [RB: Actually, of course, Camp Zeist, near Utrecht] under Scottish law for the bombing of Flight 103, in which 270 people died in 1988. One, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, though he was released on medical grounds in 2009.
Libya always denied involvement, and alternative theories state that it was the work of Iranian intelligence, or a Palestinian terrorist group.
Mr Shalgham's revelations are the first serious suggestion that there could be elements of truth to both stories.
Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the former minister of justice who defected at the beginning of the uprising against the Gaddafi regime in February and is now chairman of the opposition Transitional National Council, claimed in an earlier interview that Col Gaddafi personally ordered the bombing.
But Mr Abdul Jalil was only involved in politics from 2007, having been a provincial judge most of his career. Mr Shalgham, by contrast, was Libyan ambassador to Rome at the time of the bombing and later at the heart of government.
[See my comment at the end of the preceding blog post.]
Ex-foreign minister says Libya behind 1989 airline attack
[This is the headline over an Agence France Presse news agency report published today on the Al-Arabiya website. It reads as follows:]
Libya is responsible for a deadly 1989 attack on a French airliner, Libyan former foreign minister Abdel Rahman Shalgam told al-Hayat newspaper in an interview published on Monday.
“The Libyan security services blew up the plane. They believed that opposition leader Mohammed al-Megrief was on board, but after the plane was blown up, it was found that he was not on the plane,” said Mr Shalgam, who defected from Muammar Qaddafi’s embattled regime earlier this year.
On September 19, 1989, a UTA DC-10 travelling from Brazzaville to Paris via N’Djamena crashed in Niger after explosives on board detonated, killing 170 passengers and crew, including 54 French citizens.
A French court in 2009 sentenced six Libyan agents in absentia to life in prison for the attack, but Libya has never admitted it was responsible.
However, Tripoli had in 2004 agreed to pay $170 million in compensation to the families of the victims.
Mr Shalgam also said that the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over the Scottish town of Lockerbie that killed 270 people, for which Libya is widely believed to have been responsible, was more complicated than the UTA attack.
“The Lockerbie operation was more complex ... the role of states and organizations has been discussed, and while the Libyan services were implicated, I do not think it was a purely Libyan operation,” he said.
Last February, a former official from the radical Palestinian group Abu Nidal said that the attacks against the Pan Am and UTA planes were conducted “in conjunction” with Libya, and that the explosives were fabricated in Libya.
Mr Shalgam’s defection came in March when he was serving as Libya’s representative to the United Nations.
[Whether Libya was involved in the destruction of Pan Am 103 or not (eg by supplying materials to the culprits) it does not follow that a particular Libyan, viz Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was involved. The evidence against him remains just as weak as it was before Mr Shalgam spoke and the conviction of Megrahi on the evidence led at Zeist remains just as outrageous.
I may say that Mr Shalgam, whom I met on several occasions while he was Libya's foreign minister, always denied to me that his country was responsible for Lockerbie. But it may be that he is one of those who tends to tell people what he thinks, rightly or wrongly, that they want to hear.]
Libya is responsible for a deadly 1989 attack on a French airliner, Libyan former foreign minister Abdel Rahman Shalgam told al-Hayat newspaper in an interview published on Monday.
“The Libyan security services blew up the plane. They believed that opposition leader Mohammed al-Megrief was on board, but after the plane was blown up, it was found that he was not on the plane,” said Mr Shalgam, who defected from Muammar Qaddafi’s embattled regime earlier this year.
On September 19, 1989, a UTA DC-10 travelling from Brazzaville to Paris via N’Djamena crashed in Niger after explosives on board detonated, killing 170 passengers and crew, including 54 French citizens.
A French court in 2009 sentenced six Libyan agents in absentia to life in prison for the attack, but Libya has never admitted it was responsible.
However, Tripoli had in 2004 agreed to pay $170 million in compensation to the families of the victims.
Mr Shalgam also said that the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over the Scottish town of Lockerbie that killed 270 people, for which Libya is widely believed to have been responsible, was more complicated than the UTA attack.
“The Lockerbie operation was more complex ... the role of states and organizations has been discussed, and while the Libyan services were implicated, I do not think it was a purely Libyan operation,” he said.
Last February, a former official from the radical Palestinian group Abu Nidal said that the attacks against the Pan Am and UTA planes were conducted “in conjunction” with Libya, and that the explosives were fabricated in Libya.
Mr Shalgam’s defection came in March when he was serving as Libya’s representative to the United Nations.
[Whether Libya was involved in the destruction of Pan Am 103 or not (eg by supplying materials to the culprits) it does not follow that a particular Libyan, viz Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was involved. The evidence against him remains just as weak as it was before Mr Shalgam spoke and the conviction of Megrahi on the evidence led at Zeist remains just as outrageous.
I may say that Mr Shalgam, whom I met on several occasions while he was Libya's foreign minister, always denied to me that his country was responsible for Lockerbie. But it may be that he is one of those who tends to tell people what he thinks, rightly or wrongly, that they want to hear.]
Sunday, 17 July 2011
New doubts over crucial evidence in Lockerbie trial
[This is the headline over an article by John Ashton in today's edition of the Sunday Herald. It reads as follows:]
A prosecution expert misled judges at the Lockerbie trial about key evidence, according to a classified police memo obtained by the Sunday Herald.
Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over the Scottish border town on December 21, 1988, killing 270 people.
The trial of the two Libyan men accused of the bombing began in May 2000, in front of a Scottish court set up in the Netherlands. During the trial, Dr Thomas Hayes, an expert witness for the prosecution, testified that a fragment allegedly from the bomb’s timer had not been tested for explosive residues.
However, according to the memo, tests were in fact carried out – and proved negative.
The revelation comes as the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee prepares to consider calls for a public inquiry into the conviction in 2001 of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Campaigners believe he was wrongly convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, and accuse the police and Crown Office of concealing evidence that might have cleared him.
Forensic evidence suggested that the fragment, known as PT/35, was part of a timer supplied to Libyan intelligence by the Swiss company Mebo. Mebo’s offices were shared by a company co-owned by Megrahi.
According to the prosecution, the timer and the explosive were hidden in a Toshiba radio-cassette player which Megrahi packed into a suitcase along with clothing.
Hayes was employed by the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE), linked to the UK Ministry of Defence. Scientists from the RARDE were involved in examining material found at the Lockerbie crash scene.
Hayes told the trial in June 2000 that he did not test PT/35, or a fragment of Toshiba circuit board, for explosive residues because it was clear from their appearance that they were bomb-damaged.
He added that the chances of finding residues were “vanishingly small”, but acknowledged that residues had been found on pieces of aircraft debris, and that test results for other items were not disclosed.
A previously secret memo, dated April 3, 1990, describes a visit to the Lockerbie investigation by French police officers examining the 1989 bombing of a French airliner in Niger. The memo states that Detective Superintendent Stuart Henderson, senior investigating officer, told the French delegation “that the piece of PCB [printed circuit board] from the Toshiba [cassette player] bore no trace of explosive contamination and that this was due to the total consummation of the explosive material. Similarly with PT/35, the item was negative in regard to explosive traces”.
It is not known whether Hayes knew of the tests alluded to in the memo, and there is no suggestion that he deliberately misled the court. Henderson did not testify at the trial, and there is no suggestion that he acted improperly.
Christine Grahame, SNP MSP and convener of the Justice Committee, said yesterday: “This adds to the growing body of evidence that Megrahi’s conviction, if it was placed before the appeal court today, would not stand the test of being proven beyond reasonable doubt.”
Calls for a public enquiry have been led by the campaign group Justice for Megrahi. Group member Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the Lockerbie bombing, said yesterday: “At the end of Megrahi’s trial, PT/35 stood out for me as being shrouded in a cloud of anomalies. Everything that I’ve learned since then has added to my suspicion that there was something very wrong.”
The trial court heard that Hayes found the fragment in May 1989 in the collar of a blast-damaged shirt. However, his laboratory notes and the collar’s police evidence label were inexplicably altered, and other official documents gave the date of discovery as January 1990.
Hayes’s employer, the RARDE, was involved in a string of miscarriages of justice in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1990, Hayes and senior colleagues were criticised by former appeal court judge Sir John May in his report on the Maguire Seven case, in which individuals had been charged with handling explosives linked to the IRA. Sir John said they knew of evidence pointing to the innocence of the accused yet failed to inform the court.
After seeing PT/35, Mebo’s owner, Edwin Bollier, said it was from a prototype circuit board that was never part of a functioning timer.
The police memo was one of hundreds of documents appended to the 800-page report into Megrahi’s conviction produced by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. However, its potential significance was apparently overlooked.
The Crown Office would not comment directly on the memo. In a joint statement with Dumfries and Galloway Police, which led the Lockerbie investigation, it said: “The only appropriate forum for the determination of guilt or innocence is the criminal court. Mr Megrahi was convicted unanimously … following trial and his conviction was upheld unanimously by five judges in an appeal court.”
[The flaws in the Zeist trial and the strictly circumscribed nature of the appeal are described in my article Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result.]
A prosecution expert misled judges at the Lockerbie trial about key evidence, according to a classified police memo obtained by the Sunday Herald.
Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over the Scottish border town on December 21, 1988, killing 270 people.
The trial of the two Libyan men accused of the bombing began in May 2000, in front of a Scottish court set up in the Netherlands. During the trial, Dr Thomas Hayes, an expert witness for the prosecution, testified that a fragment allegedly from the bomb’s timer had not been tested for explosive residues.
However, according to the memo, tests were in fact carried out – and proved negative.
The revelation comes as the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee prepares to consider calls for a public inquiry into the conviction in 2001 of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Campaigners believe he was wrongly convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, and accuse the police and Crown Office of concealing evidence that might have cleared him.
Forensic evidence suggested that the fragment, known as PT/35, was part of a timer supplied to Libyan intelligence by the Swiss company Mebo. Mebo’s offices were shared by a company co-owned by Megrahi.
According to the prosecution, the timer and the explosive were hidden in a Toshiba radio-cassette player which Megrahi packed into a suitcase along with clothing.
Hayes was employed by the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE), linked to the UK Ministry of Defence. Scientists from the RARDE were involved in examining material found at the Lockerbie crash scene.
Hayes told the trial in June 2000 that he did not test PT/35, or a fragment of Toshiba circuit board, for explosive residues because it was clear from their appearance that they were bomb-damaged.
He added that the chances of finding residues were “vanishingly small”, but acknowledged that residues had been found on pieces of aircraft debris, and that test results for other items were not disclosed.
A previously secret memo, dated April 3, 1990, describes a visit to the Lockerbie investigation by French police officers examining the 1989 bombing of a French airliner in Niger. The memo states that Detective Superintendent Stuart Henderson, senior investigating officer, told the French delegation “that the piece of PCB [printed circuit board] from the Toshiba [cassette player] bore no trace of explosive contamination and that this was due to the total consummation of the explosive material. Similarly with PT/35, the item was negative in regard to explosive traces”.
It is not known whether Hayes knew of the tests alluded to in the memo, and there is no suggestion that he deliberately misled the court. Henderson did not testify at the trial, and there is no suggestion that he acted improperly.
Christine Grahame, SNP MSP and convener of the Justice Committee, said yesterday: “This adds to the growing body of evidence that Megrahi’s conviction, if it was placed before the appeal court today, would not stand the test of being proven beyond reasonable doubt.”
Calls for a public enquiry have been led by the campaign group Justice for Megrahi. Group member Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the Lockerbie bombing, said yesterday: “At the end of Megrahi’s trial, PT/35 stood out for me as being shrouded in a cloud of anomalies. Everything that I’ve learned since then has added to my suspicion that there was something very wrong.”
The trial court heard that Hayes found the fragment in May 1989 in the collar of a blast-damaged shirt. However, his laboratory notes and the collar’s police evidence label were inexplicably altered, and other official documents gave the date of discovery as January 1990.
Hayes’s employer, the RARDE, was involved in a string of miscarriages of justice in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1990, Hayes and senior colleagues were criticised by former appeal court judge Sir John May in his report on the Maguire Seven case, in which individuals had been charged with handling explosives linked to the IRA. Sir John said they knew of evidence pointing to the innocence of the accused yet failed to inform the court.
After seeing PT/35, Mebo’s owner, Edwin Bollier, said it was from a prototype circuit board that was never part of a functioning timer.
The police memo was one of hundreds of documents appended to the 800-page report into Megrahi’s conviction produced by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. However, its potential significance was apparently overlooked.
The Crown Office would not comment directly on the memo. In a joint statement with Dumfries and Galloway Police, which led the Lockerbie investigation, it said: “The only appropriate forum for the determination of guilt or innocence is the criminal court. Mr Megrahi was convicted unanimously … following trial and his conviction was upheld unanimously by five judges in an appeal court.”
[The flaws in the Zeist trial and the strictly circumscribed nature of the appeal are described in my article Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result.]
Saturday, 16 July 2011
Lockerbie: Diplomat's wife hears a different story
[This is the heading over an item posted yesterday on the Sedulia's Quotations website. It reads as follows:]
A curious thing happened in the Gambia which I have often thought about since. Very soon after the Lockerbie disaster, an ex-Interpol detective came to dinner with us. He was in the Gambia investigating some kind of fisheries fraud for the EU. Over the meal we discussed Lockerbie and he said, "Oh it will all come out soon. That plane was carrying drugs to the US as part of a deal over the American hostages in Lebanon." He went on to tell us that in order for the drugs to get through unimpeded it was arranged that the cargo in the Pan Am plane would not be inspected. What happened then, he said, was that, via the Lebanese/Hezbollah/Iran connection, the extraordinary fact that the plane's cargo would travel unchecked, came to the ears of Iranians seeking revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner by the US not long before; somehow they arranged to put a bomb on board.
Though the detective said that this story would be all over the papers in the following months, it never was. I have told it to every journalist I know, but no paper has ever taken it up -- although there was a book published years ago called The Octopus Trail [The Trail of the Octopus, by Donald Goddard and Lester Coleman] which told more or less the same tale. Last year, not long before he died, I happened to tell Paul Foot the story and he urged me not to let it lie-- which is why I am putting it into this book.
-- Brigid Keenan (1939- ), Diplomatic Baggage: The Adventures of a Trailing Spouse (2005).
[This Lockerbie theory was, of course, also advanced by Juval Aviv in his Interfor Report. More about Aviv can be found by entering his name in the blog's search facility.]
A curious thing happened in the Gambia which I have often thought about since. Very soon after the Lockerbie disaster, an ex-Interpol detective came to dinner with us. He was in the Gambia investigating some kind of fisheries fraud for the EU. Over the meal we discussed Lockerbie and he said, "Oh it will all come out soon. That plane was carrying drugs to the US as part of a deal over the American hostages in Lebanon." He went on to tell us that in order for the drugs to get through unimpeded it was arranged that the cargo in the Pan Am plane would not be inspected. What happened then, he said, was that, via the Lebanese/Hezbollah/Iran connection, the extraordinary fact that the plane's cargo would travel unchecked, came to the ears of Iranians seeking revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner by the US not long before; somehow they arranged to put a bomb on board.
Though the detective said that this story would be all over the papers in the following months, it never was. I have told it to every journalist I know, but no paper has ever taken it up -- although there was a book published years ago called The Octopus Trail [The Trail of the Octopus, by Donald Goddard and Lester Coleman] which told more or less the same tale. Last year, not long before he died, I happened to tell Paul Foot the story and he urged me not to let it lie-- which is why I am putting it into this book.
-- Brigid Keenan (1939- ), Diplomatic Baggage: The Adventures of a Trailing Spouse (2005).
[This Lockerbie theory was, of course, also advanced by Juval Aviv in his Interfor Report. More about Aviv can be found by entering his name in the blog's search facility.]
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
Mistakes by Scottish legal system should be exposed
[The following is an excerpt from a letter by William Forbes in today's edition of The Herald:]
Once a case from any jurisdiction reaches the Supreme Court they are all treated the same – there are no “additional” powers and all have to satisfy the test that there is a case to answer, in accordance with rules and statutes. If anything, greater care is exercised with Scottish cases to ensure the sovereignty of the Scottish courts. What appears to upset Alex Salmond and his supporters is that Scots appear to have better access to the Supreme Court than fellow UK citizens, but arguably this is illusionary. The idea that the Scottish legal system can be improved by further restricting access to justice is flawed and can only suit who would have our mistakes kept quiet. Whether mistakes are made in Camp Zeist, London or Edinburgh it is of the utmost importance that they are exposed and our system is improved as a result.
Justice without fairness is the justice of the lynch mob. (...)
There is a great need to consider how the Scottish legal system copes with the notion of basic human rights. The opposing attitude of who cares if there has been a mistake, as long as it was a “Scoattish wan” does little to advance hope that the law in Scotland will mature.
[The Scottish Government has a golden opportunity to show that it is just as serious about investigating, rectifying and learning lessons from possible mistakes by the Scottish criminal justice system as it is about "protecting Scots law's independence" from a predatory Supreme Court. It should immediately announce the establishment of an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. Until that happens, the Scottish Government can with justice be accused of being more concerned with political posturing than with securing the rights of those who have been ill-served by Scotland's criminal justice system.
The above comment has been picked up in a news item on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
Once a case from any jurisdiction reaches the Supreme Court they are all treated the same – there are no “additional” powers and all have to satisfy the test that there is a case to answer, in accordance with rules and statutes. If anything, greater care is exercised with Scottish cases to ensure the sovereignty of the Scottish courts. What appears to upset Alex Salmond and his supporters is that Scots appear to have better access to the Supreme Court than fellow UK citizens, but arguably this is illusionary. The idea that the Scottish legal system can be improved by further restricting access to justice is flawed and can only suit who would have our mistakes kept quiet. Whether mistakes are made in Camp Zeist, London or Edinburgh it is of the utmost importance that they are exposed and our system is improved as a result.
Justice without fairness is the justice of the lynch mob. (...)
There is a great need to consider how the Scottish legal system copes with the notion of basic human rights. The opposing attitude of who cares if there has been a mistake, as long as it was a “Scoattish wan” does little to advance hope that the law in Scotland will mature.
[The Scottish Government has a golden opportunity to show that it is just as serious about investigating, rectifying and learning lessons from possible mistakes by the Scottish criminal justice system as it is about "protecting Scots law's independence" from a predatory Supreme Court. It should immediately announce the establishment of an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. Until that happens, the Scottish Government can with justice be accused of being more concerned with political posturing than with securing the rights of those who have been ill-served by Scotland's criminal justice system.
The above comment has been picked up in a news item on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Many still question Megrahi conviction in bombing of Pan Am 103
[This is the headline over an article in the current issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs by the magazine's publisher, Ambassador Andrew I Killgore. It reads as follows:]
Libyan intelligence officer Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi was convicted on Jan 31, 2001 of destroying Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec 21, 1988, killing the plane's 259 passengers, including 179 Americans, and 11 people on the ground. Megrahi was tried under Scottish law by Scottish judges in a special court sitting at Camp Zeist, a former American military base in The Netherlands.
As readers of the Washington Report are aware, the American media coverage of the Lockerbie trial was very thin, despite the heavy loss of American lives. There seems to be a determined silence about even the existence of an organization called "Justice for Megrahi," whose members include (full disclosure) this writer and several distinguished Britons, including Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the crash, and Dr. Robert Black, former professor of criminal law at Edinburgh University and creator of the idea of trying Megrahi and his co-defendant, Lamen Fhimah, in The Netherlands under Scottish law.
The revolution in Libya, and particularly the defection to Britain of former Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, has stirred some peripheral interest in Lockerbie. Before he became foreign minister, Koussa was head of Libyan intelligence, and close to Muammar al-Qaddafi. He would know what was in Qaddafi's mind when he agreed to turn over Megrahi and Fhimah for trial. Was it because the Libyan leader thought the two men were guilty, or because he knew he was obliged to do so to gain sufficient Western approval for the development of his country, including increased oil production?
The April 9 Washington Post ran an article saying that Scottish officials had "met" with Koussa, who they think may have crucial information about Lockerbie. According to the article, "Prosecutors said that they would offer no additional details of their conversations with Koussa." Just what did Koussa tell them, and why is no more information about the meeting forthcoming?
So far as this writer has seen, no American newspaper has mentioned that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ruled that Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice—a finding that presumably remains valid despite Megrahi's release from prison on compassionate grounds. Yet, the Washington Post article writes that "the case remains open despite Megrahi's conviction."
The heavy lethargy of the American media on Lockerbie includes no word that many outstanding Britons who lost relatives or friends in the Lockerbie crash do not believe that Megrahi is guilty. If members of "Justice for Megrahi," who obviously think he is not guilty, could possibly arrange a discussion with Moussa, it could clear up a lot of questions. Depending on Koussa's answers, it could reopen the question of who really bombed Pan Am 103.
[Yesterday, for the first time in its history, this blog had more visitors from the United States than from the United Kingdom. The most-read item was MSPs call for independent inquiry into Lockerbie.]
Libyan intelligence officer Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi was convicted on Jan 31, 2001 of destroying Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec 21, 1988, killing the plane's 259 passengers, including 179 Americans, and 11 people on the ground. Megrahi was tried under Scottish law by Scottish judges in a special court sitting at Camp Zeist, a former American military base in The Netherlands.
As readers of the Washington Report are aware, the American media coverage of the Lockerbie trial was very thin, despite the heavy loss of American lives. There seems to be a determined silence about even the existence of an organization called "Justice for Megrahi," whose members include (full disclosure) this writer and several distinguished Britons, including Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the crash, and Dr. Robert Black, former professor of criminal law at Edinburgh University and creator of the idea of trying Megrahi and his co-defendant, Lamen Fhimah, in The Netherlands under Scottish law.
The revolution in Libya, and particularly the defection to Britain of former Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, has stirred some peripheral interest in Lockerbie. Before he became foreign minister, Koussa was head of Libyan intelligence, and close to Muammar al-Qaddafi. He would know what was in Qaddafi's mind when he agreed to turn over Megrahi and Fhimah for trial. Was it because the Libyan leader thought the two men were guilty, or because he knew he was obliged to do so to gain sufficient Western approval for the development of his country, including increased oil production?
The April 9 Washington Post ran an article saying that Scottish officials had "met" with Koussa, who they think may have crucial information about Lockerbie. According to the article, "Prosecutors said that they would offer no additional details of their conversations with Koussa." Just what did Koussa tell them, and why is no more information about the meeting forthcoming?
So far as this writer has seen, no American newspaper has mentioned that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ruled that Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice—a finding that presumably remains valid despite Megrahi's release from prison on compassionate grounds. Yet, the Washington Post article writes that "the case remains open despite Megrahi's conviction."
The heavy lethargy of the American media on Lockerbie includes no word that many outstanding Britons who lost relatives or friends in the Lockerbie crash do not believe that Megrahi is guilty. If members of "Justice for Megrahi," who obviously think he is not guilty, could possibly arrange a discussion with Moussa, it could clear up a lot of questions. Depending on Koussa's answers, it could reopen the question of who really bombed Pan Am 103.
[Yesterday, for the first time in its history, this blog had more visitors from the United States than from the United Kingdom. The most-read item was MSPs call for independent inquiry into Lockerbie.]
Monday, 11 July 2011
An interview with the British ambassador to Libya
[The following is an excerpt from an interview given by the UK's ambassador to Libya to the rebel-supporting Libya TV and published yesterday on its website:]
The H2O law firm, which represents the British victims of IRA bombings, visited Benghazi three weeks after the revolution erupted. Did they reach a deal with the NTC?
The law firm received an understanding and support at a later stage. The NTC has committed to helping clarify the Lockerbie case, the Yvonne Fletcher case and IRA victims.
Moussa Koussa, a former intelligence chief, defected to the UK and was permitted to leave without charge in April. He currently resides in Qatar and was at the contact group meeting in Doha. Is he helping the UK?
Moussa Koussa’s defection was a political gain for the revolution. He has given his commitment to the British government to talk to the police and help them with their investigations. No doubt he needs to rebuild his life in Doha.
The H2O law firm, which represents the British victims of IRA bombings, visited Benghazi three weeks after the revolution erupted. Did they reach a deal with the NTC?
The law firm received an understanding and support at a later stage. The NTC has committed to helping clarify the Lockerbie case, the Yvonne Fletcher case and IRA victims.
Moussa Koussa, a former intelligence chief, defected to the UK and was permitted to leave without charge in April. He currently resides in Qatar and was at the contact group meeting in Doha. Is he helping the UK?
Moussa Koussa’s defection was a political gain for the revolution. He has given his commitment to the British government to talk to the police and help them with their investigations. No doubt he needs to rebuild his life in Doha.
Not so fast, Mr President! How Obama got it (all) wrong on Libya and how to fix it
[This is the headline over an article by Susan Lindauer published today on The Intel Hub and various other websites. The section headed The Lockerbie bombing reads as follows:]
Gadhaffi haters like to throw out Lockerbie to remind Europeans and Americans of Libya’s dark past long ago. In March 1999, after 7 years of UN sanctions, Gadhaffi’s government handed over two Libyans for Trial in the bombing of Pan Am 103, which exploded over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988. Regardless, Gadhaffi fiercely denied any involvement in the Lockerbie conspiracy.
As with so many other terrorist cases, appearances of Libya’s guilt prove deceiving. Two star witnesses against Libya have now recanted their testimony, and confessed to receiving $4 million dollar payments each from the US and Britain. It’s an ugly stain on the International Criminal Court. [RB: The court that convicted Megrahi (and acquitted Lamin Fhimah) was a Scottish court, albeit sitting in the Netherlands.]
The good news for truth seekers is that last week the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee moved to launch a new inquiry into the Lockerbie case. Christine Grahame said: “There are so many conspiracy theories around now that I think it’s time that we had a clean, clear look at the role of Scottish justice in this.
The issue is not whether Libya, or any other country, was guilty. The issue is, was Abdelbaset al-Megrahi rightly convicted, and we have not heard the answer to that yet.”
That decision should be strongly applauded by everyone who champions integrity in government oversight. If American leaders would show the same concern for reexamining 9/11, it would go a long way to restoring confidence in our government.
In fact, there’s a lot of fresh leads for a Scottish inquiry to pursue. The Justice Committee could start by opening the deposition of my own CIA handler, Dr Richard Fuisz, sworn under oath in the US District Court of Virginia, in the closing days of the Lockerbie Trial. It’s got some eye popping information, for sure.
At my very first meeting with Dr Fuisz in September, 1994 — and throughout our years together — he gave me the real skinny on Lockerbie. Dr Fuisz swore that Pan Am 103 was a false flag operation to hide a rogue CIA team’s involvement in heroin trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley during the Terry Anderson hostage crisis in Lebanon.
Dr Fuisz explained that when Defense Intelligence officer, Maj Charles Dennis McKee and CIA officer, Matthew Gannon, stationed in Beirut, complained that a double agent was compromising efforts to rescue the hostages, the CIA and FBI sent a team to Lebanon for a fact-finding investigation.
Investigators were flying back to Washington on Pan Am 103 with evidence exposing the heroin ring when a bomb exploded on the plane. Intriguingly, shortly before, the State Department issued an internal travel warning to US Embassies that Pan Am 103 would be targeted for bombing on that day, and everybody should get off the plane.
The sudden exodus of government personnel freed up seats for students from Syracuse University, flying home stand by for the Christmas Holidays. The college students died.
Dr Fuisz frequently swore that he could identify every terrorist involved in the attack. Because he is such high ranking CIA operative, he has been forbidden from speaking publicly about his role in events leading up to the bombing. Throughout the 1990s, he was repeatedly threatened with 10 years in prison if he broke his silence.
Imagine then the herculean effort on my part to force the CIA to permit Dr Fuisz to give closed door testimony in front of Judge White in Virginia. In the process of speaking out myself, I made a lot of enemies at the Justice Department, who proved they had a long memory during my 5 year indictment on the Patriot Act.
My desire to call Lockerbie attorney, Edward MacKechnie as my chief witness to prove my relationship with Dr Fuisz and my standing as an Intelligence Asset played a significant role in why the Justice Department fought my demand for a Trial.
A Trial would have reopened questions about the Lockerbie conviction and Libya’s guilt. It also would have exposed the CIA’s continued role in heroin trafficking to finance black ops through the 1990s.
The CIA was fighting to protect itself. When my efforts succeeded in forcing the CIA to allow the deposition to go forward, the CIA stipulated that Dr. Fuisz’s deposition must be sealed in the United States, so that Americans would have zero knowledge that his testimony existed or what it contained.
True to his word, inside the deposition, there’s a double seal that contains a list of 11 names of the Lockerbie conspirators and a map outlining the conspiracy.
It would be supremely valuable for the Scottish Justice Committee to open that double seal and review the full deposition. At that point, a decision could be made whether Dr Fuisz should be subpoenaed again to answer further questions.
However already there’s a substantial body of evidence that has never been viewed by Scottish Judges at all.
If Scottish families want justice in Lockerbie, that’s the best way forward. As for the rest, there’s nothing to fear. Gadhaffi’s arm does not reach into Europe. He’s got no ties to terrorism whatsoever.
Gadhaffi haters like to throw out Lockerbie to remind Europeans and Americans of Libya’s dark past long ago. In March 1999, after 7 years of UN sanctions, Gadhaffi’s government handed over two Libyans for Trial in the bombing of Pan Am 103, which exploded over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988. Regardless, Gadhaffi fiercely denied any involvement in the Lockerbie conspiracy.
As with so many other terrorist cases, appearances of Libya’s guilt prove deceiving. Two star witnesses against Libya have now recanted their testimony, and confessed to receiving $4 million dollar payments each from the US and Britain. It’s an ugly stain on the International Criminal Court. [RB: The court that convicted Megrahi (and acquitted Lamin Fhimah) was a Scottish court, albeit sitting in the Netherlands.]
The good news for truth seekers is that last week the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee moved to launch a new inquiry into the Lockerbie case. Christine Grahame said: “There are so many conspiracy theories around now that I think it’s time that we had a clean, clear look at the role of Scottish justice in this.
The issue is not whether Libya, or any other country, was guilty. The issue is, was Abdelbaset al-Megrahi rightly convicted, and we have not heard the answer to that yet.”
That decision should be strongly applauded by everyone who champions integrity in government oversight. If American leaders would show the same concern for reexamining 9/11, it would go a long way to restoring confidence in our government.
In fact, there’s a lot of fresh leads for a Scottish inquiry to pursue. The Justice Committee could start by opening the deposition of my own CIA handler, Dr Richard Fuisz, sworn under oath in the US District Court of Virginia, in the closing days of the Lockerbie Trial. It’s got some eye popping information, for sure.
At my very first meeting with Dr Fuisz in September, 1994 — and throughout our years together — he gave me the real skinny on Lockerbie. Dr Fuisz swore that Pan Am 103 was a false flag operation to hide a rogue CIA team’s involvement in heroin trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley during the Terry Anderson hostage crisis in Lebanon.
Dr Fuisz explained that when Defense Intelligence officer, Maj Charles Dennis McKee and CIA officer, Matthew Gannon, stationed in Beirut, complained that a double agent was compromising efforts to rescue the hostages, the CIA and FBI sent a team to Lebanon for a fact-finding investigation.
Investigators were flying back to Washington on Pan Am 103 with evidence exposing the heroin ring when a bomb exploded on the plane. Intriguingly, shortly before, the State Department issued an internal travel warning to US Embassies that Pan Am 103 would be targeted for bombing on that day, and everybody should get off the plane.
The sudden exodus of government personnel freed up seats for students from Syracuse University, flying home stand by for the Christmas Holidays. The college students died.
Dr Fuisz frequently swore that he could identify every terrorist involved in the attack. Because he is such high ranking CIA operative, he has been forbidden from speaking publicly about his role in events leading up to the bombing. Throughout the 1990s, he was repeatedly threatened with 10 years in prison if he broke his silence.
Imagine then the herculean effort on my part to force the CIA to permit Dr Fuisz to give closed door testimony in front of Judge White in Virginia. In the process of speaking out myself, I made a lot of enemies at the Justice Department, who proved they had a long memory during my 5 year indictment on the Patriot Act.
My desire to call Lockerbie attorney, Edward MacKechnie as my chief witness to prove my relationship with Dr Fuisz and my standing as an Intelligence Asset played a significant role in why the Justice Department fought my demand for a Trial.
A Trial would have reopened questions about the Lockerbie conviction and Libya’s guilt. It also would have exposed the CIA’s continued role in heroin trafficking to finance black ops through the 1990s.
The CIA was fighting to protect itself. When my efforts succeeded in forcing the CIA to allow the deposition to go forward, the CIA stipulated that Dr. Fuisz’s deposition must be sealed in the United States, so that Americans would have zero knowledge that his testimony existed or what it contained.
True to his word, inside the deposition, there’s a double seal that contains a list of 11 names of the Lockerbie conspirators and a map outlining the conspiracy.
It would be supremely valuable for the Scottish Justice Committee to open that double seal and review the full deposition. At that point, a decision could be made whether Dr Fuisz should be subpoenaed again to answer further questions.
However already there’s a substantial body of evidence that has never been viewed by Scottish Judges at all.
If Scottish families want justice in Lockerbie, that’s the best way forward. As for the rest, there’s nothing to fear. Gadhaffi’s arm does not reach into Europe. He’s got no ties to terrorism whatsoever.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
The conundrum of Scots Law
[This is the headline over an article by Hazel Lewry
published today on the Newsnet Scotland website. For some mysterious reason it is dated 3 June 2011 (now changed to 9 July). It reads in part:]
In recent years there have been at least three readily identifiable cases of potential miscarriages of justice or denial of basic human rights taking place under Scots Law: the Megrahi, Cadder and Fraser cases, each with their own unique aspects, each with their own unique implications for Scots justice. In every case there have been strong common threads. All put Scots Law, and those who practise within it, under an external microscope. Each case had its own issues that rightfully required this intense scrutiny.
Each case highlighted the dissimilarities between England and Scotland.
History has demonstrated that in the view of the UK, differences are not encouraged. Differences that can give Westminster’s dictated foreign policy a very bloody nose, as in the Megrahi case, shall and must be dealt with at the earliest opportunity.
With respect to Megrahi it was absolutely no surprise that the Scotland Bill was quietly and quickly amended in an attempt to address this issue, at least partially.
[It is unfortunate that the author is not more specific about the amendment she is referring to. On a quick trawl through the Bill, the only provision that seems potentially relevant is clause 27, which reads in relevant part:
Implementation of international obligations
(1) The 1998 Act [ie the Scotland Act 1998] is amended as follows.
(2) After section 57 insert—
“57A International obligations
Despite the transfer to the Scottish Ministers by virtue of section 53 of functions in relation to observing and implementing international obligations, a function in relation to those matters which is exercisable by the Scottish Ministers is also exercisable by a Minister of the Crown as regards Scotland if it was exercisable by that Minister as regards Scotland immediately before that transfer.”
I suppose that this could be interpreted to cover a situation in which the UK Government had concluded a prisoner transfer agreement with a foreign country, but the Scottish Government was unwilling to operate it in respect of a particular prisoner in a Scottish prison. A UK Government Scotland Office minister might then have the power to exercise the transfer function in relation to that prisoner.]
published today on the Newsnet Scotland website. For some mysterious reason it is dated 3 June 2011 (now changed to 9 July). It reads in part:]
In recent years there have been at least three readily identifiable cases of potential miscarriages of justice or denial of basic human rights taking place under Scots Law: the Megrahi, Cadder and Fraser cases, each with their own unique aspects, each with their own unique implications for Scots justice. In every case there have been strong common threads. All put Scots Law, and those who practise within it, under an external microscope. Each case had its own issues that rightfully required this intense scrutiny.
Each case highlighted the dissimilarities between England and Scotland.
History has demonstrated that in the view of the UK, differences are not encouraged. Differences that can give Westminster’s dictated foreign policy a very bloody nose, as in the Megrahi case, shall and must be dealt with at the earliest opportunity.
With respect to Megrahi it was absolutely no surprise that the Scotland Bill was quietly and quickly amended in an attempt to address this issue, at least partially.
[It is unfortunate that the author is not more specific about the amendment she is referring to. On a quick trawl through the Bill, the only provision that seems potentially relevant is clause 27, which reads in relevant part:
Implementation of international obligations
(1) The 1998 Act [ie the Scotland Act 1998] is amended as follows.
(2) After section 57 insert—
“57A International obligations
Despite the transfer to the Scottish Ministers by virtue of section 53 of functions in relation to observing and implementing international obligations, a function in relation to those matters which is exercisable by the Scottish Ministers is also exercisable by a Minister of the Crown as regards Scotland if it was exercisable by that Minister as regards Scotland immediately before that transfer.”
I suppose that this could be interpreted to cover a situation in which the UK Government had concluded a prisoner transfer agreement with a foreign country, but the Scottish Government was unwilling to operate it in respect of a particular prisoner in a Scottish prison. A UK Government Scotland Office minister might then have the power to exercise the transfer function in relation to that prisoner.]
Friday, 8 July 2011
Will NATO resurrect Operation Gladio to frame Gaddafi?
[This is the headline over an article published today on the Prison Planet website. It reads in part:]
Libyan leader’s threat to attack Europe could provide NATO with the perfect pretext to launch a full ground invasion
Given the fact that NATO itself was one of the pioneers of false flag terror to frame political enemies under Operation Gladio, a CIA-supported terror campaign that was responsible for a series of bloody attacks in Europe throughout the cold war years, we shouldn’t be surprised if NATO ressurects the legacy of Gladio in its desperation to justify a final decapitation strike to topple Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
Gaddafi’s threat to attack Europe in retaliation for the NATO bombing campaign in Libya prompted the establishment media to react with contrived outrage, eliciting sharp intakes of breath at the mere thought that Gaddafi, whose country has been under constant bombardment for over three months, would dare to even speak about fighting back. (...)
Gaddafi himself is no stranger to being the focus of international condemnation for bloody terror attacks blamed on his government.
Although Libyan government agents working at the behest of Gaddafi were accused of carrying out the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 over Scotland, evidence that emerged both before and after the 2001 trial and conviction of alleged former intelligence office Abdelbaset al-Megrahi strongly indicates that the attack was a false flag event.
“Former Labor MP Tam Dalyell and Edinburgh law professor Robert Black urged the Scottish and UK governments to answer reports there is evidence Abu Nidal, aka Hasan Sabri al-Banna, was a US agent,” The Scotsman reported on October 27, 2008. “They have long believed Abu Nidal, who died in Iraq in 2002, and his Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command were responsible for co-ordinating the bomb that blew up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December, 1988 with the loss of 270 lives.”
“Intelligence reports, said to have been drawn up for Saddam Hussein’s security services, said Kuwaitis had asked Abu Nidal, whose real name was Sabri al-Banna, to find out if al-Qaeda was present in Iraq,” David Maddox wrote for the newspaper. The reports referred to Abu Nidal’s “collusion with both the American and Kuwaiti intelligence apparatuses in co-ordination with Egyptian intelligence.” [RB: A comment on this story that I wrote at the time can be read here.]
MP Dalyell said the reports added weight to the theory that Lockerbie was a “tit-for-tat” attack for the shooting down of an Iranian passenger airliner by the warship USS Vincennes in 1988, and was allowed by the US administration. (...)
In May of 2000, a gag order added weight to the theory that Libya was not behind the Lockerbie bombing. Dr Richard Fuisz, a CIA agent and a potential key trial witness, was gagged by the US government under state secrecy laws and faced 10 years in prison if he revealed any information about the terrorist attack, the Sunday Herald reported. Fuisz, a multi-millionaire businessman and pharmaceutical researcher, was, according to US intelligence sources, the CIA’s key operative in the Syrian capital Damascus during the 1980s where he also had business interests.
“One month before a court order was served on him by the US government gagging him from speaking on the grounds of national security, he spoke to US congressional aide Susan Lindauer, telling her he knew the identities of the Lockerbie bombers and claiming they were not Libyan,” Neil Mackay wrote. “Fuisz’s statements to Lindauer support the claims of the two Libyan accused who are to incriminate a number of terrorist organizations, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, which had strong links to Syria and Iran,” in short Abu Nidal.
Nidal was either killed by the Iraqi secret police for his role as an American double agent or he committed suicide after the Iraqis learned of his betrayal, according to The Independent. (...)
At the foundation of the Lockerbie fiction is the claim that Gaddafi had Pan Am flight 103 blown of the sky as revenge for Reagan’s 1986 bombing of Triopli, allegedly in response to the bombing of a night club in West Berlin that killed one US soldier. Reagan’s illegal attack on October 18, 1985, was at the time the largest air assault since the Vietnam War. 120 aircraft rained destruction on points around the cities of Tripoli and Benghazi. At least 100 civilians were killed, including Gaddafi’s 15-month-old adopted daughter, Hana.
Former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky revealed the truth behind the bombing in his 2002 book, By Way of Deception: The Making of a Mossad Officer — it was orchestrated by Israel.
A special communications device, Ostrovsky claims, was planted by naval commandos deep inside Libya by the Mossad. “The device would act as a relay station for misleading transmissions made by the disinformation unit in the Mossad, called LAP, and intended to be received by American and British listening stations,” write Ostrovsky and Claire Hoy. “The listeners would have no doubt they had intercepted a genuine communication” and “the content of the messages, once deciphered, would confirm information from other intelligence sources, namely the Mossad.”
“After the bombing of Libya, our friend Qadhafi is sure to stay out of the picture for some time. Iraq and Saddam Hussein are the next target. We’re starting now to build him up as the big villain. It will take some time, but in the end, there’s no doubt it’ll work,” a Mossad agent told the author. (...)
Gaddafi steadfastly refused to accept responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing for over a decade and made it a condition of Libya’s $2.7 billion payout to the families affected in 2002 that it was “the price of peace” and not an admission of guilt.
The story of how Libyan patsies were framed for the Lockerbie attack should give Gaddafi pause for thought and remind him to be a little more sophisticated in his rhetoric. Should there be a staged event in Europe that gets blamed on Libya, NATO powers will confidently point to Gaddafi’s own public statement as evidence for his culpability.
Libyan leader’s threat to attack Europe could provide NATO with the perfect pretext to launch a full ground invasion
Given the fact that NATO itself was one of the pioneers of false flag terror to frame political enemies under Operation Gladio, a CIA-supported terror campaign that was responsible for a series of bloody attacks in Europe throughout the cold war years, we shouldn’t be surprised if NATO ressurects the legacy of Gladio in its desperation to justify a final decapitation strike to topple Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
Gaddafi’s threat to attack Europe in retaliation for the NATO bombing campaign in Libya prompted the establishment media to react with contrived outrage, eliciting sharp intakes of breath at the mere thought that Gaddafi, whose country has been under constant bombardment for over three months, would dare to even speak about fighting back. (...)
Gaddafi himself is no stranger to being the focus of international condemnation for bloody terror attacks blamed on his government.
Although Libyan government agents working at the behest of Gaddafi were accused of carrying out the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 over Scotland, evidence that emerged both before and after the 2001 trial and conviction of alleged former intelligence office Abdelbaset al-Megrahi strongly indicates that the attack was a false flag event.
“Former Labor MP Tam Dalyell and Edinburgh law professor Robert Black urged the Scottish and UK governments to answer reports there is evidence Abu Nidal, aka Hasan Sabri al-Banna, was a US agent,” The Scotsman reported on October 27, 2008. “They have long believed Abu Nidal, who died in Iraq in 2002, and his Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command were responsible for co-ordinating the bomb that blew up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December, 1988 with the loss of 270 lives.”
“Intelligence reports, said to have been drawn up for Saddam Hussein’s security services, said Kuwaitis had asked Abu Nidal, whose real name was Sabri al-Banna, to find out if al-Qaeda was present in Iraq,” David Maddox wrote for the newspaper. The reports referred to Abu Nidal’s “collusion with both the American and Kuwaiti intelligence apparatuses in co-ordination with Egyptian intelligence.” [RB: A comment on this story that I wrote at the time can be read here.]
MP Dalyell said the reports added weight to the theory that Lockerbie was a “tit-for-tat” attack for the shooting down of an Iranian passenger airliner by the warship USS Vincennes in 1988, and was allowed by the US administration. (...)
In May of 2000, a gag order added weight to the theory that Libya was not behind the Lockerbie bombing. Dr Richard Fuisz, a CIA agent and a potential key trial witness, was gagged by the US government under state secrecy laws and faced 10 years in prison if he revealed any information about the terrorist attack, the Sunday Herald reported. Fuisz, a multi-millionaire businessman and pharmaceutical researcher, was, according to US intelligence sources, the CIA’s key operative in the Syrian capital Damascus during the 1980s where he also had business interests.
“One month before a court order was served on him by the US government gagging him from speaking on the grounds of national security, he spoke to US congressional aide Susan Lindauer, telling her he knew the identities of the Lockerbie bombers and claiming they were not Libyan,” Neil Mackay wrote. “Fuisz’s statements to Lindauer support the claims of the two Libyan accused who are to incriminate a number of terrorist organizations, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, which had strong links to Syria and Iran,” in short Abu Nidal.
Nidal was either killed by the Iraqi secret police for his role as an American double agent or he committed suicide after the Iraqis learned of his betrayal, according to The Independent. (...)
At the foundation of the Lockerbie fiction is the claim that Gaddafi had Pan Am flight 103 blown of the sky as revenge for Reagan’s 1986 bombing of Triopli, allegedly in response to the bombing of a night club in West Berlin that killed one US soldier. Reagan’s illegal attack on October 18, 1985, was at the time the largest air assault since the Vietnam War. 120 aircraft rained destruction on points around the cities of Tripoli and Benghazi. At least 100 civilians were killed, including Gaddafi’s 15-month-old adopted daughter, Hana.
Former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky revealed the truth behind the bombing in his 2002 book, By Way of Deception: The Making of a Mossad Officer — it was orchestrated by Israel.
A special communications device, Ostrovsky claims, was planted by naval commandos deep inside Libya by the Mossad. “The device would act as a relay station for misleading transmissions made by the disinformation unit in the Mossad, called LAP, and intended to be received by American and British listening stations,” write Ostrovsky and Claire Hoy. “The listeners would have no doubt they had intercepted a genuine communication” and “the content of the messages, once deciphered, would confirm information from other intelligence sources, namely the Mossad.”
“After the bombing of Libya, our friend Qadhafi is sure to stay out of the picture for some time. Iraq and Saddam Hussein are the next target. We’re starting now to build him up as the big villain. It will take some time, but in the end, there’s no doubt it’ll work,” a Mossad agent told the author. (...)
Gaddafi steadfastly refused to accept responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing for over a decade and made it a condition of Libya’s $2.7 billion payout to the families affected in 2002 that it was “the price of peace” and not an admission of guilt.
The story of how Libyan patsies were framed for the Lockerbie attack should give Gaddafi pause for thought and remind him to be a little more sophisticated in his rhetoric. Should there be a staged event in Europe that gets blamed on Libya, NATO powers will confidently point to Gaddafi’s own public statement as evidence for his culpability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)