Wednesday, 12 September 2012

Anniversary of removal of UN sanctions against Libya

Today is the ninth anniversary of the removal by the United Nations Security Council of sanctions against Libya over the Lockerbie affair. Thirteen members voted in favour; France and the United States of America abstained. The report on the BBC News website can be read here. The conditions for removal that the Security Council had imposed when sanctions were imposed included surrender of Megrahi and Fhimah for trial; acceptance by Libya of responsibility for the destruction of Pan Am 103; and payment of compensation to the relatives of the victims. The terms of the Libyan "acceptance of responsibility" can be read here. Posts on this blog relating to the compensation paid by Libya can be read here. Two senior officials of the Gaddafi regime are now on trial in Tripoli for their rôle in negotiating the compensation arrangements.


  1. Libya has never accepted responsibility for Lockerbie.

    They did ‘pay compensation to families’ and ‘accept responsibility for their employees’!

    But they maintained that Megrahi was innocent and viewed the payments as the protection money they had to pay to buy peace and get sanctions lifted.

    However this outcome was spun by America and Britain, as Libya ‘taking responsibility for Lockerbie’.

    See website. Government lies about Libya. Labour & Trade Union Review April 2004

    The latest coverage that misreports the prosecutions of Gaddafi officials is not an accident, but yet more spin to hide the truth from the American people.


  2. MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2012 - US$ 2.7 billion Sham and Shame...

    The 2.7 billion US$ the US was extorted from Libya, was the latest in the vile process that paves the way open for Libya's return to the international fold...

    By the way - "This has been a political court case, where the verdict already was decided upon in advance", a shocked Professor Köchler -UN-observer at the Scottish Lockerbie Court in the Netherlands - stated. "A spectacular miscarriage of justice"...
    Libya has never accepted responsibility for Lockerbie ! Clean the name of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi - he had nothing to do with the crash of Pan Am 103.
    The day of the political "Lockerbie trial verdict" - Thursday, March 14th 2002, is in the future, a very bad day for the Scottish Justiciary.
    Please visite the article of Henk Ruyssenaars URL:

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Telecommission Switzerland, URL:

  3. Dear Dave and Edwin,

    Libya did accept responsibility, what they did not accept was guilt. It may seem like technicality but there is an ocean of difference.

    Robert Forrester.

  4. The latest announcements regarding the Hillsborough disaster offers some hope that progress will be made on Lockerbie.

    But one observation is that the Hillsborough campaigners have focused on Police conduct rather than the cause of the disaster.

    They focused on Police conduct to restore the good name of Liverpool fans who had been blamed for the disaster.

    This is understandable, but for me the real cover-up was the role of the fence, because whatever the behaviour of fans or the Police, there would have been no disaster without the fence.

    Those responsible for the fence would be guilty of manslaughter as would the manager of a dance hall who locked the fire exits.

    This would put the Government in the frame for allowing the fences to be erected at football grounds.

    In other words the dispute between Police and fans is a distraction from the true cause of the disaster.

    This reminds me of some Lockerbie campaigners who focus on blaming an ‘IED’ and ‘Arabs/Muslims’, rather than a design fault for causing the crash.

  5. MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2012 (google translation german/english):

    After the disaster in 1989 - 96 Fans was killed in the Hillsborough Stadium, the police tried to hide their mistakes. According to the media: for the British Prime Minister David Cameron a "shame" !
    Soon the Prime Cameron, in the "Lockerbie Case", to need the same words, respectively a apology.
    Call for the Scottish Parliament: "to think and act". Governmental interference, political intrigues and suppression instead of civil and human rights...

    SCCRC CHAPTER 25....25.1 In 2006 Crown Office: Undisclosed protectively marked documents:
    In 2006 Crown Office informed the Commission of the existence of two protectively marked documents in its possession. These documents *(inkl.PII) were madeavaiblable for viewing by a member of the Commission's enquiry team on 21 September 2006 at Dumfries police station on the condition that they would be treated as if they had been suppled under the minute of agreement between the Commission an D&G.

    The Appeal Court in Edinburgh was reported on (20.2.2008) that Scottish Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC had agreed to open the secret text in the document under "national security" which can relieves Libya and its official Mr Megrahi. But the UK Government by Advocate General Lord Davidson QC, blocked the progress and has argued that it is not in the public interest to release the secret document. He claimed: "The national security was at stake"!
    Clancy said the document had not come from the United States or its agencies like the CIA, although he did not disclose the country involved...

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd Switzerland. URL:

  6. MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2012, answer to Quincey Riddle:
    Dear Robert Forrester.
    for your memory:


    The Council was now moving towards resolution of that terrible affair, he continued. Libya had accepted responsibility for the ACTION OF ITS OFFICIALS, renounced terrorism and arranged for payment of appropriate compensation for the families of the victims. It had also expressed its commitment to cooperate with any further requests for information in connection with the investigation. All those were substantial gains, which could allow Libya to move back into the international community and bring the Council closer to lifting the sanctions.

    By Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Telecommunication Switzerland. URL:

  7. Dave said:
    This reminds me of some Lockerbie campaigners who focus on blaming an ‘IED’ and ‘Arabs/Muslims’, rather than a design fault for causing the crash.

    Ah, your closed mind is still convinced this was an accident due to a design fault? On what evidence? Oh that's right, none at all apart from what you read on someone's blog, and it tickled your fancy.

    There is an absolute shedload of evidence that the plane was brought down by an explosion inside a suitcase in the bottom front left-hand corner of baggage container AVE4041. What about that? All planted by people who wanted to cover up for Boeing and who somehow managed to acquire all this evidence in no time flat and scatter it artistically around the countryside, even though they could have had no idea it would be required?

    If you believe that, you believe anything. Clearly, if all the evidence was fabricated, then none of it can be relied on, so what can you ever know? Nothing, because even the bits you want to rely on could be fabricated.

    Dave, Barry John Smith doesn't know what he's talking about. He has made up a fairy-story because it fits in with another obsession he has. You accuse others of having closed minds, while your own mind is closed like a steel trap, just because you find his idea attractive.

    Well, attractive or not, it is contradicted by evidence which cannot simply be hand-waved away. Too bad.