[This is the headline over a letter from Christopher Frew published in today’s edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
You report on a new plea by the Liberal Democrats for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing and back it up in your leader as "a welcome step towards shining new light on exactly what led to the death of 270 people on December 21, 1988" ("New plea by LibDems for Lockerbie public inquiry", The Herald, January 3).
There are two possible strands to such an inquiry: first, with the co-operation of the Libyan government, a clarification of its role. This may, we hope, be forthcoming.
The second strand would be the earlier sequence of events following the shooting down by the US battlecruiser Vincennes of the Iran Air flight 655 on July 3, 1988, causing the loss of 290 crew and passengers, most bound for Mecca and the Hajj.This was the first focus of US suspicion and, I gather, the CIA acknowledged that the terrorist group PFLP-GC, led by Ahmed Jabril, had offered its services to the Iranian government to avenge the Iranian deaths.
The first strand may (or may not) lead to the conclusion that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was not guilty of participating in the bomb plot to down Pan Am Flight 103, but it is very unlikely, if not impossible, to establish an alternative explanation without the full co-operation of the US Government and security services, notably the CIA. I suggest that, in the light of intense US public hostility to the possibility that Megrahi might not be guilty, as well as the conspiracy of silence which might be exposed by an alternative explanation, I am not convinced that the time and expense of a full public inquiry could be justified.
[Mr Frew is completely mistaken about the nature and scope of the inquiry that the Scottish Liberal Democrats have called for. It is not an inquiry into who was responsible for the destruction of Pan Am 103, but an “inquiry into the Lockerbie prosecution”. Such an inquiry, which is also the goal of Justice for Megrahi’s Scottish Parliament petition PE1370, requires the co-operation of no-one outside the United Kingdom. Nothing -- other than governmental intransigence and Crown Office fear of the outcome -- impedes the Scottish Government in setting up an inquiry into the Scottish investigation of Lockerbie and the Scottish prosecution and conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi.]
Mr. Frew is also guilty of a false dichotomy, when he gives his personal opinion as to what form a possible inquiry might take. He has omitted other important possibilities.
ReplyDeleteIn my own view, the most pressing remit for an inquiry is to establish why in early 1989 the Lockerbie investigation ignored compelling evidence of the bomb having been introduced at Heathrow, which was available to them within a few weeks of the disaster, completely failing to follow up this fortuitous lead.
From that, the question then arises as to why Crown counsel at the Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1990 gave the witness who had provided this evidence a seriously hard time, trying to shake his testimony and persuade him that he hadn't seen a browm or maroon Samsonite hardshell suitcase after all. Is this the behaviour of someone impartially dedicated to establishing the truth?
All that happened before the Scottish authorities had even heard of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, and the initial ignoring of the compelling evidence happened even before they had any of the clues they believed pointed to Malta, so it can't even be explained by misguided adherence to an already-established pet theory.
Then we need to know why the Crown prosecution at Camp Zeist failed to present crucial aspects of this evidence in court, so that the bench did not have the information that would have demonstrated, conclusively, that the brown Samsonite hardshell suitcase as described above was indeed the bomb suitcase. To mention only the most glaring example, why do you spend hours speculating as to how a particular person may conceivably have rearranged half a dozen suitcases, but fail to call that person to the witness box and simply ASK HIM, and fail to introduce any of his police statements or his evidence under oath at the FAI? (Obviously, because it was absolutely essential to the Crown case that he had indeed rearranged the suitcases in a certain way, but he himself always denied having moved them at all.)
Then of course an inquiry could look at similar Crown shenanigans in respect of PT/35b, where again they failed to lead clearly crucial evidence (including expert witness reports they themselves had commissioned) and so deprived the court of the information that would have allowed it to understand that PT/35b was not a part of one of the 20 MST-13 timers that MEBO had sold to Libya in 1985-86.
And that, frankly, is just the start of it. These are the things we need to know, urgently, now, and they are entirely within Scottish jurisdiction. Don't bury our own dirty linen under a pile of amorphous speculation about IR655 and Jibril and CIA activity.
I saw this letter earlier today in the Herald and despaired. I zoomed in on the final sentence.
ReplyDelete"I suggest that, in the light of intense US public hostility to the possibility that Megrahi might not be guilty, as well as the conspiracy of silence which might be exposed by an alternative explanation, I am not convinced that the time and expense of a full public inquiry could be justified."
So in the light of US hostility and no alternative culprit we cannot justify an inquiry. 270 dead and we can't "justify" an inquiry.
That anyone could commit such sentiments to print is astonishing. Clearly this guy didn't lose anyone who was traveling on that plane. Clearly this guy doesn't think it is important to have a sound justice system in any country, anywhere. That such indifference exists towards this incident which involved the greatest loss of life in the UK since WW2 is absolutely gob-smacking. I fear for humanity. I really do.
I posted this in the Herald. I was once allowed to post unhindered but I upset them once by suggesting they weren't being balanced on the Scottish Independence debate so they withdrew my "freedom to post". I hope that makes you smile Rolfe. So now when I post I have to wait to be "moderated". I hope they post it but this is what I said.
ReplyDelete"I read this letter from Mr Frew and despaired. The final sentence almost made me weep.
"I suggest that, in the light of intense US public hostility to the possibility that Megrahi might not be guilty, as well as the conspiracy of silence which might be exposed by an alternative explanation, I am not convinced that the time and expense of a full public inquiry could be justified."
So in the light of US hostility and no alternative culprit we cannot justify an inquiry. 270 dead and we can't "justify" an inquiry.
The truth, that Megrahi may have been wrongly convicted, may offend the US, so we should shelve it? Where, anywhere in Mr Frew's letter, is there support for the concept of justice, or doesn't that matter either? For, I would warn him, the country where justice does not matter is a country that is utterly lost.
That anyone could commit such sentiments to print is astonishing. Clearly Mr Frew didn't lose anyone who was on that plane. Clearly he doesn't think it is important to have a sound justice system in any country, anywhere. That such indifference exists towards this incident which involved the greatest loss of life in the UK since WW2 is absolutely shocking. I fear for humanity. I really do.
There are piles of evidence in the country right now which challenge that guilty verdict and they are being ignored. Why? Why would we not want the truth?
I would ask Mr Frew, if those affected by the truth behind Bloody Sunday and those affected by the truth behind Hillsborough can finally have justice when will it be the turn of the likes of Dr Jim Swire to get to the truth behind Lockerbie? Why do you say, essentially, that he, and many others, are not entitled to the truth because "it cannot be justified"?
"
Dear Jo G,
ReplyDeletewell written, straight from an honest heart.
You quote Frew:
"I suggest that, in the light of intense US public hostility to the possibility that Megrahi might not be guilty ... I am not convinced that the time and expense of a full public inquiry could be justified."
Yes, it's ugly like hell, but maybe it is just a pragmatic point of view, that will apply well to most people?
The oppression of the mightiest financial power - despite all their problems - is not to be taken lightly.
If you asked somebody "What is more important to you: keeping your job, or having the truth about Lockerbie coming out?" most people would not hesitate to give the unpretty answer.
Who are we to say they are wrong, and that the truth is more important than their here-and-now life?
Additionally, as soon as things starts costing anything, you'll see 90% of people shutting up, and subscribe to the points of view that does not conflict with what they want to believe about themselves. Age-old psychology results (most famous Festinger and Carlsmith, '59).