[This is the headline over a report, with accompanying video, just published on the website of the Maltese newspaper The Times. It reads as follows:]
The father of one of the Lockerbie bombing victims is calling on the Maltese Government to request the Scottish Government to revoke the sentence which found Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi guilty, thus clearing Malta’s name from this terrorist attack.
The call was made by Dr Jim Swire who on December 21, 1988 lost his 24-year-old daughter who was aboard Pan Am Flight 103. The plane crashed when a bomb exploded when it was flying over the Scottish village of Lockerbie. Throughout the case the prosecution had argued that the accused had planted the bomb on a plane which had left Malta.
Dr Swire is in Malta in connection with the play The Lockerbie Bomber which is being staged at St James Cavalier. During his stay Dr Swire who is accompanied by Robert Forester from the Justice for Megrahi Group, met Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and Foreign Minister George Vella.
Addressing a news conference this morning, Dr Swire described the meeting as a very cordial one, while expressing his gratitude for the fact that Maltese government was very willing to listen to them. Asked by this portal whether the Prime Minister was forthcoming to his request, Dr Swire said “the ball is in their court” with reference to the fact that the Maltese Government can request the Scottish authorities to review the sentence. He said that he was very surprised by the fact that 25 years on, the Maltese are still very interested in this terrorist attack.
He added that Al Megrahi, whom he referred to as “a friend” was just a scapegoat, and that the attack was probably carried out by the Iranians in retribution to the fact that five months earlier an Iran Air plane had been shot down by mistake by the Americans over the Persian Gulf.
[It is, of course, the conviction -- not merely the sentence -- that Dr Swire and others wish to see reviewed.
A slightly longer report appears on the Malta Today website. It contains the following sentence: "'Malta has the option to call for an appeal in the Scottish Criminal [Cases] Review Commission, so as to clear its name," Swire said.']
The father of one of the Lockerbie bombing victims is calling on the Maltese Government to request the Scottish Government to revoke the sentence which found Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi guilty, thus clearing Malta’s name from this terrorist attack.
The call was made by Dr Jim Swire who on December 21, 1988 lost his 24-year-old daughter who was aboard Pan Am Flight 103. The plane crashed when a bomb exploded when it was flying over the Scottish village of Lockerbie. Throughout the case the prosecution had argued that the accused had planted the bomb on a plane which had left Malta.
Dr Swire is in Malta in connection with the play The Lockerbie Bomber which is being staged at St James Cavalier. During his stay Dr Swire who is accompanied by Robert Forester from the Justice for Megrahi Group, met Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and Foreign Minister George Vella.
Addressing a news conference this morning, Dr Swire described the meeting as a very cordial one, while expressing his gratitude for the fact that Maltese government was very willing to listen to them. Asked by this portal whether the Prime Minister was forthcoming to his request, Dr Swire said “the ball is in their court” with reference to the fact that the Maltese Government can request the Scottish authorities to review the sentence. He said that he was very surprised by the fact that 25 years on, the Maltese are still very interested in this terrorist attack.
He added that Al Megrahi, whom he referred to as “a friend” was just a scapegoat, and that the attack was probably carried out by the Iranians in retribution to the fact that five months earlier an Iran Air plane had been shot down by mistake by the Americans over the Persian Gulf.
[It is, of course, the conviction -- not merely the sentence -- that Dr Swire and others wish to see reviewed.
A slightly longer report appears on the Malta Today website. It contains the following sentence: "'Malta has the option to call for an appeal in the Scottish Criminal [Cases] Review Commission, so as to clear its name," Swire said.']
Jim Swire says that the attack was probably carried out by the Iranians in retribution to the fact that five months earlier an Iran Air plane had been shot down by mistake by the Americans over the Persian Gulf.
ReplyDeleteI assume that this comment is made to satisfy those who ask, ‘if not the Libyans, then who’?
But this is a mistake because there is no evidence of Iranian involvement beyond ‘they had a motive’ and because in the neo-con narrative ‘all Muslims look the same’ and ‘we have’ killed millions of them all over the years.
In this context the public thinks why be pedantic, why the fuss if we got the wrong Muslim, they’re all guilty?
Instead just say Megrahi is innocent and we need an enquiry to establish the true cause of the crash and restore the Scottish justice system.
I agree that saying "probably" about Iranian involvement is too strong, but JS might have said something slightly different - like "possibly" or "most likely" - and if not, the mistake is minimal and forgivable in common speech.
ReplyDelete"I assume that this comment is made to satisfy those who ask, ‘if not the Libyans, then who’?"
Possibly one of your best assumptions ever.
Many people will not know about the other suspects, and so might think that Libya was more or less the only choice.
Well done by JS to do what he can to clear such a misunderstanding.
And your "...no evidence of Iranian involvement..." is not true, there is weak evidence.
Meetings were reportedly held and money transferred.
A strong statement "blood will rain from the sky" from a man with power is also evidence, just like a reported statement "I'll kill that man!" will be brought up in a murder trial.
In any case, Iran remains a primary suspect, as it always befalls those with a strong motive.
"...we need an enquiry to establish the true cause of the crash..."
I.e, who placed the bomb in the suitcase, right, that is what we would like to try to.
Would be about time, wouldn't it?
If Khreesat was involved and he was an Iranian operative would that be evidence of Iranian involvement?
ReplyDeleteIf however Khreesat was involved and he was an US operative would that be evidence of US involvement?
But if Khreesat was arrested and released by the German police would this be evidence of German involvement?
But then again why would Khreesat put his bomb in a suitcase with items bought in Malta when the bomb was being loaded in London?
And why if the plan was to by-pass customs at Heathrow without being noticed why put only a small rather than large bomb in the suitcase?
I think, as they say, the answers to these questions may safely be left as an exercise for the reader.
ReplyDeleteBearing in mind that Khreesat designed and made the IEDs. I don't think anyone ever suggested he put them on the plane personally. (Neat trick if he had, since I believe he was verifiably in Jordan at the time.)
We are told the ‘IED’ was hidden in a radio and the suitcase contained clothing from Mary’s House, Malta.
ReplyDeleteThis only makes sense if the plot involved sending the ‘IED suitcase’ through customs at Luqa, but only just because of the likelihood that an unaccompanied suitcase would be searched.
However without this scenario there would be no ‘surviving’ fragment and clothing to convict Megrahi and Rolfe does not dispute the content of the ‘IED suitcase’.
If however the plot involved by-passing customs at Heathrow, there is no need to hide the ‘IED’ within a radio and no need to pack the case with clothing from Mary’s House, Malta.
Instead a much larger and effective bomb that filled the case could be used.
In addition, by-passing customs at Heathrow involved an obvious break-in that was immediately detected and placing the case in a luggage container that was immediately detected.
This only makes sense if the ‘plotters’ thought security would not investigate obvious security violations on an American plane during a period of heightened security during the Christmas period!
In other words the small ‘IED’ and contents of the ‘bomb case’ only just makes sense if it is being boarded at Luqa rather than Heathrow and makes no sense at all if it is being boarded at Heathrow in such a bound to be detected way.
Fail.
ReplyDeleteRolfe extrapolates some blast damaged clothing and fragment into a fancy theory, ignoring the fact that the blast damaged clothing and fragment would not have survived the explosion, if as alleged the ‘IED’ was powerful enough to destroy the plane in 3 seconds.
ReplyDeleteBut Rolfe says the AAIB report does not identify the type of ‘IED’ used, because the inspectors “were not explosive experts”.
If so how can the AAIB report conclude that an ‘IED’ was used?
Rolfe says this conclusion was left to “forensic experts”!
Were these the same experts who failed to test the fragment for explosive residue and if so are they really experts?
"Rolfe extrapolates some blast damaged clothing and fragment into a fancy theory"
ReplyDeleteWhich one, exactly?
"ignoring the fact that the blast damaged clothing and fragment would not have survived the explosion"
- If what you state is a fact I will deny facts.
(Said in the Danish Parliament around 1850, still popular whenever 'facts' are stated)
", if as alleged the ‘IED’ was powerful enough to destroy the plane in 3 seconds."
I wonder if God himself would dare compete with your insight.
You have understood that it is more correct to say that the bomb initiated the destruction of the plane, the wind helped with the rest?
'But Rolfe says the AAIB report does not identify the type of ‘IED’ used, because the inspectors “were not explosive experts”.
If so how can the AAIB report conclude that an ‘IED’ was used?"
The journalists here at times write about people being killed by gunfire and show pictures of a cars and victims riddled with bullet holes.
But how can they conclude that, unless the journalists are weapon expert?
"Rolfe says this conclusion was left to “forensic experts”!"
What conclusion? That a bomb had gone of in the plane? That seems to be everybody's conclusion, with the usual few exceptions of people with a God-like insight.
"Were these the same experts who failed to test the fragment for explosive residue and if so are they really experts?"
Are you sure that they forgot to test the fragment?
If an expert has a non-scientific agenda, is he still an expert?