Stalinist thinking about the infallibility of police and prosecutors

[On this date in 2009, I posted on this blog an item headed That letter from the FBI to the Justice Secretary: is it real?  The first of its two sentences read simply “This is the heading over a devastating exposure by Jonathan Mitchell QC on his blog of the misconceptions and errors of fact and law in the letter from the Director of the FBI to Kenny MacAskill.” Mr Mitchell’s article reads as follows:]

My last post covered two issues; the hypocrisy of the attack on the decision to release Megrahi, and the law relative to compassionate release of prisoners in Scotland. But in linking these I noted in passing that much of the attack on MacAskill was simply ignorant, and wrote “FBI Director Robert Mueller, in his much-quoted open letter to MacAskill, obviously intended primarily for US domestic consumption, thought the Justice Secretary was a ‘prosecutor‘.“. That touched a nerve with one anonymous commenter, who wrote me a poison-pen message in the middle of which he stated:

The first paragraph of the FBI director’s letter he’s clearly putting it forth that he generally stays out of another jurisdiction’s case–in his experience as a prosecutor the cases of other prosecutors–though the phraseology might be a good target for a pendant punching above his weight class. Indeed, in the US and presumably Scotland, the prosecutor’s ultimate boss is the Attorney General of the US (or Justice Minister there). When the director talks about the effect of the release it is on terrorists in general and their conviction in a ‘…the conviction of trial by jury’. He obviously means it in a general sense or perhaps you’d have his sentence read something like ‘…the conviction of trial by jury–unless of course the crime is one that the statute allows the defendant to select a panel of judges or a judge instead–after the defendant is given all due process…’.

Now, I wouldn’t normally bother about poison-pen writers, but this made me go back to the letter to see if I had misread it. I didn’t. It contains glaring errors about the Lockerbie process. But what on reflection is interesting is that Robert Mueller is an extremely experienced lawyer who worked for many years on the Lockerbie prosecution, (although he was not, as the letter claims, ‘in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991‘; that was the Lord Advocate). It seems inconceivable that he would not have known the truth; and I don’t believe he actually can have been as ignorant as I suggested. I apologise for that. I have to wonder if he actually wrote this letter, with its collection of howlers. Let’s look at what it says, and at the true facts.

The first weird statement is the one about staying out of another jurisdiction’s cases, to use the commenter’s re-hash. This is what Mueller wrote:

Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision.

Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case.

Now, the ‘practice‘ he says he’s abandoning is the practice that he does not ‘comment on the actions of other prosecutors‘. But the Justice Secretary is not a prosecutor; he has nothing to do with the prosecution process. He is not the ‘prosecutor’s ultimate boss‘; that’s the Lord Advocate, whose constitutional independence of the Justice Secretary is fundamental to the system. Section 48 (5) of the Scotland Act states “Any decision of the Lord Advocate in his capacity as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland shall continue to be taken by him independently of any other person.” 1. If the Justice Secretary tried to tell prosecutors what to do, or how to do it, he would be told to sling his hook; and vice versa. Robert Mueller knows this. He is not stupid. He worked with several Lord Advocates over many years. If Robert Mueller wrote the quotation above, he was telling a deliberate untruth. That seems strange. Why should he bother, just for a minor rhetorical flourish? It seems more likely that the author was some minion who shared the lazy assumption of my commenter that the Justice Secretary just had to be a prosecutor, because that’s the American system.

Now, later in the letter the same howler is repeated in different language:

You apparently made this decision without regard to the views of your partners in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy.

The Justice Secretary is not a ‘partner in investigation and prosecution‘, any more than he is a ‘partner’ of the accused or the defence. He is independent of both, as a judge is. Here again we see language that suggests a basic ignorance of the separation of powers.

There’s another error which I didn’t mention, the reference to ‘conviction by jury‘, which Anonymous nevertheless identifies and defends:

Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed …

It seems obvious from this language that its author thought Megrahi was convicted ‘by jury‘. But Mueller knows as well as Megrahi himself that he was not. He sat through much if not all of the trial. Here, again, it seems extraordinary that for a pointless two words Mueller would write something which he knew perfectly well was wrong. Juries are fundamental to the American system (except, of course, for alleged terrorists), but surely Mueller knows they aren’t the norm in most countries affected by terrorism.

There are other errors, most notably the central fatuous and hysterical claim that the release will give comfort to terrorists: what will actually give them comfort is the Faustian pact of successive American and British governments to forgive the entire chain of command in the Libyan intelligence service and government so as to encourage business opportunities2. If you cheerfully sup with the devil, you… the reader can complete this sentence.

Yet neither Mueller nor the FBI have ever gone on record as critical of the decision of successive US administrations to grant amnesty and forgiveness to those who, they say, gave Megrahi his orders; to give them hospitality, trade with them, sell them military equipment.

So I have to ask: who actually wrote this letter? If it was Robert Mueller, he must have been on the juice, which may perhaps have been what Lord Fraser had in mind when he kindly suggested Mueller visit Scotland to ‘discuss some good whisky‘. If it was some underling, he didn’t do his homework.

Whoever it was, it was someone with the Stalinist thinking about the infallibility of police and prosecutors which coloured the UK governments strenuous efforts to keep the evidence in the recent appeal effectively secret, but in a less disguised form. Look at this:

… only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision.

That’s the thinking that led to the founding of the Cheka in 1918. As Hector MacQueen pointed out, it’s the old chestnut that we don’t need courts or judges to “reach the appropriate decision“; still less any defence. The prosecution, after all, is infallible. No wonder then, perhaps, that the writer of this letter, whoever he or she may have been, was so appalled at anyone not following its instructions. Thus the complaint “You never once sought our opinion” on the release. As the Justice Secretary rightly pointed out in Parliament, however, in Scotland “we have separation of powers“. Someone in the FBI, however, does not believe in this.

There’s a phrase for this, and the phrase is ‘police state’.

1. See this description in a recent paper by the Judiciary on reform of the Lord Advocate’s status for a fuller analysis.
2. Musa Kusa, who the British government expelled in 1980 after he announced “The revolutionary committees have decided last night to kill two more people in the United Kingdom. I approve of this“, and who the CIA found had direct responsibility for the PanAm 103 bomb (and indeed many other murders), was in 2003 entertained by both governments in the Travellers Club in Pall Mall, London. The last time I was in the Travellers Club, I noticed the fine portrait of Lord Castlereagh half-way up the staircase. He was the Foreign Secretary of whom Shelley wrote in ‘The Masque of Anarchy’ ‘I met Murder on the way/He had a mask like Castlereagh/Very smooth he looked, yet grim/Seven bloodhounds followed him/All were fat, and well they might/Be in admirable plight/For one by one and two by two/He tossed them human hearts to chew/Which from his wide cloak he drew…‘ . Was the setting deliberate? Castlereagh would have been an appropriate host.

A historian's view on Musa Kusa

[What follows is excerpted from an article by Michael Burleigh that appeared on the Mail Online website on this date in 2011:]

A dapper man, with thick grey hair, an icy manner and a fondness for Italian handmade suits, he has been dubbed the Envoy of Death and the Fingernail-Puller-in-Chief. Whatever his moniker, the truth is that, as the main apologist for the Gaddafi regime, he has been up to his eyeballs in murder and torture for years.

Musa Kusa has a sociology degree from Michigan State University where – surprise, surprise – his thesis was a potted biography of Gaddafi. Being well-born to a prominent Tripoli family, he managed to secure an interview with Gaddafi himself for the thesis and before long he was invited to join the dictator’s ruling clique.

Ever since, he has enjoyed the closest relationship with the dictator.

From 1979-80 he was in charge of security at all Libyan embassies in northern Europe, during which time half a dozen exiled Libyan dissidents were cold-bloodedly assassinated in Europe by agents acting on his orders. (...)

In 1980, Musa Kusa became Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain. Within months, though, he was expelled after telling journalists outside his embassy: ‘The revolutionary committees have decided last night to kill two more people (Libyan dissidents) in the United Kingdom. I approve of this’.

Unless the British authorities co-operated, he warned that Libya would encourage terrorism throughout the British mainland by funding the IRA and providing them with weapons. It was a cynical form of blackmail of the type that Gaddafi tried on the German government by threatening to support Leftist terrorists. (...)

Following his brief spell in London, he became the Tripoli-based head of the Mathaba, the fearsome Libyan Bureau for External Security. This role helped him increase his covert support for the IRA. (...)

Intelligence agencies are also convinced he was the man who co-ordinated all operational aspects of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing which blew Pan Am Flight 103 out of the air, killing 270 passengers.

In that capacity he would have been the vital link between Gaddafi and the Lockerbie bomber Abdulbaset Al Megrahi.

This may explain why in October last year, it was Musa Kusa who travelled from Libya to see British and Scottish officials dealing with Megrahi’s application for compassionate release.

On the first occasion Musa Kusa was listed as ‘an interpreter’ rather than Minister of Security.

He would have had a very personal interest in securing the man’s release, as part of an agreement that in return for his freedom Megrahi would never reveal who had ordered and organised the bombing. It was, of course, Musa Kusa.

Flight 103 was not the only aircraft he tore from the skies. Western intelligence agents are convinced he systematically planned the deaths of 170 passengers blown up over Niger after Libyan agents planted a bomb on a flight from Chad to Paris. (...)

By 2003, he was at the heart of the MI6-led negotiations which brought the Mad Dog Gaddafi back into the civilised world, after Gaddafi offered to give up Weapons of Mass Destruction and renounce support for terrorism. (...)

The crimes I have described are probably only a handful of those for which Musa Kusa has been directly or indirectly responsible. He will have information on all manner of atrocities as well as on the Libyan arming of several terrorist organisations in Britain, Germany, Japan and the Middle East.

This is the man that Britain is now harbouring.

The Blair New Labour government, and elements in MI6, big business and academia, indulged in sordid dealings with the Gaddafi regime, which shamed this country.

Musa Kusa must be tried in a court of law and be held accountable for his countless crimes. Anything less will be greeted with outrage by the British and America public.

[RB: It appears that a significant figure in the Gaddafi regime, Mohammed Begasem Zwai (or Zway), who was formerly Minister of Justice and later ambassador in London, has just been appointed to an important position in the new regime. His part in the resolution of the Lockerbie impasse can be followed here.]

Libyan linked to Lockerbie welcome in UK

[This is the headline over a report published in The Guardian on this date in 2001. It reads as follows:]

A senior Libyan official accused of involvement in the Lockerbie bombing and branded 'the master of terror' has been welcomed by the Foreign Office as part of a charm offensive in the wake of the 11 September attacks.

Musa Kusa, head of Libya's external security organisation - which masterminded the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the worst mass murder in Britain - arrived in London last month for talks with MI6, the secret intelligence service, and members of the CIA.

The invitation is a measure of how seriously the Foreign Office regards the Islamic threat. The move will infuriate British relatives of the 270 Lockerbie victims, many of whom believe that justice was not done when a Dutch court convicted a low-ranking member of the Libyan intelligence service for the bombing.

Kusa is known in Libyan dissident circles as the master of terror. He was behind the liquidation of Libyan dissidents in Britain and was expelled from London in 1980 for orchestrating the killing of a BBC World Service journalist, Mohamed Mustafa Ramadan, outside Regent's Park mosque.

He is also wanted in France in connection with the downing of a French DC-10 of the UTA airline in 1989 with 170 passengers aboard, an attack similar to the 1988 bombing of Flight 103.

The rehabilitation of Kusa - who was visiting Britain for the first time in 20 years without an alias - is seen as a reward for Tripoli's backing for the US coalition against terrorism. On his visit, which ended last week, Kusa is understood to have met William Burns, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, in what is thought to be the highest-level official contact between the United States and Libya since the US aerial bombardment of Tripoli in 1986.

'We welcome all attempts at close coordination and assistance whatever the source,' said a US official. 'I'm not aware we've ruled out anyone speaking on behalf of the Libyan government.'

The Foreign Office confirmed a Libyan delegation had been in Britain but refused to disclose its members. But Mohamed Azwai, the Libyan ambassador in London confirmed that Kusa had met British and American officials and provided a list of more than a dozen Libyans in the UK suspected of links to Osama bin Laden.

The list included members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (IFG), which Libya claims is active in Britain. Azwai appeared to accede to Washington's demands to admit responsibility for acts of its officials convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

'Mr Kusa came to Britain and met with his MI6 and the CIA counterparts,' Azwai said. 'Libya will not have difficulty accepting responsibility [for the Lockerbie bombing]. Under international law, the state must accept responsibility for the wrongdoing of its officials.'

[RB: Lots more about Musa Kusa can be read here.]

“It is not difficult to achieve a conviction of the innocent"

[What follows is the text of an article by Steve James that was published on the World Socialist Web Site on this date in 2009:]

Leading British human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce has stated that, in her opinion Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the only man accused and convicted of the 1988 bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, was framed.

Pierce has a long track record of defending those caught in the British legal system’s most notorious miscarriages of justice. Her clients have included the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and Judith Ward, all of whom were Irish people accused and wrongly convicted of IRA bomb attacks in the 1970s. More recently Peirce has taken up a number of high profile cases of individuals accused in the so-called “war on terror”, including the Tipton Three and Moazam Begg, held illegally by the US government in Guantánamo Bay. She has represented the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent man shot dead by British police in Stockwell underground station in 2005.

Writing in the September edition of the London Review of Books, Peirce, of the law firm headed by Benedict Birnberg, summarises some of the most concerning, and well known, aspects of the entire Lockerbie disaster in which 270 people died, and the subsequent investigation.

She points to the advance warnings of an attack on Pan Am flights from London, the role of the FBI and others who flooded the crash site, the lack of security on the site and tampered evidence, including moved bodies. She notes the initial trajectory of the investigation, which pointed to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) acting on behalf of Iran having used a barometric bomb to bring down the 747. She also notes that a barometric bomb, one triggered by changes in air pressure, would have exploded only after PA 103 reached a certain height—some 38 minutes into the flight from Heathrow—precisely when the plane disintegrated.

She reviews the subsequent change in focus from Syria and Iran to Libya, which was in line with US foreign policy objectives at the time. Firstly, then US President George Bush, senior, instructed then UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to keep the Lockerbie investigation “low key” to assist hostage negotiations underway in Beirut. As a result, rather than a judicial inquiry and prosecution, a Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) with no powers of subpoena was held.

Then, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991, Iran and Syria both assisted the US invasion of Iraq. It was at this time that the focus of the Lockerbie investigation was shifted. Vincent Cannistraro, the architect of the Reagan administration’s CIA campaign of destabilisation against the Libyan government of Colonel Muammar Gadhaffi, was brought out of retirement to head the new line of investigation.

Peirce writes, “It is not difficult to achieve a conviction of the innocent. Over many decades several common factors have been identified, and the majority of them are present, centre stage, in this case: achieving the cooperation of witnesses by means of a combination of inducements and fear of the alternative (the tried and tested method of obtaining evidence for the prosecution on which many US cases rely); the provision of factual information by scientists where there is no proper basis for it (a recurrent theme in UK convictions as well as in the US); reliance on ‘identification’ evidence which is no such thing. Add to that the political will to achieve a prosecution, and the rest is easy”.

Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi and his co-accused, Llamen Khalifa Fhimah, were handed over by the Libyan government in 1999. The trial opened at a converted US airbase in the Netherlands in 2000. The indictment against Megrahi read that an MST 13 bomb timer was made in Switzerland, by MEBO AG, and sold exclusively to Libya. Identification of the timer rested on the efforts of Thomas Hayes and Alan Feraday of the Royal Armament and Development Establishment (RARDE), along with Thomas Thurman of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

In 1997, following an investigation by the US inspector general, Michael Bromwich, Thurman was barred from being called as an expert witness. Bromwich described Thurman as “circumventing procedures and protocols, testifying to areas of expertise that he had no qualifications in...therefore fabricating evidence”.

Thomas Hayes claimed that on May 12, 1989, he found a fragment of circuit board in the collar of a shirt later traced to a Maltese shop. The fragment itself had been found in January 1989 by British police investigating the crash site.

Peirce states, “Even if one knew nothing of the devastating findings of the public inquiry in the early 1990s into the false science that convicted the Maguire Seven or of the succession of thunderous judgments in the Court of Appeal in case after case in which RARDE scientists had provided the basis for wrongful convictions, Hayes’s key evidence in this case on the key fragment should be viewed as disgraceful”.

“Hayes”, Peirce continues, “played his part in the most notorious of all, endorsing the finding of an explosive trace that was never there, and speculating that a piece of chalk mentioned to the police by Vincent Maguire, aged 16, and a candle by Patrick Maguire, aged 13, ‘fitted the description better’ of a stick of gelignite wrapped in white paper”.

Hayes’s information regarding this crucial piece of Lockerbie evidence was also flawed. Despite having carefully documented every other piece of evidence he found, Hayes had made no drawing of this particular item and had not assigned it a reference number on discovery. He had not carried out a test for explosives. Hayes said he had “no idea” when the pagination of his notes recording findings had been altered to include an additional page, and it was an “unfathomable mystery” as to why the alterations should have occurred.

Following an investigation into RARDE by Sir John May, Hayes resigned and is now reported to be working as a chiropodist.

Pierce then turns to the visual identification of Megrahi.

“Even if the science that convicted al-Megrahi had not offended against every minimum standard, then the second pillar of the prosecution case, his identification by Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper, would remain spectacular in its noncompliance with any safeguard”.

Pierce notes the numerous failings in the evidence provided by Gauci, his initial identification of Abu Talb, of the PFLP-GC, and reiterates the suggestion that Gauci was “handsomely rewarded” for his services.

She describes the verdict delivered in 2001 by three experienced judges, upheld later by five appeal court judges as “profoundly shocking”, and makes the following devastating assessment:

“Al-Megrahi’s trial constituted a unique legal construct, engineered to achieve a political rapprochement, but its content was so manipulated that in reality there was only ever an illusion of a trial”.

Peirce concludes that there is “pressing need to investigate in details how it has come about that there has been a form of death in this case—the death of justice—and who should be found responsible”.

Subsequent to Peirce’s comments, more revelations have emerged about the crucial piece of MST 13 circuit board. Following a Freedom of Information request raised by Scottish Nationalist Member of the Scottish Parliament Christine Grahame, the Scottish Crown Office has confirmed that evidence item PT-35, the piece of circuit board found by Hayes, was taken for examination to both Germany and the US. Graham claimed that this was done with the knowledge of the then chief prosecutor, Lord Fraser of Carmylie, who recently told a Dutch television company that he was unaware of the fragment’s movements.

Megrahi was released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny Macaskill in August, allegedly on humanitarian grounds. It occurred at a time when the Libyan government had made clear that, if the terminally ill Megrahi had been allowed to die in Greenock prison, British oil contracts would have been imperilled. In addition, Megrahi had agreed to drop a long delayed appeal against his conviction in order to secure his release.

The release triggered outrage from the US in particular and was attacked by President Barack Obama, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, the head of the FBI, and the US Joint Chief of Staff amongst many. Commentary went as far as suggesting that the so-called “special relationship” between British and US imperialism, and Scotland in particular, was imperiled.

All this has been forgotten. On September 21, US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly informed the world that the US had “deep abiding ties with Scotland”. Kelly continued, “We are very close allies, and I don’t think we’re looking to punish anybody per se. There’s no tit for tat here”.

Three weeks later, speaking before a meeting with UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Clinton stated, “I have a special relationship with the prime minister. And of course, I think it can’t be said often enough, we have a special relationship between our countries”.

What was said between the two regarding Lockerbie is not clear, but the meeting came immediately prior to the British government’s decision to send an additional 500 troops to Afghanistan. Brown has subsequently ruled out a public inquiry into the bombing, while the Scottish government have denied they had the power to hold an authoritative inquiry in the first place.

Clinton also called in the Libyan government, speaking for 15 minutes en route to Egypt with Libyan Foreign Minister and former intelligence chief Musa Kusa. According to US Assistant Secretary Philip Crowley, the two talked of “Sudan, Darfur, cooperation about terrorism and the possibility of advancing our relationship”.

Crowley claimed that Megrahi was not discussed, lamely stating that “the Libyans understand our concerns about Megrahi very, very well”.

US Secretary of State Clinton and Musa Kusa

What follows is an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2009:

Hillary meets Musa

Mrs Clinton also met Tuesday with Libyan Foreign Minister Musa Kusa, formerly Tripoli's intelligence chief. Many US officials believe he had knowledge of the 1988 plot to blow up a US-bound airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people. Mrs. Clinton didn't raise the Lockerbie case with Mr Kusa, a US official said, but focused on US cooperation with Libya on counterterror measures and efforts to stabilize Sudan.

[From an article on the Secretary of State's Middle East tour in today's edition ofThe Wall Street Journal. The following excerpt from a press briefing given by State Department spokesman P J Crowley is taken from the Still4Hill website.]

MR CROWLEY: And then she met with Foreign Minister Musa Kusa — M-u-s-a, K-u-s-a – who’s a – he’s a graduate of Michigan State University. At one point, he said, Spartans and gave a thumbs up.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Wasn’t Musa Kusa indicted for terrorism at one point? Can you check, because was the intelligence chief before he became the foreign minister?

QUESTION: I thought he was indicted for killing Americans.

QUESTION: Were you going to tell us about this? Can I have the next question?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Why was this not on the schedule and why was there no photo opportunity of this?

MR CROWLEY: The short answer is it happened almost – let me back up. I mean, we had a limited time and we had a number of potential candidates for bilats. And in some cases, there were a couple countries that we were looking at bilats. And for example, and – but the Secretary was able to have pull-asides during the GCC meeting, for example. I mean, Libya is a country that we are – we have an emerging relationship with. And we think it’s best to continue talking to them and seeing where we can continue to advance the relationship.

And that – but I mean, it was something that – this was just a – kind of like a target of opportunity where the ministers found themselves with a similar hole and they got pulled into a room and sat for about 15 minutes.

QUESTION: Did they discuss the Lockerbie bomber’s recent release back home?

MR CROWLEY: I was in the meeting; that did not come up. They –

QUESTION: She didn’t bring it up? I mean, you guys – excuse me, sorry. I mean, you and Ian were having to brief for about 10 days straight to us. Every single day we were asking you – hammering you guys with questions about the seeming welcome parade that he got and how upset people were about that, and you guys kept saying how upset the U.S. was about that. She didn’t bring that up when she had an opportunity?

MR CROWLEY: We didn’t bring up the tent either. (Laughter.) Sorry.

QUESTION: The tent’s a little bit less of foreign policy issue.

MR CROWLEY: No, the – I mean, Libya has a perspective on the region. They have been very helpful and integrally involved in developments in Sudan, so we did talk about Sudan, talked about Darfur. There has been cooperation from the countries on counterterrorism. And they continue to talk about advancing our relationship. But it was about a 10- or 15-minute meeting.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Sorry, you just said it was only 10 or 15 minutes. Was that the first time (inaudible)?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR CROWLEY: I’ll check.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR CROWLEY: Yes, that’s the first time that they’ve met.

"A witness, not a suspect"

[On this date in 2011 the media in the UK were still salivating over the arrival of Moussa Koussa. What follows is taken from a report in the Daily Mirror:]

Outraged relatives of Lockerbie victims yesterday called for Libyan “monster” Musa Kusa to be put on trial for mass murder.

They fear the former head of Colonel Gaddafi’s brutal secret service is trying to cheat justice and save his own skin in exchange for helping to topple the tyrant’s crumbling regime.

Kusa was being given the kid-gloves treatment last night as he was questioned by MI5 at a safe house in London after defecting to Britain.

And MI6, which operates abroad, is talking to at least six others about making the same move after David Cameron urged them to bail out while they still can.

But there is growing fury at the prospect of Kusa being let off the hook.

He is believed to have masterminded the 1988 strike on Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 259 passengers and another 11 people on the ground.

The ex-intelligence chief is also suspected of involvement in arming the IRA and holds vital information on the 1984 shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher outside Libya’s London Embassy.

Frank Duggan, who represents relatives of Lockerbie victims said: “This man is a monster, a murderer. He was no longer inside Gaddafi’s inner circle and had nowhere else to go so he jumped ship.”

He said Britain already had a “dirty bib” for allowing Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to return home to a life of luxury in Libya.

And he warned that the same must not happen to Kusa, adding: “This guy has a lot of blood on his hands. Once they have pumped him for information they should put him on trial either in Scotland or the US.” [RB: Rather naughty of the Daily Mirror not to specify that the only relatives that Frank Duggan -- not himself a relative -- represented were US, not UK, relatives. A report in The Herald, as might be expected from a serious newspaper, does make this clear.]

Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, said last night he had asked his lawyers to try to fix a meeting for him with Kusa. He added: “Kusa knows everything about it.

“He was clearly running things. If Libya was involved in Lockerbie, he can tell us how they carried out the atrocity and why.” ­Scottish prosecutors and police yesterday confirmed they want to quiz Kusa over the bombing.

David Cameron insisted officers would get the chance – and claimed no deal had been done over the defector’s future.

He said: “The decision by the former Libyan Foreign Minister to come to London and resign his position is a decision by someone right at the very top. It tells a compelling story of the desperation and fear right at the top of the crumbling and rotten Gaddafi regime.” But he added: “Let me be clear, Musa Kusa is not being granted immunity, there’s no deal. Police should follow their evidence wherever it leads.”

Whitehall sources say it will be some time before police get to see Kusa and suggest that even then he could be treated as a witness, not a suspect.

[RB: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi would have been 63 today.]