US-Libya rapprochement following Lockerbie trial

[The following are excerpts from an article by Robert S Greenberger published in The Wall Street Journal on this date in 2002:]

Libya's Col Moammar Gadhafi, is attempting a rehabilitation.

Top US and Libyan officials have held several unpublicized meetings in England and Switzerland in recent years to discuss improving ties. Public-relations campaigns and lobbying efforts on Libya's behalf are under way, funded in part by oil money and driven by a desire to cash in on future deals or resume business interrupted by sanctions. The Libyan leader himself has been taking steps and sending signals that suggest he may want to get out of the terrorism business, US officials say.

The Gadhafi makeover could be reaching a critical moment. Last week, a top US official and a Libyan intelligence operative met near London in another attempt to talk about the steps Libya must take before ties can be resumed. Later this month, a Scottish court is scheduled to hear the appeal of a Libyan intelligence agent found guilty in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103, over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people, including 189 Americans. Libya has signaled to US officials directly and through intermediaries that when the legal process ends, the Gadhafi government may compensate the victims' families and take responsibility for the bombing, US officials say. Many US officials believe Col. Gadhafi himself was involved in the Pan Am bombing, the bloodiest terrorist attack on Americans before Sept 11.

In October, William Burns, the assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, who was at last week's meeting outside London, addressed a congressional committee about the purpose of US diplomacy toward Libya. He said it was meant "to make clear that there are no shortcuts around Libya ... accepting responsibility for what happened and also for paying appropriate compensation" for the Pan Am bombing.

There's a lot to be gained on both sides from rapprochement. Resolving the bombing could persuade Washington to lift the sanctions imposed in 1986. That would open the way for American companies to do business with the oil-rich country and for Libya to do some much-needed repair work on its economy. (...)

Still, the diplomatic dance between the US and Libya has produced a stark change in Libya's previously sharp anti-American rhetoric. It began in secret more than two years before Sept 11, in a series of meetings on the outskirts of London and in Geneva, Switzerland. Those meetings brought together senior officials of the Clinton administration, British officials and a top Libyan intelligence operative, Musa Kusa, according to US officials.

The idea to meet emerged in February 1998, when the US was embroiled in one of its periodic crises with Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair telephoned President Clinton to discuss growing complaints by moderate Arab allies that the West was dealing unfairly with Arab states. Mr Blair suggested it might be helpful to resolve the Libya issue in some way, a Clinton administration official recalls. (...)

President Clinton didn't move until after Col. Gadhafi agreed in April 1999 to hand over two Libyan suspects in the Pan Am 103 bombing. The White House then sent Martin Indyk, the assistant secretary of state for the Middle East at the time, and Bruce Riedel, the top White House Middle East staffer, to meet with Mr Kusa, who often handles delicate missions for Col Gadhafi. Mr Kusa has been associated for more than 20 years with Libyan intelligence, which has been connected to assassinations of Libyan dissidents abroad and the Pan Am bombing. (...)

In the highest-level contacts since President Reagan imposed sanctions in 1986, the US held four meetings in which Clinton administration officials laid out the steps Col Gadhafi must take to warm up relations with Washington. US officials hammered away at one theme: Libya must compensate the families of Pan Am 103 victims and take responsibility for the terrorist bombing to make normal ties possible. A United Nations resolution also calls for Libya to compensate the victims' families and take responsibility for the bombing.

Then, the day after the Sept 11 terrorist attacks, Col Gadhafi condemned the actions publicly as "horrifying, destructive." In October, in a previously planned secret meeting, Mr Kusa met in England with Mr Burns. Mr Kusa talked about what he called their common enemy, terrorism, according to a diplomat familiar with the session. Mr Kusa offered information on the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which is believed to be linked to al Qaeda and which also targets Col Gadhafi.

On Dec 5, the US included the group on an expanded list of terrorist organizations whose members will be automatically barred from the US or expelled if found here. At last week's meeting outside London, Mr Burns reiterated the American stance on Pan Am 103, according to a State Department official. (...)

Turning over the terrorism suspects also bolstered a public-relations and lobbying campaign conducted by Libya and its supporters, with quiet help from American companies. Four days after Col Gadhafi agreed to the handover, the US-Libya Dialogue Group held its first meeting, in Maastricht, the Netherlands. Mustafa Fitouri, a Libyan who is an information-technology professor at the Maastricht School of Management, helped arrange the session. He says the nonprofit group was set up "to show people in both countries, away from government, that people can communicate, work with each other." (...)

Mr Fitouri says some funds for the meeting were provided by US and Libyan companies, which he won't name. He adds that he doesn't know where all the money comes from because it's handled by a person, whom he also won't name, at a Libyan university. Until the Pan Am 103 case is resolved and sanctions are lifted, US companies don't want to be identified as being close to Tripoli.

Torture, rendition and UK Government hypocrisy

[What follows is excerpted from an article by Derek Bateman headed Why Britain shares America's torture shame published yesterday on the Newsnet Scotland website:]

The trouble is that witness after witness has averred that British officials were associated with their kidnap, rendition and torture, sometimes intimately so. At first officially, there was ‘no British involvement’. Then there was a stopover at Diego Garcia. Then we heard of refuelling at Prestwick.

Liberty says: ‘We now know that during the War on Terror many people were unlawfully transferred from one territory to another in circumstances where they were subjected to torture, horrendous conditions of imprisonment and ill-treatment…in 2008 officials stated they were unsure how many other times such flights had passed through British airspace. This is despite previously consistent denials by the government of any such use of UK airspace.’ (...)

If you imagine the detainees all to be committed jihadist killers, it seems that as many as 26 were ‘wrongly held’, notoriously among them the al-Saadi family. They were rendered en masse (or en famille) to Libya in 2004 - Sami, an anti-Gaddafi dissident, his wife Karima and their four children, the eldest 12 and the youngest just six.

A pregnant woman was also rendered. She was Fatima Bouchard and she provides another link with the Labour government because after her forced return to Libya along with her husband where they were jailed, Britain was proud of its efforts in helping. So much so, that MI6 agent Mark Allen sent a letter to the Libyan regime to congratulate them on the arrival of their ‘air cargo’ (the Libyan couple).

The letter was addressed to the head of security in Libya Musa Kusa. He arrived in London after defecting and was set free, presumably because he had been an asset to Britain who couldn’t be allowed to talk about the nature of UK contacts with Gaddafi.

He was also the key figure who would have known the truth about any Libyan involvement in the Lockerbie Bombing. But while Megrahi was pursued and jailed, the security chief was released.

This convoluted snakes and ladders is the stuff of what passes for modern diplomacy and it shows that ‘national interest’ is a shifting and sinewy creature wriggling wherever the dark is to be found.

We only discovered after the release, courtesy of Sir Gus O’Donnell, Cabinet Secretary, that it had been British policy to aid the release of Megrahi all along. This had been made known to the Cabinet which at the time included Jim Murphy as Scottish Secretary. But no one made this information public. Meanwhile Iain Gray was roundly lambasting the SNP government for letting Megrahi go apparently unaware that his Labour colleague Murphy already knew it was government policy. (When I tried to get Murphy to admit this, he failed three times to respond.)

So there is a history of the Cabinet having knowledge of security issues and keeping quiet, which is what I believe happened over torture rendition -  the British State knowingly staged kidnappings and illegal transport of victims for a torture regime and, in the spirit of outsourcing, gave questions to the torturers to ask…that’s our government…our LABOUR government. That is as shameful as water-boarding and cattle prods and puts us side by side with the torturers themselves. Labour – ‘Britain’s democratic socialist party…’

There's none so blind as those who will not see

[Two years ago today, I posted on this blog an item headed Lockerbie bombing inquiry police officer numbers raised based on a BBC News report. It contained the following:]

Additional police officers have been drafted into the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary team investigating the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.

The inquiry has been scaled up following regime change in Libya.

Chief Constable Patrick Shearer said that the extra resources required for the probe had been supplied by the Scottish government. (...)

The overthrow and death of Col Muammar Gaddafi last year opened up a possible opportunity for investigators to explore the role of others in the bombing.

The Crown Office has already asked the new authorities in Libya for help with the inquiry.

As a result, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, which has led the Lockerbie investigation from the start, has increased staffing levels within its inquiry team.

Detectives from the local force have already questioned Libya's former Foreign Minister Musa Kusa who fled to London when Col Gaddafi's regime started to fall.A spokesman for Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary said that for operational reasons it could not reveal the number of officers it had added to its inquiry team.

I commented: “Unless the police inquiry is prepared to investigate conscientiously the material that has come to light casting grave doubt on the Zeist trial's verdict against Abdelbaset Megrahi (including material uncovered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) the new staffing and resources will be a complete waste of time and money and will achieve no more than the "one man with a feather duster" that has been the pretext over the years for the police and Crown Office claim that the Lockerbie investigation was still live.

”The treatment of this issue by Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be found here.  The coverage of the story in the edition of The Herald for Wednesday 25 January [2012] contains the following: 'The Crown Office said: "The transitional Government of Libya has agreed to allow officers from Dumfries and Galloway police to travel to Libya for inquiries into the involvement of others with Mr Megrahi."'  So here we have confirmation from the horse's mouth of the scope of this ‘investigation’."

Nothing in the police and Crown Office stance has changed in the succeeding two years, notwithstanding the emergence of yet more evidence fatally undermining the Megrahi conviction.

Court finds Obeidi and Zway not guilty; Attorney General to appeal

[This is the headline over a report published late yesterday on the website of the Libya Herald.  It reads as follows:]

Qaddafi regime Foreign Minister Abdulati Al-Obeidi and Mohamed Al-Zway, the former secretary of the General People’s Congress, were found not guilty by a Tripoli court today. However, the Attorney General says he is appealing against the decisions and has ordered the two men to be returned to prison pending the appeal.

The verdict is seen as important because it shows the impartiality and independence of the Libya courts at a time when many voices outside the country claim that a fair trial is impossible in Libya, in particular in the case of Saif Al-Islam and Abdullah Senussi. The impossibility of a fair trial is one of the main planks of the International Criminal Court’s demand that Libya hand over both men to it.

Obeidi and Zway were first arrested in July 2011. Obeidi had served as Prime Minister from 1977 to 1979, then as nominal head of state from 1979 to 1981 and finally as Qaddafi’s last Foreign Minister after Musa Kusa fled in March 2011.

Zway, a close friend of Qaddafi from schooldays in Sebha, was Libya’s ambassador to the UK. In 2010 was chosen by the dictator to be Secretary-General of his General People’s Congress.

Their trial opened on 10 September last year.  They were accused of poor performance of their duties while in office and of maladministration, specifically wasting of public funds in respect of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. The prosecution claimed that it was wrong to organise a compensation deal of $2.7 billion to the victims’ families in return for having Libya removed from the list of the states sponsoring terrorism.

It also alleged that Obeidi and Zway had paid out double the amount originally planned – a charge at variance with claims by others linked to the compensation plan that the $2.7 billiion was itself never fully paid.

At the opening of the case, the judge said that the deal “was a waste of public money especially when there was no guarantee the charges in the Lockerbie case would be dropped if the compensation was made”.

Just before their trial, the former Justice Minister Mohamed Allagi who is president of Libya’s National Council for Civil Liberties and Human Rights, claimed that the trial and those of other Qaddafi officials were “invalid” because the law was not being properly implemented.

The charges against Zway and Obeidi surprised many observers at the time as they implied that the two should have been more effective in serving the Qaddafi regime and that the Lockerbie deal should never have happened.

Both men consistently denied the charges.

Today’s “Not Guilty” verdict was greeted with jubilation from the two men’s families. “We are satisfied that the verdict proves that Libyan justice is transparent and equal,” a nephew of Obeidi was quoted saying at the end of the proceedings. 

[The Herald today contains a report (with a quote from me) on the acquittal.]

Lockerbie: the current status

[What follows is the text of an essay written on 1 January 2013 by Dr Jim Swire:]

On 21st  December 2012,  US relatives of those Americans who died aboard the PanAm 103 747 over Lockerbie chose to issue a petition to their government.

Their petition  majors on aspects of the relationship between their own country and Libya – the Libya of both before and after Colonel Gaddafi’s death. It can be read on The Lockerbie Case blog (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2012/12/commemoration-of-pan-am-103-at.html). [RB: Note that the group which launched this petition is not Victims of Pan Am 103 Flight Inc, whose president is Frank Duggan.]

There can be no doubt that under the late Colonel, Libya was responsible for much mischief, murder and mayhem in the world. In the UK we cannot forget the supply of Libyan arms to IRA terrorists, providing weapons and explosives for the murder of both soldiers and civilians in both Northern Ireland and the UK mainland.

In 1984 the FBI had warned the Irish concerning a shipment of about 7 tons of arms and explosives from the USA heading for Ireland, which was intercepted. But In another major victory for intelligence in 1987 the ship the Eksund was stopped at sea and found to be loaded with Libyan guns and explosives intended for the Provisional IRA. These arms would have bolstered the weapons obtained from America in the previous decade which had included the deadly Armalite rifle, the image of which can still be seen depicted on Belfast gable ends.

For many Irish Americans the cause pursued by the IRA/Provos was seen as that of freedom fighters, a euphemism for those who clandestinely and indescrimately kill for their cause.

Not being an American nor claiming to understand the mindset of the ‘average American citizen’, nor having any access to their governmental or intelligence organisations, I feel I have no right to criticise the direction which the American relatives are now taking in their search for the truth about the tragedy of Lockerbie. All that can be said I think about the content of their petition is that to seek to draw together many different aspects of the relationships between Libya and America is to risk confounding the search for the true perpetrators of Lockerbie, for it starts from the assumption that Libya ‘must’ have been involved.

This presumption of Libyan guilt is founded of course upon the evidence led and the verdict reached at the Lockerbie trial in Zeist, 12 years ago. Apart from that there have been claims and counter claims about how others in the Gaddafi regime might have been involved. These claims belong in the hall of smoke and mirrors created by national and international intelligence and the politicians to whom they report. I certainly, and I suspect the American relatives, cannot be certain where the truth lies in such an arena.

The only apparent solid foundation for the notion of Libyan guilt is the Zeist verdict against the Libyan, Megrahi. That is now being used in this petition as a foundation for exploring multiple other aspects of Libyan/US relations over the decades. That in turn makes it all the more important to examine the legitimacy of that verdict.

Whether or not higher echelons of Gaddafi’s regime were involved in Lockerbie I do not know. The strange co-operation of the UK in assisting in Musa Kusa’s escape from Libya to the Middle East certainly suggests that he was seen as an intelligence asset in the West, but whether that included any aspect of Lockerbie we have of course no idea. When I met him in 1991 I found him an intimidating central figure in the Colonel’s regime, but was never faced with meeting Senoussi, widely known as a brutal killer on behalf of the dictator. Both men’s names have been  co-opted into this petition now created by American Lockerbie families. For me they remain denizens of the hall of mirrors too.

My sad task here is to question the one foundation which seems to me to underlie the US relatives’ petition; namely the conviction of Megrahi. I bitterly regret that in doing so I have to challenge the deeply held belief concerning the verdict against Megrahi among equally bereaved families in the US, for to do so must disturb the relative tranquillity (‘closure’) which many feel they have achieved in the lee of this verdict. Even closure however can be a false haven if the facts on which it is based are untrue. My fervent wish is that those who do shelter in the lee of this verdict will look objectively  at the facts now known to surround it. Tough but better to venture out of the shelter into the storm again if one wants to reach the real safe haven of provable truth.  Below is a brief summary of the story we heard at Zeist, together with sufficient of the reasons why it is unsafe, some of which emerged in the court, many of which have emerged later.

For those who wish to make their best effort to understand the discussion I recommend a book published in February of 2012. It is written by John Ashton, who spent years working on the legal aspects of the case. At Zeist there was no jury, and the book’s title invites the reader to assume that role. Megrahi: You are my jury is published by Birlinn of Edinburgh (ISBN-13: 978 1 78027 015 9) and is available from Amazon.com.

On the very day it was published, this book was described as ‘an insult to the (Lockerbie) relatives’, by the UK Prime Minister’s Office.

I hope that many will simply read it with an open mind. I do not believe that Downing Street can have done so.

In the hope of simplifying what some regard as an impenetrably complex story here is a simplified version of what seems to have happened. Please check it out against what is actually known to be true.

The months preceding Lockerbie
In July 1988 an American warship had accidentally shot down an Iranian Airbus (Iran Air flight 655) killing 290 innocent people.

Iran swore revenge.

America awarded a medal to Captain Rogers, the ship’s captain.

In October 1988 the West German police broke up a cell of Palestinian terrorists operating in Neuss near Frankfurt, but really emanating from  Syria.

In doing so the BKA police recovered a number of IED bombs from the Neuss flat. Unfortunately they also missed some of them, which disappeared into the terrorist world. These IEDs were triggered by sensing the drop in air pressure when a plane takes off, they also had inbuilt timers, which were not adjustable and meant that such devices would always explode 30-45 minutes after take off. They were the leading design available to terrorists for destroying aircraft in flight. The Syrian group using them were closely allied to Iran.

The fatal Lockerbie flight lasted 38 minutes.

It was the hearing of this forensic evidence from the German expert, Herr Gobel in the court that first alerted the writer to the  improbability of the Malta story. Why launch a bomb from there with a long running and fully adjustable timer, and have it explode just 38 minutes into the flight when it could have been set for many hours after the target flight had left Heathrow?

Some  of the arrested conspirators were released promptly by the BKA, despite having been arrested with one of these IEDs actually in their possession at the time of arrest. This extraordinary decision seems another portal into the hall of mirrors.

According to CIA sources the terrorist group involved received significant funding from Iran immediately after Lockerbie.

The prosecution case at Zeist
The story was that Megrahi, aided and abetted by Fhima had put a suitcase containing the bomb aboard Air Malta flight KM180 as Megrahi passed through Luqa airport on 21st December 1988.

The suitcase, suitably labelled was then claimed to have passed through Frankfurt airport where it was transferred to a PanAm feeder flight (PA103A) to Heathrow, there it was transferred again, this time into a already partly loaded container , containing some bags which had been loaded into it at Heathrow before the arrival of PA103A from Frankfurt. The full container, now containing luggage from both Heathrow and Frankfurt was then placed in the hold of PA103 itself.

In order for all this to be confirmed it was necessary to link the two Libyans to the suitcase and explain how it might have survived the complex route proposed only to explode 38 minutes out of Heathrow. In order to have done so, their bomb would have had to have contained a long running timer.

There was not a scrap of evidence led in court that any such suitcase had been loaded onto the Air Malta flight. Their Lordships simply described this evidence deficit as ‘a difficulty for the prosecution’.

As for the long running timer required for a flight from Malta to Lockerbie via Frankfurt and Heathrow, the prosecution produced a fragment of timer circuit board, allegedly retrieved from the Lockerbie wreckage and found in a police evidence bag. It was claimed to have come from a circuit board in a timer bought by Libya from a Swiss firm, MEBO, well before Lockerbie. These timers , had one been used, could have been adjusted to explode over the Atlantic or even over New Jersey.

The fragment appeared to have been part of such a timer’s circuit board.

However what the court did not know was that the metal layers on the circuit elements of the fragment did not match those on the Libyan boards, although looking exactly like them to the naked eye.

This difference was known to the prosecution before the trial. its significance is explained in detail in Megrahi: you are my jury.

Although the prosecution forensic officer knew of this difference and recorded it in his notes, he told the court that the fragment was ‘similar in all respects’ to the Libyan circuit boards.

The manufacturer of the circuit boards sold to Libya before Lockerbie has confirmed  by affidavit that his firm did not use, nor even have the equipment necessary for manufacture of, circuit boards by the ‘pure tin’ process found on the curious and  apparently incriminating fragment.

Although the anomaly over the fragment was known to the prosecution well before the trial, its true significance did not come to the attention of Megrahi’s defence until his second appeal in Edinburgh.

It did however come to the attention of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC), who had investigated the case. Like the prosecution’s forensic officer, they failed to investigate the full significance of the difference between the fragment and the Libyan circuit boards. Yet they still found six reasons why the case might have been a miscarriage of justice and agreed its referral to a further appeal.

What is revealed in Megrahi: you are my jury is that the fragment has a coating which is essentially ‘pure tin’, not a tin/lead alloy like the Libyan-owned timer boards . Moreover further, objective scientific testing confirms that there is no possibility that this coating could be derived from that on the Libyan boards, not even by exposure in extreme proximity to a Semtex explosion...

Clothing originating from a Malta shop run by the Gauci brothers was found among the Lockerbie wreckage. The prosecution alleged that this clothing was bought on a certain day when Megrahi was on the island, circumstantial evidence has accumulated indicating that in fact it was bought on a  different date when he was not on Malta.

The investigating Scottish police bought improper pressure to bear on Mr Gauci to encourage him to identify Megrahi as the buyer: some of this they concealed from the court.

They also knew that Gauci was aware of, and keen to get his hands on, substantial US offered money, conditional on him giving evidence against Megrahi in court. Again the Scottish police did not declare this knowledge to the Court.

Thus the identification of Megrahi as the buyer of the clothing would certainly have been seen to have failed to reach the standards for an identification normally required in a Scottish criminal court, had all the facts been then known to the court.

The evidence against alleged co-conspirator Fhima failed to convince the court and he was found not guilty. In order to continue proceedings, the charges against Megrahi had then to be altered from conspiring with Fhima, to conspiring with others unknown. Changing the charge in mid stream seems hard to justify under Scots law.

If the prosecution case was a myth, how was it really done?
The above description is taken so far as possible from the evidence led at Zeist and knowledge accumulated since. It is astonishing that it seems to fail to implicate Megrahi and Malta in so many ways.

With one exception, not yet mentioned, the Zeist evidence, unlike the events leading up to the disaster itself,  helps little to tell us about the most likely true explanation. Only after the verdict did that piece of evidence  come to light.

It was that during the night of 20/21 December 1988 about 16 hours before the disaster somebody broke into Heathrow airside at a point close to where the Lockerbie bomb was loaded aboard PanAm103 the following evening.

Although the airport authorities were told immediately of the break-in they seem to have decided that they could afford to ignore it, not calling in Scotland Yard until long after the atrocity, and failing to halt outgoing flights until the identity and motive of the intruder had been identified, as one would surely expect at a time of known heightened terrorist risk, especially for US aircraft...

The bombs mentioned above being made in Neuss had key characteristics which were described to the Zeist court.

They were inert on the ground, but would sense falling air pressure in a climbing aircraft and explode 30-45 minutes after take off. The court heard that the delay was not adjustable.

This means that one of these devices when armed could not have been flown in from Frankfurt, let alone Malta: it would have exploded en route.

The user had to either bring one overland to the target airport or fly in with a disarmed one and arm it there. Once loaded in the target plane he could be sure that the device would explode between 30-45 minutes after takeoff, for no timer would start until the air pressure fell appropriately. Evidence that a suitcase similar to that containing the bomb was indeed loaded at Heathrow into the very container where the explosion occurred 38 minutes after take-off was heard in court but rejected.

The break-in was entirely concealed from the trial court, yet the evidence which was heard at Zeist as to the loading of the container at Heathrow in which the explosion did occur now needs to be reviewed in the light of the break-in. The opportunity for the introduction of such a device by an overland route at Heathrow did exist after all. So reviewed, the Heathrow evidence is seen strongly to support the loading of the bomb-containing suitcase there into the baggage container labelled as and destined for PA103.

The Scottish Crown Office and their investigating police force must answer as to why this break-in evidence was suppressed from January 1989 when the Scotland Yard police told them about it, until after the trial had ended and the verdict been reached.

The concept that Libya was responsible for Lockerbie seems to rest on the conviction of Megrahi, yet the timer fragment said to support the use of a long running timer by Megrahi could not have come from one of the Libyan timers proposed by the prosecution. They were profoundly incompatible.

If Megrahi and Malta were but a myth, was it incompetence that led the Crown Office and their investigators to get so much wrong or something more sinister still?

There is no evidence known to us that suggests any other point of origin for the mysterious fragment other than ‘the Libyan bomb from Malta’. Yet it was found inside a Scottish police evidence bag, the court was told, tucked inside a piece of shirt collar readily identifiable as having been bought in Gauci’s shop in Malta. And now we know, though it was hidden from the court and the first appeal that the fragment could not have come from one of the designated Libyan timers, so where could it have come from, and how on earth did it come to be found inside an official  police evidence bag?

Come to that why had someone altered the label on that very bag in such a way as to make it simpler for the investigating forensic officer to find the fragment, rather than just have him find the piece of cloth?

An even more sinister question is who could have carefully copied the circuitry of a corner of a Libyan owned circuit board, but let themselves down by carelessness over the plating technique? There is simply no known alternative circuit board nor electronic device associated with Lockerbie from which the fragment might have been derived.

I do hope that this attempt to review the situation will be criticised, but by people who have taken the trouble to check on the facts portrayed or hinted at in it. The self styled circumstantial case against Megrahi does not seem to survive such examination, and without it the huge bubble of the ‘Libya did it believers’ seems at least as circumstantial itself.

It was just before the evidence about the circuit board fragment and other exculpatory matters were to be led in Edinburgh in open court that the Megrahi appeal was cancelled. Only now has it become public knowldege.

I have tried but failed to discover anything that could be called proof of Libyan involvement at a higher level than Megrahi. That failure is to be expected for a private citizen seeking to probe State security.

However I wonder whether those who drew up the accusatory petition against their own country over its relationship with Libya have ever asked themselves whether the perceived refusal of their government(s) to obtain any answers might be because there simply isn’t any genuine evidence of Libyan involvement at any level.

Hatred and desire for revenge are always corrosive to those who harbour them. What a further tragedy for the bereaved of Lockerbie if we have been deliberately misled by those who should care for us, their citizens.

Then there is the Christian tenet of forgiveness, how can one forgive someone if his identity is being officially concealed? Such aspects of this terrible case complicate and prolong the grieving process, and in the end will only harm those involved in the deception and the reputation of their nations.

Commemoration of Pan Am 103 at Arlington National Cemetery

[This is the headline over an article published late yesterday on the Consumer Travel Alliance website.  It reads as follows:]

Today, December 21, 2012, is the 24th anniversary of the Pan Am 103 bombing which killed 270 and remains the second worst terrorist attack in history against Americans after 9/11.

A memorial service was held alongside the Flight 103 Cairn at Arlington National Cemetery from 1:30 to 3:00 pm. It featured speeches by the US Attorney General Eric Holder [full text here], FBI Director Robert Mueller [full text here], TSA [Transport Security Administration] Administrator John Pistole [full text here], and Frank Duggan of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103. [RB: I have not been able find Mr Duggan's remarks online. This is probably a blessing.]

On this cold, gray and windy day, America’s top-ranking law enforcement officers paid their respects to those killed in this act of terrorism.

At the same time Families of Pan Am 103/Lockerbie, an organization of family members of the Pan Am 103 bombing victims, launched a major petition drive demanding the Governments of United States and Libya fulfill their longstanding promises of cooperation in the U.S. criminal investigations of numerous terrorist attacks against Americans by Libyans and bring those responsible to justice. The form to sign the petition is here.

Here is the petition text:

Expressing the disappointment, concern and increasing frustration and anger of the families and friends of victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing and all Americans at the failure of the United States to properly investigate the Pan Am 103 bombing (which killed 270 on December 21, 1988 over Lockerbie Scotland and remains the second worst terrorist attack in history against Americans) and other terrorist attacks and the failure of Libya to grant permission for US criminal investigators to gather evidence in Libya or fulfill its promises and obligations to fully cooperate with US criminal investigations of terrorist attacks against Americans, including most recently the murder of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on September 11th, 2012.

Whereas since 1989, hundreds of Pan Am 103 victims’ family members have pursued civil and criminal justice against those responsible for the murder of their loved ones;

Whereas there has been no known progress or criminal investigation developments since the indictments of two Libyan intelligence agents over 20 years ago and the conviction of one over 11 years ago, notwithstanding Libya’s formal promises to the UN in 2003 to fully cooperate with US criminal investigations and comply with numerous international anti-terrorism agreements, and notwithstanding renewed promises by the Libyan Transitional National Council leader in 2011 to provide new evidence and newly available witnesses and suspects in Libya;

Whereas Libya has recently granted permission to the United Kingdom for investigation within Libya by United Kingdom criminal investigators of a London police woman’s murder outside the Libyan embassy;

Whereas Libya has promised repeatedly (in 2003, 2011, 2012 and previously) to cooperate with the United States in the Pan Am 103 investigation;

Whereas the United States provided in 2011 essential support in protecting many of those now in the Libyan government and the Libyan people from being killed in masse by Gaddafi forces;

Whereas the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have been claiming for 24 years that this is ‘the largest murder investigation in US history’ but with no visible results since 2000;

Whereas Senussi, former head of Gaddafi’s infamous External Security Organization that sponsored and carried out Gaddafi regime terrorism against the U.S. and other Western nationals and assassinations of exiled Gaddafi opponents, has now been sent back to Libya by Mauritania;

Whereas there is still no indication that the United States has sought to use its many tools of witness protection and relocation, terrorist reward programs, interrogation of Senussi, or former Gaddafi intelligence chief Musa Kusa in Qatar, and has not responded to the United Kingdom critics who claim that the evidence convicting Megrahi was flawed and/or fabricated by the United States DOJ and FBI;

Whereas, Libya is presently criminally prosecuting two former Libyan officials for “waste of public funds” in paying compensation to the families of Pan Am 103 victims; and

Whereas the Government of Libya has made no arrests in the September 2012 terrorist murders of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans and has failed to fully cooperated with US criminal investigations:

NOW, therefore, the undersigned hereby petition and request that

(1) The Congress of the United States hold oversight hearings requiring that the FBI and Department of Justice report on the status of the investigation into the Pan Am 103, including by explaining and releasing appropriate records showing—

(A) why since 2000 it has apparently failed to gather any evidence or interview witnesses (including former Justice Minister and former Chairman of the Libyan Transitional National Council Mustapha M A Jalil, who has publicly claimed to have proof of Gaddafi and others direct involvement) regarding the Pan Am 103 bombing;

(B) why the US Office of Foreign Assets Control has removed all travel and financial sanctions on Musa Kusa, former Gaddafi intelligence chief, stated by former US CIA Director George Tenet to be responsible for American bloodshed;

(C) why the Department of Justice and Department of State did not seek extradition from Mauritania of Senussi, who was named in United States indictments and convicted by France of the 1989 UTA jumbo jetliner bombing that murdered 170, including 6 U.S. citizens and Bonnie Pew, wife of the US Ambassador to Chad;

(D) why the Department of Justice never sought nor obtained access to Megrahi, the only person convicted of the Pan Am 103 mass murder who was imprisoned in the United Kingdom for 9 years, prior to his death in Tripoli in 2012;

(E) why, in over 20 years of what the Department of Justice often claimed was the biggest murder investigation in its history, has never named any of the Pan Am 103 terrorists except two low level Libyan intelligence agents;

(F) what resources the Department of Justice has devoted to the Pan Am 103 bombing criminal investigation and the costs of this investigation especially since 2000; and

(G) what requests or demands the United States made to Libya since 1989 for cooperation in the criminal investigation of the Pan Am 103 bombing and what responses if any were received;

(2) That the Government of Libya promptly grant the United States permission to investigate in Libya the Pan Am 103 bombing and other acts of terrorism by Libyan nationals against United States citizens (as it has repeatedly promised but so far failed to do) and permit the US to have a secure location on Libya territory to conduct such investigations.

(3) That unless the US Attorney General and the President of the United States certify to the US Congress by February 21, 2013 that Libya has fully cooperated with the Pan Am 103 bombing and the US consulate attack investigations, that new US and UN sanctions be imposed against Libya for sheltering terrorist murderers of hundreds of Americans and other nationals and for failing to cooperate with US criminal investigations to bring those responsible to justice.

Dated: December 21st, 2012

Lockerbie bombing inquiry police officer numbers raised

[This is the headline over a report published today on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]

Additional police officers have been drafted into the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary team investigating the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.

The inquiry has been scaled up following regime change in Libya.

Chief Constable Patrick Shearer said that the extra resources required for the probe had been supplied by the Scottish government. (...)

The overthrow and death of Col Muammar Gaddafi last year opened up a possible opportunity for investigators to explore the role of others in the bombing.

The Crown Office has already asked the new authorities in Libya for help with the inquiry.

As a result, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, which has led the Lockerbie investigation from the start, has increased staffing levels within its inquiry team.

Detectives from the local force have already questioned Libya's former Foreign Minister Musa Kusa who fled to London when Col Gaddafi's regime started to fall.A spokesman for Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary said that for operational reasons it could not reveal the number of officers it had added to its inquiry team.

[Unless the police inquiry is prepared to investigate conscientiously the material that has come to light casting grave doubt on the Zeist trial's verdict against Abdelbaset Megrahi (including material uncovered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) the new staffing and resources will be a complete waste of time and money and will achieve no more than the "one man with a feather duster" that has been the pretext over the years for the police and Crown Office claim that the Lockerbie investigation was still live. 


The treatment of this issue by Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be found here.  The coverage of the story in the edition of The Herald for Wednesday 25 January contains the following: 'The Crown Office said: "The transitional Government of Libya has agreed to allow officers from Dumfries and Galloway police to travel to Libya for inquiries into the involvement of others with Mr Megrahi."'  So here we have confirmation from the horse's mouth of the scope of this "investigation".]