For years US eavesdroppers could read encrypted messages without the least difficulty

The indefatigable Ludwig de Braeckeleer has another article on the OhMyNews website. It contends that for decades the US National Security Agency has been reading the most highly sensitive coded messages sent by most foreign governments. This is because it succeeded in subverting the Swiss company that manufactured the encryption machines that most countries use for this purpose, and thus ensured that the individual machines were rigged in such a way that the NSA could decipher any messages sent through them.

As regards the relevance of all this to the Lockerbie case, De Braeckeleer writes:

"After the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian Airbus over the Persian Gulf on July 3, 1988, 'Iran vowed that the skies would rain with American blood.' A few months later, on Dec. 21, a terrorist bomb brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Once more, NSA intercepted and decoded a communication of Iranian Interior Minister Ali Akbar Mohtashemi linking Iran to the bombing of Pan Am 103.

One intelligence summary, prepared by the US Air Force Intelligence Agency, was requested by lawyers for the bankrupt Pan American Airlines through the Freedom of Information Act.

'Mohtashemi is closely connected with the Al Abas and Abu Nidal terrorist groups. He is actually a long-time friend of Abu Nidal. He has recently paid 10 million dollars in cash and gold to these two organizations to carry out terrorist activities and was the one who paid the same amount to bomb Pan Am Flight 103 in retaliation for the US shoot-down of the Iranian Airbus.'

Moreover, Israeli intelligence intercepted a coded transmission between Mohtashemi in Teheran and the Iranian Embassy in Beirut concerning the transfer of a large sum of money to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, headed by Ahmed Jibril, as payment for the downing of Pan Am 103.

The Iranians were now at a loss to explain how Western and Israeli intelligence agencies could so easily defeat the security of their diplomatic traffic. The ease with which the West was reading Iranian coded transactions strongly suggested that some may have possessed the decryption keys."

Later he comments:

"In 1991, the US and the U.K. indicted two Libyans for the bombing of Pan Am 103. To the surprise of many observers, the indictment did not mention those believed to have contracted the act of terror in spite of the fact that their guilt had been established by the interception of official communications by several intelligence agencies.

To many observers, justice was not served at the Lockerbie trial. Could it be that the US and U.K. governments decided to sacrifice the truth in order to preserve the (in)efficiency of their intelligence apparatus?"

For the full text, see http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&no=381337&rel_no=1

Secret Agreement Increases Odds That Convicted Pan Am 103 Bomber May Be Freed

Ambassador Andrew Killgore, publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, has an article with this title in the December 2007 issue of the magazine. It is sceptical about the safety of Mr Megrahi's conviction. See
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/December_2007/0712013.html

It is instructive that influential US publications are now, at last, joining the consensus. See also http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2007/12/congressional-quarterly.html

British Media Exploited by Intel Agencies

Dr Ludwig De Braeckeleer has a fascinating article with this title on the OhMyNews website. See

http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=381319&rel_no=1&back_url=

He tells the story of The Sunday Telegraph in 1995 running a story planted by known intelligence agents (but reported by the newspaper to emanate from a "British banking official") about Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. One paragraph reads: "The paper accused Col. Muammar Qaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, of running a major money laundering operation in Europe intended to fund weapons of mass destruction: Saif al-Islam is a 'thoroughly dishonest, unscrupulous and untrustworthy maverick against whom the international banking community has been warned to be on its guard.'"

Saif sued for libel. At the trial in 2002 the newspaper eventually admitted that the allegations had been untrue and that there had been no evidence to support them. However, at one stage the newspaper had pleaded the defence of qualified privilege; the lawyers argued that it was in the public interest to publish the articles even if they turned out to be untrue. Dr De Braeckeleer comments on this:

"For those who follow the Lockerbie farce -- the Megrahi second appeal over the Lockerbie judgment -- it is hard not to notice the irony of the last argument. Indeed, it seems that in the U.K., it is good for the public to be told lies while at the same time it is good for the same public not to be shown secret documents believed to be vital to unearthing the truth about the largest crime ever committed on U.K. soil."

Al-Megrahi May Come Home Very Soon

Today the Libyaonline website runs an article, apparently from the Tripoli Post, with this title. Again, it embodies the assumption that, because the United Kingdom Government and Libya have concluded a prisoner transfer agreement and because Mr Megrahi is not specifically excluded from its operation, therefore he will soon be heading home to Tripoli. This is a quite unwarranted assumption. It is the Scottish Government, not the UK Government, that must consent to any transfer. I have seen no indication anywhere that such consent is likely to be forthcoming or, indeed, that any approaches have been made to the Scottish Ministers to sound them out.

See http://www.libyaonline.com/news/details.php?id=1514

Lockerbie story heads to Hollywood

This is the headline over a story in Scotland on Sunday. In fact, what is revealed is the forthcoming publication of a novel, Flight 103, on 24 January 2008. This is a fictionalised account of the Lockerbie disaster by Juval Aviv, writing under the pseudonym Sam Green. It takes the line that Iran, not Libya, was responsible for the atrocity (which is not surprising given that Aviv was the author of the Interfor Report for Pan Am after the disaster, which arrived at the same conclusion). That a film based on the book might be made seems mere speculation. For the full story, see:
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland/Lockerbie-story-heads-to-Hollywood.3616402.jp

For more on Juval Aviv, see the 27 October post on this blog:
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2007/10/juval-aviv.html

Justice is the casualty in this Britain of secrets

Here is an excerpt from an article with this title by Ian Bell in today's issue of The Herald:

"The IPCC [Independent Police Complaints Commission] will not now be taking action against four Met officers for their roles in the killing of [Jean Charles] De Menezes. As with Omagh, no-one is being held to account. Combine crude with legal, and you could say this: no-one did it. Yet, in the matter of Lockerbie, the biggest atrocity of all in these islands, we are offered the surreal converse: officially, one man did it. Except, of course, he did not.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will be plucked from Scottish justice, and from his belated exoneration, in a deal whose existence was denied by our former Prime Minister while the Crown, citing a public interest it will not define, withholds a key document from a Scottish court. The document might demonstrate a miscarriage of justice. A reasonable person will ask, such being the case, why the Crown has elected to obstruct a court.

The truth is known to some, but not granted to all. On what authority? In each of these cases, judges have proved impotent and justice has been denied, blatantly, shamelessly. A pattern does not prove a theory. It certainly does not prove conspiracy. But this secret Britain has begun to stink, and stink badly."

See http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/features/display.var.1923252.0.Justice_is_the_casualty_in_this_Britain_of_secrets.php

As far as I am aware, the prisoner transfer agreement concluded between the Westminster Government and Libya does not exclude Mr Megrahi. But the ultimate decision, if any application for repatriation were made, would rest with the Scottish Ministers. I would be surprised if any behind-the-scenes arrangement to transfer Mr Megrahi had been arrived at with them. But, of course, I could be wrong. Otherwise, I find it difficult to dissent from Ian Bell's sentiments.

International Criminal Court requires new powers to catch up with terrorists

This is the headline over a letter in The Herald today from Dr Jim Swire. See
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.1920671.0.International_Criminal_Court_requires_new_powers_to_catch_up_with_terrorists.php

Congressional Quarterly

I have often on this blog had occasion to bemoan the apparent blindness of the mainstream media and commentators in the United States to the shakiness of the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi, to the weakness of the evidence on which it was based and to the fact that it has now been referred back to the High Court by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission because there may have been a miscarriage of justice. It is with great pleasure, therefore, that I draw attention to an article on the Congressional Quarterly website, CQ Politics by their National Security Editor, Jeff Stein. In this article, he outlines the problems with the official US/UK version of events and explores the most compelling of the alternative scenarios, with quotes from US security and intelligence operatives who doubt the official version. A welcome transatlantic breath of fresh air. See
http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=hsnews-000002648396

This story has been picked up by many other news media. One of these is The Malta Independent which is, of course, particularly interested in the admission by the US State Department that the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, received a large reward for his evidence. See
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=62456

Scotland's "heavies" on the procedural hearing

Here are links to the coverage of the second procedural hearing by the Scottish "serious" daily newspapers, The Herald and The Scotsman:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1920715.0.Judge_raps_law_chiefs_for_delays_to_Lockerbie_document.php
and
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Angiolini-rapped-over-Lockerbie-file.3611641.jp

These stories must make dismal reading for the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini QC and the Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova QC, since they focus on the reprimand issued by the court over their respective failures to canvass fully and candidly, in their written answers to the appellant's application for disclosure of the withheld document, their reasons for opposing disclosure, thus causing unnecessary delay to the proceedings.

Other accounts of procedural hearing

Here is the BBC's coverage of the hearing, timed 15.49:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7154283.stm

And The Herald website posted the following at 17.45:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1920355.0.Govt_blocks_release_of_vital_Lockerbie_appeal_document.php

Second procedural hearing

Today's procedural hearing before Lords Hamilton, Kingarth and Eassie was, as anticipated, largely concerned with the document in the hands of the Crown, seen and founded upon by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, that the appellant's legal team is seeking to have disclosed to it. On 11 October the Crown was given six weeks either to get the consent of the foreign country which supplied it to disclosure, or to lodge detailed written reasons as to why the document should not be handed over. The Advocate General for Scotland (who provides Scottish legal advice to the UK Government Departments in London) was also instructed, if so advised, to lodge written answers.

The Lord Advocate (who, as well as being head of the Scottish public prosecution system, is legal adviser to the Scottish devolved Government) lodged answers basically saying no more than that, for reasons that she did not see fit to vouchsafe, the document in question was not disclosable. The Advocate General's answers objected to disclosure on the basis of Public Interest Immunity (PII), but did not deign to disclose what aspects of the public interest would be prejudiced by the document's being handed to the appellant (it already, of course, having been seen by the SCCRC); nor had the Advocate General had the courtesy to lodge a Public Interest Immunity Certificate which would have provided at least some enlightenment.

Maggie Scott QC for Mr Megrahi argued that the Advocate General's PII objection should be dismissed without further argument given that he had not produced in his written answers any material to support it and because it had not been adopted by the Lord Advocate who, in the Scottish criminal justice system is the officer in whose hands alone rests the responsibility for protecting the wider public interest (subject, of course, to ultimate supervision by the High Court). Ronnie Clancy QC for the Crown, however, stated that although no mention of any public interest objection to disclosure was made in the Lord Advocate's answers, this was simply because she had decided that, on this issue, she should defer to the UK Government and the Advocate General since responsibility for foreign relations is non-devolved and rests with the UK Government and so that aspect of the public interest (ie preserving good relations with the foreign government that supplied the document and which has refused to consent to its being disclosed) should be ceded to the Advocate General.

The court, "with great reluctance" allowed the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General six weeks to provide full written reasons for their claim to PII and appointed all parties to lodge by that date a note of their legal arguments and the authorities supporting them on the PII issue. It then fixed a one day hearing for 20 February 2008 for the issue to be fully debated in open court. The Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton, made it abundantly plain that the court regarded the conduct of both the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General in failing, within the generous period of six weeks allowed them on 11 October, to provide written answers that set out the substance of their objection to disclosure, with full supporting reasons, as highly unsatisfactory.

Two other matters were discussed at the hearing. The first was the scope of the appeal. The Crown had earlier stated that it would consider asking the court to exercise its discretion to refuse to allow to be argued all (or some) of the Grounds of Appeal that related to matters that had been investigated by the SCCRC but rejected by that body. Today Mr Clancy went considerably further: the Crown now wished to argue that, as a matter of law, the Appeal Court was not permitted to hear Grounds of Appeal that had not been accepted by the SCCRC. That is a legal issue that has already been decided by a three-judge bench who held in 2004 (http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/XC956.html) that there was no such restriction on the Grounds of Appeal that could be heard. Nothing daunted, Mr Clancy asked for a five-judge court to be convened to reconsider the matter. The court ordered the Lord Advocate to submit within one month a written note setting out her legal arguments and appointed the appellant to submit written answers within one month thereafter. A five-judge court would then be convened to hear oral argument.

The final issue raised was the problem the appellant's legal advisers have been encountering in gaining access to the productions used in the original trial. Dumfries and Galloway Police (who are the custodians of most of them) had apparently been advised by the Crown that the appellant could not have access without an order of the court. Mr Clancy indicated that the Crown did not wish to be obstructive and that he was sure that the matter could be resolved amicably. Ms Scott's rejoinder was that the Crown had been nothing but obstructive. The court indicated that if any further problems were encountered in this regard the matter should be brought back before the court.

Observers of the appeal process have speculated that one of the Crown's principal tactics would be to seek to delay the proceedings at every turn. If corroborative evidence of this were needed, today's hearing has supplied it in abundance.

Once again, there was a good attendance on the public benches. Among the relatives present was Dr Jim Swire and Ms Marina Larracoechea Azumendi. Also in attendance was Edwin Bollier, principal of MeBo, the Zürich company that manufactured the timer that is alleged to have detonated the bomb on board Pan Am 103. The acoustics of the courtroom were somewhat better than on the previous occasion. But they still leave a lot to be desired.

Libyan prisoner transfer

The United Kingdom Government has signed a Memorandum of Understanding relating to a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya. The Scottish Government had requested Westminster to ensure that Abdelbaset Megrahi was specifically excluded from the agreement. This request has been rejected. Although Megrahi is covered by the agreement between the UK and Libya, it will be for the Scottish Ministers (not the UK Government) to decide if he should ever be transferred to Libya to serve the remainder of his sentence. If Mr Megrahi's current appeal (a procedural hearing in which is to be held this morning) is successful, the question of prisoner transfer will never, of course, arise: he will return to Libya as a free man. For the stories in The Scotsman and The Herald, see
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Libya-deal-on-eve-of.3607023.jp and
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-herald/20071220/281543696589891

It will be recalled that when news of the prisoner transfer discussions between the Westminster Government and Libya broke in the early summer, UK Government ministers stated that the proposed agreement did not cover Mr Megrahi and, hence, they had had no duty to inform the Scottish Government of them. This was untrue. As I know from Libyan officials who participated in the negotiations, Mr Megrahi's position was at the forefront of the minds of all concerned. This is today amply corroborated by the refusal of the Scottish Government's request that he should be excluded from the agreement.

Congress Delays Administration's Detente with Libya

This is the title of a post by David Schenker on the Counterterrorism Blog. The text reads as follows:

"Yesterday I had an op ed in the Christian Science Monitor about the Administration's problems in moving ahead with the rehabilitation of relations with Libya. Intitially, Congress did not allocate the $108 million requested by the Administration to fund a new US Embassy in Libya. Furthermore, Congress said it would not hold confirmation hearings for the Administration's ambassador designate.

Congress refused to provide funding because Libya has not paid out the last $2 million per family as stipulated in the Lockerbie settlement. Financial closure on the LaBelle Disco bombing terrorism case has proved elusive as well. In September 2006, Representatives of the LaBelle victims, the Government of Libya, and the US State Department met and hammered out a settlement that was filed in US courts. Inexplicably, though, Libya also subsequently reneged on this agreement--on June 30, 2006--the day the Administration removed Libya from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.

Yesterday, though, the House acceded to the Administration's request to fund the US Embassy. However, Congress did say that it will not allow the Administration to provide any financial aid to or run any programs in Libya.

The text of yesterday's Conference Report (SEC. 654) reads as follows: (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance for Libya. (b) The prohibition of subsection (a) shall no longer apply if the Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that the Government of Libya has made the final settlement payments to the Pan Am 103 victims' families, paid to the LaBelle Disco bombing victims the agreed upon settlement amounts, and is engaging in good faith settlement discussions regarding other relevant terrorism cases. (c) Not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations describing (1) actions taken by the Department of State to facilitate a resolution of these cases; and (2) United States commercial activities in Libya's energy sector.

Essentially, Congress will prohibit State Department from administering $1.15 million in programs in Libya next year. Congressional staffers suggest that Congress will for the time being also continue to oppose confirmation of an ambassador.

On January 3rd by the Libyan foreign minister will visit Washington."

See http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/12/congress_delays_administration.php

Crown refuses to reveal secret Lockerbie paper

This is the title of a front-page article in The Herald by Lucy Adams. Whereas I on this blog on 14 December merely speculated that the reason for this week's procedural hearing might be that the Crown had refused to hand over to Mr Megrahi's legal team the document relating to timers seen by the SCCRC, Lucy Adams (whose sources are usually impeccably reliable) states as a fact that this is the reason why the hearing has been called. She writes:

"Two months ago, the Crown Office was instructed to pass on the document or provide substantial reasons as to why it could not be given to the defence.

However, The Herald can reveal the Crown has since opposed the petition and suggested it has no duty to disclose. It has refused to reveal, even to the defence, the country from which the document originated, or its full reasons for not sharing the information.

The defence team is understood to be seeking the document which relates to supply of timers and an additional paper."
For the full story, see
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12452904.crown-refuses-to-reveal-secret-lockerbie-paper/

The Edinburgh Evening News has picked up the story:
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/scotland/Crown-refuses-to-reveal-secret.3599269.jp

And here is a link to Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer's commentary on OhmyNews:
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&no=381263&rel_no=1

It looks, therefore, as if the Crown is claiming Public Interest Immunity in relation to the document, on the basis of the public interest in maintaining good relations with the foreign country which supplied the document with the condition that its confidentiality be preserved. What the judges of the High Court will be required to do, in deciding whether to order the document to be handed over, is to balance that aspect of the public interest against the public interest in a fair trial (protected, inter alia by article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights) which involves an accused person having access to all evidence that might assist his case.

If this is indeed what the procedural hearing will be concerned with, I, for one, will find it interesting to hear the the Lord Advocate's representative arguing that maintaining good relations with a foreign country is a matter that should take precedence over the fairness of Scottish criminal proceedings.

Lockerbie Bomber: Scots Jail Like Being On Mars

Today's Daily Record has a lengthy story about a visit to Mr Megrahi in HMP Greenock by Paddy Hill, one of the Birmingham Six. Mr Hill gives details of his discussions with Megrahi and provides an insight into the latter's views about the forthcoming appeal, about his family circumstances and about his reactions to his imprisonment in Scotland. See
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2007/12/17/lockerbie-bomber-scots-jail-like-being-on-mars-86908-20258304/