Yesterday both the US Senate and the House of Representatives passed the bill that grants Libya immunity from civil action in respect of past acts of terrorism, subject to Libya's paying around $800m into a fund to compensate those harmed. The bill now goes to President Bush for signature.
The fullest account that I can find is from Bloomberg and can be read here.
In Scotland, The Herald's coverage of the story can be seen here.
Friday, 1 August 2008
Thursday, 31 July 2008
US and Libya close to agreement on compensation
Reuters reports that US and Libyan negotiators have reached tentative agreement on the outstanding compensation issues between the two countries, including the final tranche of the $10m payable to the family of each Lockerbie victim. The report reads in part:
'Under the deal, Libya would set aside $536 million to pay the remaining claims from the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and $283 million to compensate those killed and injured in the bombing of a West Berlin disco in 1986, said attorney Jim Kreindler, whose law firm represents 130 Lockerbie victims.
'Two hundred and seventy people died when a bomb destroyed a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988. The Berlin disco bomb killed three and injured 229.
'The deal would also set aside additional funds to compensate victims of other incidents blamed on Libya, possibly bringing the total payout to more than $1 billion.
'To implement the tentative agreement, however, Congress would have to relieve Libya of the effects of a law enacted this year making it easier for terrorism victims to collect damages by having the assets of target governments frozen.'
The full report can be read here, and earlier relevant posts appeared on this blog on 31 March, 5 May and 31 May 2008.
'Under the deal, Libya would set aside $536 million to pay the remaining claims from the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and $283 million to compensate those killed and injured in the bombing of a West Berlin disco in 1986, said attorney Jim Kreindler, whose law firm represents 130 Lockerbie victims.
'Two hundred and seventy people died when a bomb destroyed a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988. The Berlin disco bomb killed three and injured 229.
'The deal would also set aside additional funds to compensate victims of other incidents blamed on Libya, possibly bringing the total payout to more than $1 billion.
'To implement the tentative agreement, however, Congress would have to relieve Libya of the effects of a law enacted this year making it easier for terrorism victims to collect damages by having the assets of target governments frozen.'
The full report can be read here, and earlier relevant posts appeared on this blog on 31 March, 5 May and 31 May 2008.
Tuesday, 29 July 2008
Francis Boyle on diplomacy through legal action
There is an interesting article on The Huffington Post retailing the views of Francis A Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, on the utility of a state's taking action in the World Court where it is threatened with direct military action by the United States and its allies. Professor Boyle refers to the precedent of Libya. The article reads in part:
'Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, proposes that Iran sue the United States, Britain, and Israel in the World Court, seeking the "international equivalent of a temporary restraining order" to compel the U.S. to abandon threats to attack. Boyle notes that threats to attack Iran violate the UN Charter, and that there is a relevant precedent for effective action by the World Court:
'There is a precedent here; [in]1992 ...the Bush Senior administration started to blame Libya for the Lockerbie bombing ... in 1988...President Bush Senior then sent the Sixth Fleet on hostile maneuvers off the coast of Libya, [and] had US jet fighters penetrating into Libyan airspace in order to provoke ... a confrontation...
'..we filed papers with the International Court of Justice in the Hague, on behalf of Libya against the US and the UK, we demanded an emergency hearing of the world court, and a temporary restraining order against the US and the UK, prohibiting the threat and use of force...after we filed the papers, and the court made it clear we were going to get our hearing, President Bush Senior ordered the 6th Fleet to stand down. They ended their hostile military maneuvers off the coast of Libya, the matter was submitted to the ICJ, there were hearings, a lawsuit, a judgment. And eventually that World Court judgment led to a peaceful negotiated solution of the Lockerbie dispute between the US and Britain on one hand and Libya on the other. And today there is normal diplomatic relations between these three countries... I think the same could be done here...
'Furthermore, Professor Boyle notes that the lawsuit itself could force the commencement of real negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, as it did in the Libyan case:
'If the United States government is not prepared to engage in reasonable direct unconditional good faith negotiations with Iran, then my advice is the Iranian government go forward with these lawsuits...if someone isn't going to talk to you, you sue them. And then they have to talk to you. And indeed it was during the course of the World Court lawsuit proceedings with Libya that the proceedings themselves were used to start negotiating a peaceful resolution of that dispute between the lawyers handling the lawsuit, because there were no diplomatic relations at that time between the United States, Britain, and Libya. So, again, the same could happen here...'
The full article can be read here.
'Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, proposes that Iran sue the United States, Britain, and Israel in the World Court, seeking the "international equivalent of a temporary restraining order" to compel the U.S. to abandon threats to attack. Boyle notes that threats to attack Iran violate the UN Charter, and that there is a relevant precedent for effective action by the World Court:
'There is a precedent here; [in]1992 ...the Bush Senior administration started to blame Libya for the Lockerbie bombing ... in 1988...President Bush Senior then sent the Sixth Fleet on hostile maneuvers off the coast of Libya, [and] had US jet fighters penetrating into Libyan airspace in order to provoke ... a confrontation...
'..we filed papers with the International Court of Justice in the Hague, on behalf of Libya against the US and the UK, we demanded an emergency hearing of the world court, and a temporary restraining order against the US and the UK, prohibiting the threat and use of force...after we filed the papers, and the court made it clear we were going to get our hearing, President Bush Senior ordered the 6th Fleet to stand down. They ended their hostile military maneuvers off the coast of Libya, the matter was submitted to the ICJ, there were hearings, a lawsuit, a judgment. And eventually that World Court judgment led to a peaceful negotiated solution of the Lockerbie dispute between the US and Britain on one hand and Libya on the other. And today there is normal diplomatic relations between these three countries... I think the same could be done here...
'Furthermore, Professor Boyle notes that the lawsuit itself could force the commencement of real negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, as it did in the Libyan case:
'If the United States government is not prepared to engage in reasonable direct unconditional good faith negotiations with Iran, then my advice is the Iranian government go forward with these lawsuits...if someone isn't going to talk to you, you sue them. And then they have to talk to you. And indeed it was during the course of the World Court lawsuit proceedings with Libya that the proceedings themselves were used to start negotiating a peaceful resolution of that dispute between the lawyers handling the lawsuit, because there were no diplomatic relations at that time between the United States, Britain, and Libya. So, again, the same could happen here...'
The full article can be read here.
Thursday, 24 July 2008
The case the FBI will never forget
This is the headline over a story in the News and Star, a newspaper in Carlisle, the nearest large town in England to Lockerbie. It quotes Richard Marquise, who headed the FBI's Lockerbie taskforce and Kathryn Turman, a director in the FBI's office of victim support, as well as retired Chief Superintendent Tom McCulloch of Dumfries and Galloway Police. The article does not mention that Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction is currently under appeal as a result of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's finding that it might have constituted a miscarriage of justice.
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Letter from Professor Köchler to Foreign Secretary
LETTER FROM DR HANS KOECHLER, INTERNATIONAL OBSERVER AT THE LOCKERBIE TRIAL, TO BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY DAVID MILIBAND CONCERNING MISLEADING INFORMATION ON THE FOREIGN OFFICE’S WEB SITE AND THE ADVERSE EFFECT OF MR MILIBAND’S ISSUANCE OF A PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY (PII) CERTIFICATE ON THE NEW LOCKERBIE APPEAL
Vienna, 21 July 2008
I regret having to contact you again in the Lockerbie case – a matter that should have been resolved by now (almost twenty years after the tragic event) on the basis of the rule of law. Allow me, first, to refer to the Libya page on the web site of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. The section related to the midair explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie states, inter alia, that “Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not proven [sic!].” While the information concerning Mr. Al-Megrahi is correct, the information concerning Mr. Fhimah is wrong. The accurate words in the case of the verdict reached on Mr. Fhimah would be “not guilty”. It is worthy to note that the sentence on the FCO web site is also semantically flawed. A person can be found “guilty” or “not guilty”, but not “proven” or “not proven”. Only an allegation/accusation, not a person, can be found “proven” or “not proven”. The sentence on the web site can easily be corrected if the word “proven” is replaced by the word “guilty”. ["On 31 January 2001 Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not guilty" instead of "On 31 January 2001 Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not proven".]* I trust that, for the sake of truth, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office will correct this mistake. The accurate information about the verdict in Mr. Fhimah’s case is to be found in the official transcript of the High Court of Justiciary at Kamp van Zeist (record of Day 86, January 31, 2001, pages 10235 to 10236).**
As international observer, appointed by the United Nations, at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands I am also concerned about the Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate which has been issued by you in connection with the new Appeal of the convicted Libyan national. Withholding of evidence from the Defence was one of the reasons why the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred Mr. Al-Megrahi’s case back to the High Court of Justiciary. The Appeal cannot go ahead if the Government of the United Kingdom, through the PII certificate issued by you, denies the Defence the right (also guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights) to have access to a document which is in the possession of the Prosecution. How can there be equality of arms in such a situation? How can the independence of the judiciary be upheld if the executive power interferes into the appeal process in such a way?
In that regard, I have the honour to draw your attention to the recent decision of Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to stay the proceedings in the case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo because of the non-disclosure of exculpatory material (“Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials …” of 13 June 2008). The judges stated that “The Chamber has unhesitatingly concluded that the right to a fair trial – which is without doubt a fundamental right – includes an entitlement to disclosure of exculpatory material“ and referred to an ICTY [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia] ruling according to which “the public interest [...] is excluded where its application would deny to the accused the opportunity to establish his or her innocence”. (In a further decision, dated 2 July 2008, Trial Chamber I of the ICC ordered the release of Mr. Dyilo.) I sincerely hope that the British Government will not ignore the basic principle of fairness as expressed in these rulings of international criminal courts and will not insist on a measure that would, if upheld, effectively prevent the Scottish High Court of Justiciary to go ahead with Mr. Al-Megrahi’s Appeal. It is fair to expect that the standards of criminal justice adhered to in the United Kingdom (and within the devolved justice system of Scotland, for that matter) should not be lower than those of international criminal courts and should definitely be in conformity with the requirements of Art. 6 of the European Human Rights Convention.
Should further appeal proceedings become impossible because of the forced non-disclosure of evidence to the Defence, not only myself, who followed the proceedings in the Netherlands as international observer, but the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie tragedy will be prevented from any further chance of knowing the truth about those responsible for the midair explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. Many who, like myself, initially trusted in the integrity of the judicial process under Scots law, will feel betrayed. There is no justice without truth – and there can be no truth if evidence is withheld in a criminal case by governmental decree.
***
* Under Scots law, the judges had three options for their verdict: guilty; not guilty; not proven. In Mr Fhimah's case, their ruling was "not guilty" (and not "not proven"). See also Hans Köchler's Lockerbie trial report of 3 February 2001, Para. 12.
** Verdict of the Scottish Court of 31 January 2001: Mr. Al-Megrahi: "guilty", Mr. Fhimah: "not guilty"
Vienna, 21 July 2008
I regret having to contact you again in the Lockerbie case – a matter that should have been resolved by now (almost twenty years after the tragic event) on the basis of the rule of law. Allow me, first, to refer to the Libya page on the web site of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. The section related to the midair explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie states, inter alia, that “Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not proven [sic!].” While the information concerning Mr. Al-Megrahi is correct, the information concerning Mr. Fhimah is wrong. The accurate words in the case of the verdict reached on Mr. Fhimah would be “not guilty”. It is worthy to note that the sentence on the FCO web site is also semantically flawed. A person can be found “guilty” or “not guilty”, but not “proven” or “not proven”. Only an allegation/accusation, not a person, can be found “proven” or “not proven”. The sentence on the web site can easily be corrected if the word “proven” is replaced by the word “guilty”. ["On 31 January 2001 Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not guilty" instead of "On 31 January 2001 Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not proven".]* I trust that, for the sake of truth, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office will correct this mistake. The accurate information about the verdict in Mr. Fhimah’s case is to be found in the official transcript of the High Court of Justiciary at Kamp van Zeist (record of Day 86, January 31, 2001, pages 10235 to 10236).**
As international observer, appointed by the United Nations, at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands I am also concerned about the Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate which has been issued by you in connection with the new Appeal of the convicted Libyan national. Withholding of evidence from the Defence was one of the reasons why the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred Mr. Al-Megrahi’s case back to the High Court of Justiciary. The Appeal cannot go ahead if the Government of the United Kingdom, through the PII certificate issued by you, denies the Defence the right (also guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights) to have access to a document which is in the possession of the Prosecution. How can there be equality of arms in such a situation? How can the independence of the judiciary be upheld if the executive power interferes into the appeal process in such a way?
In that regard, I have the honour to draw your attention to the recent decision of Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to stay the proceedings in the case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo because of the non-disclosure of exculpatory material (“Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials …” of 13 June 2008). The judges stated that “The Chamber has unhesitatingly concluded that the right to a fair trial – which is without doubt a fundamental right – includes an entitlement to disclosure of exculpatory material“ and referred to an ICTY [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia] ruling according to which “the public interest [...] is excluded where its application would deny to the accused the opportunity to establish his or her innocence”. (In a further decision, dated 2 July 2008, Trial Chamber I of the ICC ordered the release of Mr. Dyilo.) I sincerely hope that the British Government will not ignore the basic principle of fairness as expressed in these rulings of international criminal courts and will not insist on a measure that would, if upheld, effectively prevent the Scottish High Court of Justiciary to go ahead with Mr. Al-Megrahi’s Appeal. It is fair to expect that the standards of criminal justice adhered to in the United Kingdom (and within the devolved justice system of Scotland, for that matter) should not be lower than those of international criminal courts and should definitely be in conformity with the requirements of Art. 6 of the European Human Rights Convention.
Should further appeal proceedings become impossible because of the forced non-disclosure of evidence to the Defence, not only myself, who followed the proceedings in the Netherlands as international observer, but the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie tragedy will be prevented from any further chance of knowing the truth about those responsible for the midair explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. Many who, like myself, initially trusted in the integrity of the judicial process under Scots law, will feel betrayed. There is no justice without truth – and there can be no truth if evidence is withheld in a criminal case by governmental decree.
***
* Under Scots law, the judges had three options for their verdict: guilty; not guilty; not proven. In Mr Fhimah's case, their ruling was "not guilty" (and not "not proven"). See also Hans Köchler's Lockerbie trial report of 3 February 2001, Para. 12.
** Verdict of the Scottish Court of 31 January 2001: Mr. Al-Megrahi: "guilty", Mr. Fhimah: "not guilty"
Tuesday, 22 July 2008
The Conspiracy Files
BBC Two's autumn schedule contains a programme on Lockerbie in The Conspiracy Files series. The relevant portion of the BBC press release reads:
"Just before Christmas 1988 Britain's worst terrorist attack left 270 people dead. A Libyan intelligence officer was later convicted of mass murder, but he's now appealing against his sentence. So what wasn't revealed at his trial about the conspiracy to blow up a Pan Am jumbo jet en route from London to New York? The Conspiracy Files follows the trail of evidence from the Middle East, through Europe and on to North America, investigating the tangled web of claims and counterclaims surrounding the Lockerbie bombing."
"Just before Christmas 1988 Britain's worst terrorist attack left 270 people dead. A Libyan intelligence officer was later convicted of mass murder, but he's now appealing against his sentence. So what wasn't revealed at his trial about the conspiracy to blow up a Pan Am jumbo jet en route from London to New York? The Conspiracy Files follows the trail of evidence from the Middle East, through Europe and on to North America, investigating the tangled web of claims and counterclaims surrounding the Lockerbie bombing."
Sunday, 20 July 2008
Lockerbie Appeal : Making Haste Slowly
Here, reproduced with his permission, is the text of an e-mail sent earlier today by Patrick Haseldine to Professor Hans Köchler and myself:
Today I extracted from the FCO's Libya website (http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/middle-east-north-africa/libya?profile=intRelations&pg=4) the following section related to the Lockerbie bombing:
"The Lockerbie trial began on 3 May 2000. On 31 January 2001 Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not proven. Al-Megrahi subsequently appealed against his conviction. His appeal was refused on 14 March 2002.
On 23 September 2003 Al-Megrahi applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for his conviction to be reviewed. On 28 June 2007 the Commission referred his case back to the High Court, allowing him to appeal against his conviction for a second time.
Trilateral talks began on 13 February 2001 to discuss how Libya could meet the Security Council’s remaining requirements. As a result of these talks, in August 2003 the UK tabled a resolution recommending that the Security Council lift UN sanctions. That resolution was passed by the Security Council on 12 September 2003."
On 10 July 2008 Prof. Black e-mailed the FCO pointing out that the verdict on Fhimah was in fact not guilty but the error has not yet been corrected (see Lockerbie verdict posted on Prof. Koechler's website http://i-p-o.org/Lockerbie_Verdict-31Jan2001.htm).
As regards the delay of over a year in arranging Mr Megrahi's second appeal against his conviction for the Lockerbie bombing, Prof. Black wrote an article on 17 July 2008 entitled 'Justice Delayed...', posing these two questions:
"Why has no date yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeal? Why does it now seem impossible that the appeal can be heard and a judgement delivered by the twentieth anniversary of the disaster on 21 December 2008?" (see http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/07/justice-delayed.html)
US and British diplomats (as I used to be) would probably deny that there has been a delay. Rather, they would euphemistically say it is a case of making haste slowly. I offer three reasons that might be seen, from an American perspective, to justify maintaining the slow progress in having Mr Megrahi's wrongful conviction overturned:
1. The Lockerbie bombing took place during the Reagan/Bush Snr interregnum. President Bush Jr is unlikely to allow the case to unravel and the convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber to be acquitted before the new president gets sworn in next January.
2. PA103 relatives and US politicians (eg Senators Hillary Clinton and Frank Lautenberg) insist that Libya should pay a further $540 million in compensation for the Lockerbie bombing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Compensation_from_Libya).
3. Lifting of UN Security Council sanctions against Libya hinged upon the payment of compensation for UTA772 as well as PA103 (see http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7868.doc.htm and http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/03/libyas-lockerbie-compensation-proposal.html) The US will doubtless want Libya to pay some or all of the $6 billion compensation for the UTA772 bombing before Mr Megrahi's appeal can be heard.
And finally here is a question from me: since the twentieth anniversary of the PA103 disaster is on 21 December 2008, will a future criminal prosecution (perhaps of apartheid South Africa) in respect of the Lockerbie bombing be ruled out by the 20-year statute of limitations?
[Note by RB: On one issue I can reassure Mr Haseldine. There is no statute of limitations applicable to common law crimes like murder in Scotland.]
Today I extracted from the FCO's Libya website (http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/middle-east-north-africa/libya?profile=intRelations&pg=4) the following section related to the Lockerbie bombing:
"The Lockerbie trial began on 3 May 2000. On 31 January 2001 Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not proven. Al-Megrahi subsequently appealed against his conviction. His appeal was refused on 14 March 2002.
On 23 September 2003 Al-Megrahi applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for his conviction to be reviewed. On 28 June 2007 the Commission referred his case back to the High Court, allowing him to appeal against his conviction for a second time.
Trilateral talks began on 13 February 2001 to discuss how Libya could meet the Security Council’s remaining requirements. As a result of these talks, in August 2003 the UK tabled a resolution recommending that the Security Council lift UN sanctions. That resolution was passed by the Security Council on 12 September 2003."
On 10 July 2008 Prof. Black e-mailed the FCO pointing out that the verdict on Fhimah was in fact not guilty but the error has not yet been corrected (see Lockerbie verdict posted on Prof. Koechler's website http://i-p-o.org/Lockerbie_Verdict-31Jan2001.htm).
As regards the delay of over a year in arranging Mr Megrahi's second appeal against his conviction for the Lockerbie bombing, Prof. Black wrote an article on 17 July 2008 entitled 'Justice Delayed...', posing these two questions:
"Why has no date yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeal? Why does it now seem impossible that the appeal can be heard and a judgement delivered by the twentieth anniversary of the disaster on 21 December 2008?" (see http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/07/justice-delayed.html)
US and British diplomats (as I used to be) would probably deny that there has been a delay. Rather, they would euphemistically say it is a case of making haste slowly. I offer three reasons that might be seen, from an American perspective, to justify maintaining the slow progress in having Mr Megrahi's wrongful conviction overturned:
1. The Lockerbie bombing took place during the Reagan/Bush Snr interregnum. President Bush Jr is unlikely to allow the case to unravel and the convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber to be acquitted before the new president gets sworn in next January.
2. PA103 relatives and US politicians (eg Senators Hillary Clinton and Frank Lautenberg) insist that Libya should pay a further $540 million in compensation for the Lockerbie bombing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Compensation_from_Libya).
3. Lifting of UN Security Council sanctions against Libya hinged upon the payment of compensation for UTA772 as well as PA103 (see http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7868.doc.htm and http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/03/libyas-lockerbie-compensation-proposal.html) The US will doubtless want Libya to pay some or all of the $6 billion compensation for the UTA772 bombing before Mr Megrahi's appeal can be heard.
And finally here is a question from me: since the twentieth anniversary of the PA103 disaster is on 21 December 2008, will a future criminal prosecution (perhaps of apartheid South Africa) in respect of the Lockerbie bombing be ruled out by the 20-year statute of limitations?
[Note by RB: On one issue I can reassure Mr Haseldine. There is no statute of limitations applicable to common law crimes like murder in Scotland.]
Saturday, 19 July 2008
"One of the most dangerous men in the world"
The reference is to Monzer al-Kassar, who was extradited in June to the United States to stand trial for having supplied weapons to the FARC guerilla movement in Colombia. The German Kurtz Report features an article about him headlined (in translation) "Arms dealer or hostage saviour?" His alleged connection to Lockerbie is outlined in the following two paragraphs:
'Wenn Al Kassar, auch bekannt unter den Namen Abu Munawar und Al Taous, vor dem Bundesgericht erscheinen wird, kommen vielleicht noch andere Verbrechen zur Sprache. Richard Marquise, der frühere FBI-Beamte, der die Lockerbie-Ermittlungen leitete, empfahl dem Justizministerium, Kassar auch nach Lockerbie zu befragen. In seinem Schreiben bezog er sich auf die Behauptung des früheren israelischen Agenten Juval Aviv, Al Kassar habe als Mittler zwischen Iran und der amerikanischen Regierung im sogenannten “October Surprise Project” gehandelt, bei dem Waffen für den Iran gegen die Freilassung der amerikanischen Geiseln. Als Belohnung habe er Heroin aus dem Bekaa-Tal auf Flügen der amerikanischen Fluglinie Pan Am über Frankfurt in die USA liefern dürfen. Dabei sei die Drogenlieferung durch die Bombe ausgetauscht worden, die über Lockerbie explodierte.
'Der mögliche Lieferant des Zünders, Edwin Bollier, sollte im Rahmen des Todesermittlungsverfahrens Dr. Uwe Barschel vernommen werden. In den Akten der Lübecker Staatsanwaltschaft zum Fall Barschel findet sich auch eine sogenannte “Sonderakte Al Kassar”. Einen Monat vor der Verhaftung Al Kassars erschien das Buch “Deckname Dali” des ehemaligen Agenten des Bundesnachrichtendienstes (BND) Wilhelm Dietl. Darin beschreibt er, wie er auf Al Kassar angesetzt war, wie er wie in James Bond-Filmen dessen Akte auswendig gelernt habe, ihn mit Hilfe eines Observationsfotos des Bundeskriminalamts (BKA) auf einem Empfang der Österreichischen Botschaft in Damaskus identifizierte und ihn dann in Wien und Madrid traf.'
[I am grateful to a reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, for the following translation:
'When Al Kassar, also known under the names Abu Munawar and Al Taous, appears before the US Federal Court, other crimes may also come up. The former FBI agent, Richard Marquise, who led the Lockerbie investigation, has recommended to the Justice Department that Kassar should also be interrogated in connection with Lockerbie. In his writing, Marquise referred to the claim of the former Israel agent Juval Aviv, that Al Kassar functioned as an intermediary between Iran and the American government in the so-called “October Surprise Project”, whereby weapons were delivered to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages. By way of reward, he was supposedly allowed to fly heroin into the States from the Bekaa valley on Pan Am flights out of Frankfurt. In the course of this, the drug delivery was replaced by the bomb which exploded over Lockerbie.
‘It is claimed that the possible supplier of the fuse*, Edwin Bollier, was questioned in the context of the investigation into the death of Dr Uwe Barschel**. In the files of the Lübeck Public Prosecutor’s Office concerning the Barschel case, there is a so-called “Special File Al Kassar”. The book “Deckname Dali”, by former German secret service employee Wilhelm Dietl was published (in German) one month before the arrest of Al Kassar. In this book, he describes how he was instructed to track Al Kassar; how he, in the manner of James Bond, learned Al Kassar’s files by heart; how he identified Al Kassar at a reception held by the Austrian Embassy in Damascus, with the help of photos supplied by the German Federal Criminal Police Office; and how he met him in Vienna and Madrid.'
*Although it is the timer that Edwin Bollier’s company is alleged to have supplied, the German word “Zünder” means “fuse” or “detonator”.
**For information on the fascinating story of Dr Barschel, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_Barschel and (in German, but much more detailed) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_Barschel]
Also relevant is this post dating from 5 December 2007.
'Wenn Al Kassar, auch bekannt unter den Namen Abu Munawar und Al Taous, vor dem Bundesgericht erscheinen wird, kommen vielleicht noch andere Verbrechen zur Sprache. Richard Marquise, der frühere FBI-Beamte, der die Lockerbie-Ermittlungen leitete, empfahl dem Justizministerium, Kassar auch nach Lockerbie zu befragen. In seinem Schreiben bezog er sich auf die Behauptung des früheren israelischen Agenten Juval Aviv, Al Kassar habe als Mittler zwischen Iran und der amerikanischen Regierung im sogenannten “October Surprise Project” gehandelt, bei dem Waffen für den Iran gegen die Freilassung der amerikanischen Geiseln. Als Belohnung habe er Heroin aus dem Bekaa-Tal auf Flügen der amerikanischen Fluglinie Pan Am über Frankfurt in die USA liefern dürfen. Dabei sei die Drogenlieferung durch die Bombe ausgetauscht worden, die über Lockerbie explodierte.
'Der mögliche Lieferant des Zünders, Edwin Bollier, sollte im Rahmen des Todesermittlungsverfahrens Dr. Uwe Barschel vernommen werden. In den Akten der Lübecker Staatsanwaltschaft zum Fall Barschel findet sich auch eine sogenannte “Sonderakte Al Kassar”. Einen Monat vor der Verhaftung Al Kassars erschien das Buch “Deckname Dali” des ehemaligen Agenten des Bundesnachrichtendienstes (BND) Wilhelm Dietl. Darin beschreibt er, wie er auf Al Kassar angesetzt war, wie er wie in James Bond-Filmen dessen Akte auswendig gelernt habe, ihn mit Hilfe eines Observationsfotos des Bundeskriminalamts (BKA) auf einem Empfang der Österreichischen Botschaft in Damaskus identifizierte und ihn dann in Wien und Madrid traf.'
[I am grateful to a reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, for the following translation:
'When Al Kassar, also known under the names Abu Munawar and Al Taous, appears before the US Federal Court, other crimes may also come up. The former FBI agent, Richard Marquise, who led the Lockerbie investigation, has recommended to the Justice Department that Kassar should also be interrogated in connection with Lockerbie. In his writing, Marquise referred to the claim of the former Israel agent Juval Aviv, that Al Kassar functioned as an intermediary between Iran and the American government in the so-called “October Surprise Project”, whereby weapons were delivered to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages. By way of reward, he was supposedly allowed to fly heroin into the States from the Bekaa valley on Pan Am flights out of Frankfurt. In the course of this, the drug delivery was replaced by the bomb which exploded over Lockerbie.
‘It is claimed that the possible supplier of the fuse*, Edwin Bollier, was questioned in the context of the investigation into the death of Dr Uwe Barschel**. In the files of the Lübeck Public Prosecutor’s Office concerning the Barschel case, there is a so-called “Special File Al Kassar”. The book “Deckname Dali”, by former German secret service employee Wilhelm Dietl was published (in German) one month before the arrest of Al Kassar. In this book, he describes how he was instructed to track Al Kassar; how he, in the manner of James Bond, learned Al Kassar’s files by heart; how he identified Al Kassar at a reception held by the Austrian Embassy in Damascus, with the help of photos supplied by the German Federal Criminal Police Office; and how he met him in Vienna and Madrid.'
*Although it is the timer that Edwin Bollier’s company is alleged to have supplied, the German word “Zünder” means “fuse” or “detonator”.
**For information on the fascinating story of Dr Barschel, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_Barschel and (in German, but much more detailed) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_Barschel]
Also relevant is this post dating from 5 December 2007.
Friday, 18 July 2008
Nelson Mandela
Here is an excerpt from a post on the South African blog Cunkuri on the occasion of the 90th birthday of Nelson Mandela:
'With so much having been written about the man, the best insights can, perhaps, be gleaned from his 'lesser' successes rather than his iconic triumphs. Nowhere is this more evident than in his mediation on the Lockerbie issue. Mandela took a particular interest in helping to resolve the long-running dispute between Gaddafi's Libya, on the one hand, and the United States and Britain on the other, over bringing to trial the two Libyans who were indicted in November 1991 and accused of sabotaging Pan Am Flight 103, which crashed at the Scottish town of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, with the loss of 270 lives. As early as 1992, Mandela informally approached President George Bush with a proposal to have the two indicted Libyans tried in a third country. Bush reacted favourably to the proposal, as did President Mitterrand of France and King Juan Carlos of Spain. In November 1994, six months after his election as president, Mandela formally proposed that South Africa should be the venue for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial.
'However, British Prime Minister, John Major, flatly rejected the idea saying the British government did not have confidence in foreign courts. A further three years elapsed until Mandela's offer was repeated to Major's successor, Tony Blair, when the president visited London in July 1997. Later the same year, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) at Edinburgh in October 1997, Mandela warned: "No one nation should be complainant, prosecutor and judge." A compromise solution was then agreed for a trial to be held at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, governed by Scottish law, and Mandela began negotiations with Gaddafi for the handover of the two accused (Megrahi and Fhimah) in April 1999.
'At the end of their nine-month trial, the verdict was announced on 31 January 2001. Fhimah was acquitted but Megrahi was convicted and sentenced to 27 years in a Scottish jail. Megrahi's initial appeal was turned down in March 2002, and former president Mandela went to visit him in Barlinnie prison on 10 June 2002. "Megrahi is all alone", Mandela told a packed press conference in the prison's visitors room. "He has nobody he can talk to. It is psychological persecution that a man must stay for the length of his long sentence all alone. It would be fair if he were transferred to a Muslim country, and there are Muslim countries which are trusted by the West. It will make it easier for his family to visit him if he is in a place like the kingdom of Morocco, Tunisia or Egypt."
'Megrahi was subsequently moved to Greenock jail and is no longer in solitary confinement. On 28 June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission concluded its three-year review of Megrahi's conviction and, believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, referred the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal for a second appeal. Fifteen years on from his initial involvement, Mandela's moral stature is bringing closure to the victims and reintegration into the world community of a country previously described as a rogue state. Mandela has frequently credited Mahatma Gandhi for being a major source of inspiration in his life, both for the philosophy of non-violence and for facing adversity with dignity. In the Lockerbie case it lives on as inescapable fact.'
The full text can be read here.
'With so much having been written about the man, the best insights can, perhaps, be gleaned from his 'lesser' successes rather than his iconic triumphs. Nowhere is this more evident than in his mediation on the Lockerbie issue. Mandela took a particular interest in helping to resolve the long-running dispute between Gaddafi's Libya, on the one hand, and the United States and Britain on the other, over bringing to trial the two Libyans who were indicted in November 1991 and accused of sabotaging Pan Am Flight 103, which crashed at the Scottish town of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, with the loss of 270 lives. As early as 1992, Mandela informally approached President George Bush with a proposal to have the two indicted Libyans tried in a third country. Bush reacted favourably to the proposal, as did President Mitterrand of France and King Juan Carlos of Spain. In November 1994, six months after his election as president, Mandela formally proposed that South Africa should be the venue for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial.
'However, British Prime Minister, John Major, flatly rejected the idea saying the British government did not have confidence in foreign courts. A further three years elapsed until Mandela's offer was repeated to Major's successor, Tony Blair, when the president visited London in July 1997. Later the same year, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) at Edinburgh in October 1997, Mandela warned: "No one nation should be complainant, prosecutor and judge." A compromise solution was then agreed for a trial to be held at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, governed by Scottish law, and Mandela began negotiations with Gaddafi for the handover of the two accused (Megrahi and Fhimah) in April 1999.
'At the end of their nine-month trial, the verdict was announced on 31 January 2001. Fhimah was acquitted but Megrahi was convicted and sentenced to 27 years in a Scottish jail. Megrahi's initial appeal was turned down in March 2002, and former president Mandela went to visit him in Barlinnie prison on 10 June 2002. "Megrahi is all alone", Mandela told a packed press conference in the prison's visitors room. "He has nobody he can talk to. It is psychological persecution that a man must stay for the length of his long sentence all alone. It would be fair if he were transferred to a Muslim country, and there are Muslim countries which are trusted by the West. It will make it easier for his family to visit him if he is in a place like the kingdom of Morocco, Tunisia or Egypt."
'Megrahi was subsequently moved to Greenock jail and is no longer in solitary confinement. On 28 June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission concluded its three-year review of Megrahi's conviction and, believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, referred the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal for a second appeal. Fifteen years on from his initial involvement, Mandela's moral stature is bringing closure to the victims and reintegration into the world community of a country previously described as a rogue state. Mandela has frequently credited Mahatma Gandhi for being a major source of inspiration in his life, both for the philosophy of non-violence and for facing adversity with dignity. In the Lockerbie case it lives on as inescapable fact.'
The full text can be read here.
Lockerbie Appeal Drags On.....
Ed's Blog City has a comment, under the above headline, on yesterday's post "Justice delayed...". It reads:
"Professor Robert Black QC has today voiced his dissatisfaction at the length of time the appeal of Megrahi is taking through the Scottish court, and the obstructive and hindering tactics employed by the crown throughout the appeal since the recommendations made by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission a year ago.
It would appear that there are in what we term our 'democratic' and 'free' society, groups and individuals who are accountable to no-one. We are surrounded by liars, hypocrites and those who say they follow the rule of law, while doing whatever they damn well like if the desired result is the conclusion they would seek.
It is absolutely clear, to even the most docile, that we have an innocent man languishing in a Scottish Prison, put there by individuals who have performed every deceitful illegal manoeuvre available, manipulated the due course of Law, suppressed vital and legitimate evidence and capitulated to the subterfuge of international Politics and Governments - all paid for by the UK taxpayer.
The crown in the Megrahi appeal, under instruction of the UK government, have created a ‘National Security’ which only serves to prohibit ordinary people from the truth under the pretence that it is in the publics benefit not to know, and provides those with power, authority and those attuned sympathetically such as judges and lawyers ‘on the inside’ with the cloak of protection to carry out the very injustices and hidden agendas we have witnessed."
"Professor Robert Black QC has today voiced his dissatisfaction at the length of time the appeal of Megrahi is taking through the Scottish court, and the obstructive and hindering tactics employed by the crown throughout the appeal since the recommendations made by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission a year ago.
It would appear that there are in what we term our 'democratic' and 'free' society, groups and individuals who are accountable to no-one. We are surrounded by liars, hypocrites and those who say they follow the rule of law, while doing whatever they damn well like if the desired result is the conclusion they would seek.
It is absolutely clear, to even the most docile, that we have an innocent man languishing in a Scottish Prison, put there by individuals who have performed every deceitful illegal manoeuvre available, manipulated the due course of Law, suppressed vital and legitimate evidence and capitulated to the subterfuge of international Politics and Governments - all paid for by the UK taxpayer.
The crown in the Megrahi appeal, under instruction of the UK government, have created a ‘National Security’ which only serves to prohibit ordinary people from the truth under the pretence that it is in the publics benefit not to know, and provides those with power, authority and those attuned sympathetically such as judges and lawyers ‘on the inside’ with the cloak of protection to carry out the very injustices and hidden agendas we have witnessed."
Thursday, 17 July 2008
Justice delayed...
More than a year has passed since the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Abdelbaset Megrahi’s case back to the Criminal Appeal Court on the basis that his conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. More than nine months have passed since the first procedural hearing in the new appeal was held. More than six months have passed since the appellant’s full written grounds of appeal were lodged with the court.
Why has no date yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeal? Why does it now seem impossible that the appeal can be heard and a judgement delivered by the twentieth anniversary of the disaster on 21 December 2008?
The answer is simple: because the Crown, in the person of the Lord Advocate, and the United Kingdom Government, in the person of the Advocate General for Scotland, have been resorting to every delaying tactic in the book (and where a particular obstructionist wheeze isn’t in the book, have been asking the court to rewrite the book to insert it). The judges on a number of occasions have expressed disquiet at the Crown’s dilatoriness; but have so far done nothing meaningful to curb it. This must end. The delay is becoming scandalous. The reputation of Scotland’s criminal justice system is being further tarnished in the eyes of the world.
And all the while a man languishes in Greenock Prison. I have never made any bones about my view that the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi on the evidence led at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands is the worst Scottish miscarriage of justice in the past one hundred years, indeed since the conviction of Oscar Slater. But even those who do not share my views, or who are neutral on the issue, would surely accept that the delay in bringing the new appeal to a hearing on the merits is beginning to look cruel and unconscionable.
It is up to the judges to start cracking the whip. The words of Francis Bacon in his essay “Of Judicature” are perhaps worth recalling:
“A judge ought to prepare his way to a just sentence, as God useth to prepare his way, by raising valleys and taking down hills: so when there appeareth on either side an high hand, … cunning advantages taken, combination, power, … then is the virtue of a judge seen, to make inequality equal; that he may plant his judgment as upon an even ground.”
Why has no date yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeal? Why does it now seem impossible that the appeal can be heard and a judgement delivered by the twentieth anniversary of the disaster on 21 December 2008?
The answer is simple: because the Crown, in the person of the Lord Advocate, and the United Kingdom Government, in the person of the Advocate General for Scotland, have been resorting to every delaying tactic in the book (and where a particular obstructionist wheeze isn’t in the book, have been asking the court to rewrite the book to insert it). The judges on a number of occasions have expressed disquiet at the Crown’s dilatoriness; but have so far done nothing meaningful to curb it. This must end. The delay is becoming scandalous. The reputation of Scotland’s criminal justice system is being further tarnished in the eyes of the world.
And all the while a man languishes in Greenock Prison. I have never made any bones about my view that the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi on the evidence led at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands is the worst Scottish miscarriage of justice in the past one hundred years, indeed since the conviction of Oscar Slater. But even those who do not share my views, or who are neutral on the issue, would surely accept that the delay in bringing the new appeal to a hearing on the merits is beginning to look cruel and unconscionable.
It is up to the judges to start cracking the whip. The words of Francis Bacon in his essay “Of Judicature” are perhaps worth recalling:
“A judge ought to prepare his way to a just sentence, as God useth to prepare his way, by raising valleys and taking down hills: so when there appeareth on either side an high hand, … cunning advantages taken, combination, power, … then is the virtue of a judge seen, to make inequality equal; that he may plant his judgment as upon an even ground.”
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
Damp squib
Today's procedural hearing (before Lord Justice General Hamilton, Lord Eassie and Lord Clarke) decided nothing of substance. The Crown and the Advocate General (representing the UK Government) had been led to believe by a communication from the court that the hearing would be purely administrative and, in the absence on holiday of their principal counsel, were not in a position to argue the merits of the appellant's petition for access to the productions used in the original trial. Accordingly, the matter was continued to 20 August when it will be combined with a hearing already fixed to consider a further petition for access to evidence. Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi had criticised the answers lodged by the Crown to her petition for not specifying the grounds upon which it was contended that access to the trial productions should be refused. The Lord Justice General said that the court recognised, and sympathised with, the appellant's frustration at the Crown's delays and his concern about the lack of specification in the Crown's answers to the petition. The court accordingly ordered a fourteen day period of written adjustment of the petition and answers to enable the position to be clarified.
The BBC News account of the proceedings can be read here.
As well as the next public procedural hearing on 20 August, there is to be a private hearing on 19 August involving only the Crown and the Advocate General. By that time the judges will have read and absorbed the mystery document in respect of which the UK Government has claimed public interest immunity. This is the very first time of which I am aware in Scottish legal history that a hearing has been convened in a criminal appeal from which the appellant and his legal representatives have been excluded. It should also be the last.
The BBC News account of the proceedings can be read here.
As well as the next public procedural hearing on 20 August, there is to be a private hearing on 19 August involving only the Crown and the Advocate General. By that time the judges will have read and absorbed the mystery document in respect of which the UK Government has claimed public interest immunity. This is the very first time of which I am aware in Scottish legal history that a hearing has been convened in a criminal appeal from which the appellant and his legal representatives have been excluded. It should also be the last.
Monday, 14 July 2008
The Charles McKee/Monzer al-Kassar theory
The aangirfan blog today publishes a lengthy article flowing from the piece in yesterday's Sunday Express. It favours the "CIA operation against Charles McKee" explanation for the destruction of Pan Am 103. The article contains a useful list of Lockerbie dramatis personae (but once again repeats that defence counsel Bill Taylor QC has become a sheriff: he has not, but his instructing solicitor, Alistair Duff, has). The full article can be read here.
Sunday, 13 July 2008
Sixth procedural hearing
A further procedural hearing is to be held on Wednesday, 16 July. I understand that the purpose of the hearing is to consider a petition by Mr Megrahi's lawyers for an order permitting them access to the productions used in the original trial. This petition is apparently opposed by the Crown. It will be most interesting to hear on what basis the Crown argues that the defence should be denied access to this material.
This issue was first ventilated at the second procedural hearing on 20 December 2007. Here is how I then reported what was said:
'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.'
This issue was first ventilated at the second procedural hearing on 20 December 2007. Here is how I then reported what was said:
'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.'
Scottish Sunday Express article
In today's Scottish Sunday Express there is an article by Ben Borland headlined "Lockerbie bomber to be freed". It tells of my speculation that Abdelbaset Megrahi could soon be freed because, if it is held that the mysterious document that the UK Government insists should not be disclosed, cannot be divulged to the defence, the Lord Advocate (who has said that, if it were up to her, the document would be handed over) might decide that the Crown could not, in conscience, proceed with opposing an appeal that would not, in the circumstances, be seen to be fair to Megrahi. The Sunday Express story in places hardens what was simply speculation on my part into something approaching fact. The article reads:
‘THE Lockerbie bomber is set to be sensationally freed on a “technicality” because of a controversial legal stalemate involving top secret documents.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, 56, could even be released before the end of summer because of Westmin-ster’s refusal to make public the papers relating to the 1988 disaster.
Professor Robert Black – who helped orchestrate the Lockerbie trial – insists the Libyan, currently serving life in Greenock Prison, will be returned to his family long before the 20th anniversary of the disaster in December this year.
Scotland’s top judges are still deciding whether or not to release the secret document, which reportedly points the finger of blame at Iran for the atrocity that killed 270 people.
Earlier this year, Foreign Secretary David Miliband signed a Public Interest Immunity certificate to prevent its content being revealed, saying it could harm the national interest.
Speculation is now growing the judges will rule it should remain classified, forcing Lord Advocate Eilish Angiolini to free Megrahi because he
cannot have a fair appeal.
It would also avoid the need to hear any new evidence that may prove there was a miscarriage of justice or even a deliberate cover-up by the US and UK authorities.
Prof Black told the Sunday Express: “If the court says this document can’t be released in the normal way to the defence, then it is distinctly possible the Lord Advocate will say, if it cannot be seen that this appeal process is fair and open, it is better to say we will no longer oppose this appeal. Not because we believe Mr Megrahi is innocent, but because the appeal cannot be seen to be fair.”
The retired law professor added that such a “cynical” outcome would also avoid any renewed calls for a public inquiry.
The document is reportedly a German intelligence debriefing of an Iranian defector, who claimed Tehran paid a Palestinian terror cell to carry out the bombing, after the US accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger jet, in 1988.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the attack, yesterday said a full hearing would expose the “appalling collusion” of Britain and America.
He added: “There may be an attempt to remove the awkward problem of Megrahi by allowing him to return home and to remove the possibility of a public examination of the evidence.”
Such a move would be “a bit of a downer” to those still seeking the truth, Dr Swire added.'
‘THE Lockerbie bomber is set to be sensationally freed on a “technicality” because of a controversial legal stalemate involving top secret documents.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, 56, could even be released before the end of summer because of Westmin-ster’s refusal to make public the papers relating to the 1988 disaster.
Professor Robert Black – who helped orchestrate the Lockerbie trial – insists the Libyan, currently serving life in Greenock Prison, will be returned to his family long before the 20th anniversary of the disaster in December this year.
Scotland’s top judges are still deciding whether or not to release the secret document, which reportedly points the finger of blame at Iran for the atrocity that killed 270 people.
Earlier this year, Foreign Secretary David Miliband signed a Public Interest Immunity certificate to prevent its content being revealed, saying it could harm the national interest.
Speculation is now growing the judges will rule it should remain classified, forcing Lord Advocate Eilish Angiolini to free Megrahi because he
cannot have a fair appeal.
It would also avoid the need to hear any new evidence that may prove there was a miscarriage of justice or even a deliberate cover-up by the US and UK authorities.
Prof Black told the Sunday Express: “If the court says this document can’t be released in the normal way to the defence, then it is distinctly possible the Lord Advocate will say, if it cannot be seen that this appeal process is fair and open, it is better to say we will no longer oppose this appeal. Not because we believe Mr Megrahi is innocent, but because the appeal cannot be seen to be fair.”
The retired law professor added that such a “cynical” outcome would also avoid any renewed calls for a public inquiry.
The document is reportedly a German intelligence debriefing of an Iranian defector, who claimed Tehran paid a Palestinian terror cell to carry out the bombing, after the US accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger jet, in 1988.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the attack, yesterday said a full hearing would expose the “appalling collusion” of Britain and America.
He added: “There may be an attempt to remove the awkward problem of Megrahi by allowing him to return home and to remove the possibility of a public examination of the evidence.”
Such a move would be “a bit of a downer” to those still seeking the truth, Dr Swire added.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)