I had rashly assumed that The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie programme would be available today for viewing on the BBC website. This appears, however, not to be the case. Consequently, since I do not myself have a television set (believing, as all right-thinking persons must, that TV rots the brain) I am unable to provide an eye-witness account of the programme. However, informants (including the programme’s producer) tell me that, apart from the issues already mentioned in posts on this blog over the past few days, the programme investigated the Helsinki warning and concluded that it had nothing to do with Pan Am 103. It looked at Juval Aviv’s Interfor Report and concluded that there was no evidence to support it. Also featured were Ahmed Jibril of the PFLP-GC; Oliver North; the Frankfurt baggage handling computer operator in whose locker was found the computer print-out that supposedly showed that an unaccompanied bag had been transferred from Air Malta flight KM 180 to the Pan Am 103 feeder flight; former State Department lawyer Michael Scharf (on the CIA and Giaka and on Tony Gauci); Edwin Bollier; and retired FBI special agent Richard Marquise, all saying what would be expected.
The Independent's television review comments: 'Truth and lies were hopelessly tangled up in The Conspiracy Files, too, a strand that has done some useful work in the past in wiping up the mess left behind by credulous paranoiacs. In the case of this film about the bombing of Pan Am 103, which came down on the town of Lockerbie, matters were less straightforward. The programme briskly sorted out the facts behind some conspiracy theories – such as the nature of an early warning phoned in to the US embassy in Helsinki – while making it clear that there are still unsettling holes in the prosecution case. At least two of the interviewees struck me as bare-faced liars, while as many again had powerful motives for not telling the truth about an event inextricably entangled with the brutal realpolitik of the time. And the film ended with an astonishing interview in which the son of Colonel Gaddafi attacked the relatives of the dead as "greedy" and effectively repudiated Libya's formal acceptance of responsibility for the bombing. "I admit that we play with words," he said insouciantly. "We had to... there was no other solution."'
Here is what The Times's television reviewer has to say: 'Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi is still in jail for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, although he has an appeal pending. The next time television makes a documentary about Lockerbie, it had better come up with a confession, which, as one of the victims' fathers said, was about the only way this matter will be concluded. Getting Colonel Gaddafi's son to chuckle that the Libyans were innocent did not cut it as a pay off. The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie, though flashy, kept hurtling down blind alleys - much like the official investigation itself - and was unsatisfying.'
[For the avoidance of doubt, the view expressed above about the propensity of television to rot the brain is not meant to be taken – entirely – seriously.]
Monday, 1 September 2008
Sunday, 31 August 2008
Another snippet to whet appetite for Conspiracy Files
The Sunday Sun publishes yet another snippet that indicates what is to be expected in The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie television programme. (Query: will there be anything at all in the programme that has not been released to the media in advance?)
This story relates to the Northumberland couple who found on their farm a Toshiba manual which came from Pan Am 103. They claim that, by the time the document was shown as a label production at the Lockerbie trial, it was in a scorched and damaged condition, which had not been the case when they picked it up.
The programme apparently comes to no firm conclusion about the reason for this, merely posing the question: “Why was the piece of paper so altered from when the Hortons found it? Was it proof of a conspiracy or careless handling by the police? The mystery remains.”
Again, nothing new here for those who have been following Lockerbie developments.
This story relates to the Northumberland couple who found on their farm a Toshiba manual which came from Pan Am 103. They claim that, by the time the document was shown as a label production at the Lockerbie trial, it was in a scorched and damaged condition, which had not been the case when they picked it up.
The programme apparently comes to no firm conclusion about the reason for this, merely posing the question: “Why was the piece of paper so altered from when the Hortons found it? Was it proof of a conspiracy or careless handling by the police? The mystery remains.”
Again, nothing new here for those who have been following Lockerbie developments.
Giaka and the CIA cables
The producer of tonight's The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie BBC Two programme has written an article in today's issue of The Independent on Sunday. It deals with Abdul Majid Giaka, a Libyan CIA asset and later defector whose evidence at the Lockerbie trial the judges described 'as "at best grossly exaggerated and at worst simply untrue" and concluded he was "largely motivated by financial considerations". The article focuses on the cables sent by Giaka's CIA handlers in which his lack of useful information on alleged Libyan involvement in the Lockerbie bombing was detailed. Yet, at the trial, he (now with an entirely new version of events) was put forward as a witness of credit by the Crown, who also disgracefully sought to prevent the CIA cables being made available to the defence and to the court. The whole unsavoury episode is dealt with in this post on this blog.
Today's article does not seem to me to add anything to what has been known for a very long time to those interested in the Lockerbie affair.
Today's article does not seem to me to add anything to what has been known for a very long time to those interested in the Lockerbie affair.
Saturday, 30 August 2008
Megrahi on Al-Jazeera?
A normally well-informed source tells me that Abdelbaset Megrahi earlier this week took part by telephone in a discussion programme broadcast on the Arabic service of Al-Jazeera. His comments, it appears, related mainly to Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi's recently broadcast views about the "greed" of the Lockerbie relatives, and were highly critical. If any of the readers of this blog has further information, I would be delighted to have it.
Friday, 29 August 2008
Press reaction to Conspiracy Files revelations
The Herald's coverage can be read here and The Scotsman's here.
For English-based press coverage, see The Telegraph's article here, The Independent's here and The Times's here.
BBC Scotland's Newsnight Scotland broadcast a segment on the story, concentrating mainly on Saif al-Islam. It can be viewed here.
For English-based press coverage, see The Telegraph's article here, The Independent's here and The Times's here.
BBC Scotland's Newsnight Scotland broadcast a segment on the story, concentrating mainly on Saif al-Islam. It can be viewed here.
David Ben-Aryeah on the SCCRC annual report
[David Ben-Aryeah, was one of the first journalists into Lockerbie on the night of the disaster. He has received several major international media awards for his work on Lockerbie and was unpaid advisor to the UK relatives group from 1989 to 2001. He has acted as consultant to many investigative programs on Lockerbie. What follows are his views on the Lockerbie aspects of the SCCRC’s recent annual report.]
For the first time in its relatively short history, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) annual report and accounts for 2007-2008 contains not only substantial reference in the Chairman’s remarks (the Very Revd Dr Graham Forbes CBE) in the foreword of the document but also a two page summary of the Administration of the Lockerbie Review by the Chief Executive, Gerard Sinclair, into the Commission’s role enquiring into the submission of the defence in the Lockerbie case.
(1) The foreword (Pages 2-3):
Dr. Forbes states: ‘In June (2007) we issued our decision to refer the case of Mr. Adbelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi back to the High Court. This has been the most difficult and complex case we have had to review.
'The Commission’s enquiry team worked tirelessly over three years. Some of what we discovered may imply innocence; some of what we discovered may imply guilt. However, such matters are for a court to decide. The Commission formed the view, based on our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we found and other evidence that was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
'Our role in “Lockerbie” is now complete. Our Parliament can be reassured that we carried out our investigations without fear or favour; we travelled where we needed to go, including Malta and Libya; we sought and obtained the documents we believed we needed to reach our decision; the Scottish Government, as did the previous administration, funded us to do what we believed we needed to do. It is a sign of a mature democracy and of our country’s commitment to justice that the State gives the Commission such powers and such access. I gladly pay tribute to the commitment of our Lockerbie team (Senior Legal Officer Robin Johnston, and Legal Officers Andrew Beadsworth, Gordon Newall and Michael Walker, supported by our Chief Executive and administration staff) and to my fellow Board Members who oversaw the investigation from start to finish, scrutinised, challenged, argued and decided.’
[The Board was composed of The Very Reverend Dr. Graham Forbes CBE, Provost of St Mary’s Cathedral Edinburgh (Chairman), Sir Gerald Gordon QC, CBE (author of a major text book on Scots Law), Mr. David Belfall, Mr. Graham Bell QC, Professor Brian Caddy*, Mr. Stewart Campbell* and Mr. Gerard McClay*.
*Appointed 1 July 2007 to replace Sheriff Anderson QC and Professor Peter Duff who resigned due to competing commitments in July 2007 and Mr. Robert Anthony QC who resigned following his appointment as a Sheriff.]
It is important to remember that in the written reasons for the referral of the case for a second appeal, the Commission made mention of six reasons or grounds, though its press release gave details of only four.
(2) Administration of the Lockerbie Review (Pages 16 – 18):
Mr. Graham Sinclair (Chief Executive) provides more detail than was previously available in the 28th June 2007 written reasons for referral back for a second appeal, particularly the following:
‘The Outcome: The Commission referred the applicant’s case to the High Court on 28 June 2007. The reference was based on six grounds mainly relating to evidence which, for one reason or another, was not heard at the trial and which indicated that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Of the six grounds of reference, four were the result of the Commission’s own enquiries rather than the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. The Applicant’s appeal against conviction is ongoing.’
Mr. Sinclair goes on to furnish confirmed expenditure on the case from 2003-4 to 2007-8 as totalling £1,195,827.
The Commission report refers to
a. the fact that Board members ‘scrutinised, challenged, argued and decided’ (1: The Foreword).
b. the grounds of referral ‘relating to evidence which, for one reason or another was not heard at the trial’.
This gives grounds to conclude that the enquiry went well beyond the original 16 volumes of submissions (and at least five subsequent ones). Coupled with the fact that as late as 19th August the Appeal Court granted defence petitions for (1) documents and photographs relevant to the (alleged) identification of Megrahi by the Maltese shopkeeper, Mr Tony Gauci, to be allowed to be shown to an expert psychologist and (2) for access to documents and productions used at the Scottish Court sitting in the Netherlands, and for permission to subject them to forensic scientific examination, there must be serious concerns not only as to the range and scope of evidence that was (or rather was not) presented to the court at the time; and, given the averment that the SCCRC found four additional ground for referral, there could be concerns as to the standard of conduct of the original defence. Taken against the historical demands of the UK relatives for a ‘full, independent enquiry’ into events before, during and after the bombing of Pan Am 103, the pending appeal may well shed light in some very dark corners and go a small way into answering the disturbing spectrum of questions raised during the original trial and appeal.
The appointment of Professor Brian Caddy to the Board of the Commission (albeit it came after he date of the reference of the case back to the Appeal Court) may not be without significance: Professor Caddy is pre-eminent and much respected in the field of forensic science and has research interests concerning firearms discharge residue, trace explosives analysis and has a deep interest in raising and maintaining standards of forensic science practice. His appointment may be not insignificant considering continuing concerns in respect of the qualification and standards of the forensic science practices so far revealed during the investigation (both in the UK and USA) and the trial.
For the first time in its relatively short history, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) annual report and accounts for 2007-2008 contains not only substantial reference in the Chairman’s remarks (the Very Revd Dr Graham Forbes CBE) in the foreword of the document but also a two page summary of the Administration of the Lockerbie Review by the Chief Executive, Gerard Sinclair, into the Commission’s role enquiring into the submission of the defence in the Lockerbie case.
(1) The foreword (Pages 2-3):
Dr. Forbes states: ‘In June (2007) we issued our decision to refer the case of Mr. Adbelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi back to the High Court. This has been the most difficult and complex case we have had to review.
'The Commission’s enquiry team worked tirelessly over three years. Some of what we discovered may imply innocence; some of what we discovered may imply guilt. However, such matters are for a court to decide. The Commission formed the view, based on our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we found and other evidence that was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
'Our role in “Lockerbie” is now complete. Our Parliament can be reassured that we carried out our investigations without fear or favour; we travelled where we needed to go, including Malta and Libya; we sought and obtained the documents we believed we needed to reach our decision; the Scottish Government, as did the previous administration, funded us to do what we believed we needed to do. It is a sign of a mature democracy and of our country’s commitment to justice that the State gives the Commission such powers and such access. I gladly pay tribute to the commitment of our Lockerbie team (Senior Legal Officer Robin Johnston, and Legal Officers Andrew Beadsworth, Gordon Newall and Michael Walker, supported by our Chief Executive and administration staff) and to my fellow Board Members who oversaw the investigation from start to finish, scrutinised, challenged, argued and decided.’
[The Board was composed of The Very Reverend Dr. Graham Forbes CBE, Provost of St Mary’s Cathedral Edinburgh (Chairman), Sir Gerald Gordon QC, CBE (author of a major text book on Scots Law), Mr. David Belfall, Mr. Graham Bell QC, Professor Brian Caddy*, Mr. Stewart Campbell* and Mr. Gerard McClay*.
*Appointed 1 July 2007 to replace Sheriff Anderson QC and Professor Peter Duff who resigned due to competing commitments in July 2007 and Mr. Robert Anthony QC who resigned following his appointment as a Sheriff.]
It is important to remember that in the written reasons for the referral of the case for a second appeal, the Commission made mention of six reasons or grounds, though its press release gave details of only four.
(2) Administration of the Lockerbie Review (Pages 16 – 18):
Mr. Graham Sinclair (Chief Executive) provides more detail than was previously available in the 28th June 2007 written reasons for referral back for a second appeal, particularly the following:
‘The Outcome: The Commission referred the applicant’s case to the High Court on 28 June 2007. The reference was based on six grounds mainly relating to evidence which, for one reason or another, was not heard at the trial and which indicated that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Of the six grounds of reference, four were the result of the Commission’s own enquiries rather than the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. The Applicant’s appeal against conviction is ongoing.’
Mr. Sinclair goes on to furnish confirmed expenditure on the case from 2003-4 to 2007-8 as totalling £1,195,827.
The Commission report refers to
a. the fact that Board members ‘scrutinised, challenged, argued and decided’ (1: The Foreword).
b. the grounds of referral ‘relating to evidence which, for one reason or another was not heard at the trial’.
This gives grounds to conclude that the enquiry went well beyond the original 16 volumes of submissions (and at least five subsequent ones). Coupled with the fact that as late as 19th August the Appeal Court granted defence petitions for (1) documents and photographs relevant to the (alleged) identification of Megrahi by the Maltese shopkeeper, Mr Tony Gauci, to be allowed to be shown to an expert psychologist and (2) for access to documents and productions used at the Scottish Court sitting in the Netherlands, and for permission to subject them to forensic scientific examination, there must be serious concerns not only as to the range and scope of evidence that was (or rather was not) presented to the court at the time; and, given the averment that the SCCRC found four additional ground for referral, there could be concerns as to the standard of conduct of the original defence. Taken against the historical demands of the UK relatives for a ‘full, independent enquiry’ into events before, during and after the bombing of Pan Am 103, the pending appeal may well shed light in some very dark corners and go a small way into answering the disturbing spectrum of questions raised during the original trial and appeal.
The appointment of Professor Brian Caddy to the Board of the Commission (albeit it came after he date of the reference of the case back to the Appeal Court) may not be without significance: Professor Caddy is pre-eminent and much respected in the field of forensic science and has research interests concerning firearms discharge residue, trace explosives analysis and has a deep interest in raising and maintaining standards of forensic science practice. His appointment may be not insignificant considering continuing concerns in respect of the qualification and standards of the forensic science practices so far revealed during the investigation (both in the UK and USA) and the trial.
Thursday, 28 August 2008
News at Ten broadcasts Lumpert interview
ITN's News at Ten programme this evening broadcast an interview with Ulrich Lumpert, the MEBO engineer who now claims that the fragment of MST-13 circuit board presented to the Lockerbie trial at Zeist as part of the timing mechanism of the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103, in fact came from a non-operative prototype. The account on the News at Ten website reads as follows:
'An exclusive News at Ten interview has cast new doubt on who was to blame for the Lockerbie bombing.
'A witness who helped convict a Libyan secret service agent of bringing down Pan Am flight 103 has now changed his story.
'Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was convicted of the bombing that killed 270 people, including 11 residents of the Scottish town of Lockerbie.
'But electronics engineer Ulrich Lumpert says what he told the trial about the timing device said to have detonated the explosives was wrong.
'A key part of the evidence in the case was a singed fragment of a timer traced to Swiss company Mebo, where Mr Lumpert worked.
'Mebo admitted selling timers to Libya but Mr Lumpert now claims the fragment found was part of a non-functional timer that could not possibly have helped to bring down Pan Am 103.
'Mr Lumpert now says the bombing could not have happened in the way prosecutors described it, leaving more questions unanswered about the Lockerbie bombing.'
[The back story can be obtained by typing "Lumpert" into the Search Blog box at the top of the page and the interview itself can be accessed by UK computers from the website mentioned above.]
'An exclusive News at Ten interview has cast new doubt on who was to blame for the Lockerbie bombing.
'A witness who helped convict a Libyan secret service agent of bringing down Pan Am flight 103 has now changed his story.
'Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was convicted of the bombing that killed 270 people, including 11 residents of the Scottish town of Lockerbie.
'But electronics engineer Ulrich Lumpert says what he told the trial about the timing device said to have detonated the explosives was wrong.
'A key part of the evidence in the case was a singed fragment of a timer traced to Swiss company Mebo, where Mr Lumpert worked.
'Mebo admitted selling timers to Libya but Mr Lumpert now claims the fragment found was part of a non-functional timer that could not possibly have helped to bring down Pan Am 103.
'Mr Lumpert now says the bombing could not have happened in the way prosecutors described it, leaving more questions unanswered about the Lockerbie bombing.'
[The back story can be obtained by typing "Lumpert" into the Search Blog box at the top of the page and the interview itself can be accessed by UK computers from the website mentioned above.]
Money cannot bring back our loved ones
What follows is the text of a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in the issue of The Herald for Friday, 29 August:
'Money cannot bring back our loved ones In the years following the Lockerbie atrocity Libya found her oil industry progressively crippled by UN (and US) sanctions, which denied her the use of ever more sophisticated western oil-recovery technology.
'Following her agreement to allow her two citizens to appear in front of a Scottish criminal court (at Zeist in Holland), one was found guilty of having carried out the atrocity.
'The terms for withdrawal of the UN sanctions included that Libya acknowledge her guilt and pay "compensation" for the atrocity. The scope for negotiation was clear: meeting the UN requirements would allow Libya's economic recovery, no less. This is now being achieved through a refurbishment of her oilfields with the benefit of western (mainly US) technology.
'In a letter to the UN after the Zeist verdict was passed, Libya's phraseology was that "since a Scottish court had found one of her agents guilty, therefore she would pay compensation''. The terms of the financial "compensation" were negotiated by a team of US lawyers representing most relatives, including myself. The details of these negotiations remain embargoed. The then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, stressed the negotiations were a legal, not a political, issue. Of course.
'Colonel Gaddafi's talented and artistic son, Saif, now claims the relatives were "greedy". I am glad to see that Libya's economy is recovering, far beyond the value of the "compensation" negotiations and that she is becoming accepted as other than a promoter of terrorism. Both of these facts suggest a diminution of hostility and material gains for both sides.
'I salute Saif and wish him happiness, which I think he is more likely to find in his life, if it is true, as he claims, that he is dropping out of politics. I just wish that the needs of the relatives, namely a thirst for the truth and for justice, would be attended to rather than an alleged hunger for money.
'A trapped man dies of thirst long before he would die of hunger.
'Financial "compensation" must remain in its inverted commas. Money cannot buy our families back.
'But there is some genuine compensation to be had from seeing the healing of the enmity between the West and Libya. I thank Saif for providing the opportunity to say this.
'So far as many relatives I know would say, we would gladly repay any "compensation" money if we could just have our loved ones back.'
'Money cannot bring back our loved ones In the years following the Lockerbie atrocity Libya found her oil industry progressively crippled by UN (and US) sanctions, which denied her the use of ever more sophisticated western oil-recovery technology.
'Following her agreement to allow her two citizens to appear in front of a Scottish criminal court (at Zeist in Holland), one was found guilty of having carried out the atrocity.
'The terms for withdrawal of the UN sanctions included that Libya acknowledge her guilt and pay "compensation" for the atrocity. The scope for negotiation was clear: meeting the UN requirements would allow Libya's economic recovery, no less. This is now being achieved through a refurbishment of her oilfields with the benefit of western (mainly US) technology.
'In a letter to the UN after the Zeist verdict was passed, Libya's phraseology was that "since a Scottish court had found one of her agents guilty, therefore she would pay compensation''. The terms of the financial "compensation" were negotiated by a team of US lawyers representing most relatives, including myself. The details of these negotiations remain embargoed. The then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, stressed the negotiations were a legal, not a political, issue. Of course.
'Colonel Gaddafi's talented and artistic son, Saif, now claims the relatives were "greedy". I am glad to see that Libya's economy is recovering, far beyond the value of the "compensation" negotiations and that she is becoming accepted as other than a promoter of terrorism. Both of these facts suggest a diminution of hostility and material gains for both sides.
'I salute Saif and wish him happiness, which I think he is more likely to find in his life, if it is true, as he claims, that he is dropping out of politics. I just wish that the needs of the relatives, namely a thirst for the truth and for justice, would be attended to rather than an alleged hunger for money.
'A trapped man dies of thirst long before he would die of hunger.
'Financial "compensation" must remain in its inverted commas. Money cannot buy our families back.
'But there is some genuine compensation to be had from seeing the healing of the enmity between the West and Libya. I thank Saif for providing the opportunity to say this.
'So far as many relatives I know would say, we would gladly repay any "compensation" money if we could just have our loved ones back.'
More on the forthcoming BBC Two programme
The BBC News website has a lengthy article on what the forthcoming BBC Two programme The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie has uncovered. It focuses on (1) the failure of the police to pass on to Abdelbaset Megrahi's defence team information, of which the police were aware, to the effect that the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, had seen a photograph of Megrahi four days before the identification parade at which he pointed him out as resembling the person who had bought in his shop the clothes that were in the suitcase along with the bomb; and (2) comments by Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi to the effect that in the compensation negotiations the relatives of those killed on board Pan Am 103 had been "greedy" and "materialistic". He is also quoted as saying:
"Yes, we wrote a letter to the Security Council saying we are responsible for the acts of our employees... but it doesn't mean that we did it in fact.
"I admit that we played with words - we had to.
"What can you do? Without writing that letter we would not be able to get rid of sanctions."
Reactions from relatives and their US lawyers can be read here.
"Yes, we wrote a letter to the Security Council saying we are responsible for the acts of our employees... but it doesn't mean that we did it in fact.
"I admit that we played with words - we had to.
"What can you do? Without writing that letter we would not be able to get rid of sanctions."
Reactions from relatives and their US lawyers can be read here.
Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Libyan August 2003 "acceptance of responsibility"
I recently discovered that it is quite difficult to find on the internet the text of the Libyan "acceptance of responsibility" for Lockerbie. Here, for ease of reference, is the document:
Letter dated 15 August 2003 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council
I am pleased to inform you that the remaining issues relating to the fulfilment of all Security Council resolutions resulting from the Lockerbie incident have been resolved. I am also pleased to inform you that my country is confident that the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States of America will be confirming this development to you and to members of the Council as well. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has sought to cooperate in good faith throughout the past years to bring about a solution to this matter.
In that context and out of respect for international law and pursuant to the Security Council resolutions, Libya as a sovereign State:
• Has facilitated the bringing to justice of the two suspects charged with the bombing of Pan Am 103 and accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials.
• Has cooperated with the Scottish investigating authorities before and during the trial and pledges to cooperate in good faith with any further requests for information in connection with the Pan Am 103 investigation. Such cooperation would be extended in good faith through the usual channels.
• Has arranged for the payment of appropriate compensation. To that end, a special fund has been established and instructions have already been issued to transmit the necessary sums to an agreed escrow account within a matter of days.
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which during the last two decades has, on numerous occasions, condemned all acts of terrorism in its correspondence to the General Assembly and to the Security Council, reaffirms its commitment to that policy. The following are examples of that policy. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya confirms its support for Security Council resolutions 1373 (2001) which stipulates, according to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, that all States are to “refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts”; that they are to “take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including taking action and sharing information to provide early warning to other States”; that they are to “deny safe haven to any person who finances, plans, supports, or commits terrorist acts”; that they are to “ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice”; and that they are to “afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession, deemed necessary for legal proceedings”.
In that connection, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is committed to be cooperative in the international fight against terrorism. It is also committed to cooperate with efforts to bring to justice those who are suspects.
In addition, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya renews its support for the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism as well as its support for such General Assembly resolutions as resolution 55/158, in which the Assembly “strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed”.
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya continues to endorse the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, which is contained in the annex to General Assembly resolution 49/60. That Declaration stipulates that all States shall “refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in territories of other States, or from acquiescing in or encouraging terrorist activities within their territories directed towards the commission of such acts”. It also stipulates that “those responsible for acts of international terrorism must be brought to justice”.
In line with this forceful denunciation of terrorism in all its forms, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has signed regional conventions and bilateral agreements as well as the twelve international conventions to fight terrorism. It recently reported those steps to the Security Council and pledged to refrain from becoming involved in any acts of terrorism. In particular, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya pledged “not to engage in, attempt, or participate in any way whatever in the organization, financing or commission of terrorist acts or to incite the commission of terrorist acts or support them directly or indirectly; and to prevent its territory from being used for the planning, organization or perpetration of terrorist offences by, inter alia, preventing the illicit entry, sheltering or sojourn of terrorist elements or by receiving, sheltering, training, arming or financing them or by providing them with facilities”(see S/2001/1323). Libya’s report to the Security Council also detailed the specific steps that were taken to implement those pledges.
Suffice it to say that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has pledged itself not only to cooperate in the international fight against terrorism but also to take practical measures to ensure that such cooperation is effective.
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya appreciates the efforts made and the parts played by the Member States of the United Nations, by the Secretary-General and by other entities in bringing about the resolution of this long-standing matter. In expressing such appreciation, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya affirms that it will have fulfilled all Security Council requirements relevant to the Lockerbie incident upon transfer of the necessary sums to the agreed escrow account. It trusts that the Council will agree. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 16 of Council resolution 883 (1993) and paragraph 8 of resolution 1192 (1998), the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya requests that in that event the Council immediately lift the measures set forth in its resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993).
I should be grateful if you would have the present letter circulated as a document of the Security Council.
(Signed) Ahmed A. Own
Ambassador
Chargé d’affaires a.i.
Letter dated 15 August 2003 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council
I am pleased to inform you that the remaining issues relating to the fulfilment of all Security Council resolutions resulting from the Lockerbie incident have been resolved. I am also pleased to inform you that my country is confident that the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States of America will be confirming this development to you and to members of the Council as well. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has sought to cooperate in good faith throughout the past years to bring about a solution to this matter.
In that context and out of respect for international law and pursuant to the Security Council resolutions, Libya as a sovereign State:
• Has facilitated the bringing to justice of the two suspects charged with the bombing of Pan Am 103 and accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials.
• Has cooperated with the Scottish investigating authorities before and during the trial and pledges to cooperate in good faith with any further requests for information in connection with the Pan Am 103 investigation. Such cooperation would be extended in good faith through the usual channels.
• Has arranged for the payment of appropriate compensation. To that end, a special fund has been established and instructions have already been issued to transmit the necessary sums to an agreed escrow account within a matter of days.
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which during the last two decades has, on numerous occasions, condemned all acts of terrorism in its correspondence to the General Assembly and to the Security Council, reaffirms its commitment to that policy. The following are examples of that policy. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya confirms its support for Security Council resolutions 1373 (2001) which stipulates, according to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, that all States are to “refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts”; that they are to “take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including taking action and sharing information to provide early warning to other States”; that they are to “deny safe haven to any person who finances, plans, supports, or commits terrorist acts”; that they are to “ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice”; and that they are to “afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession, deemed necessary for legal proceedings”.
In that connection, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is committed to be cooperative in the international fight against terrorism. It is also committed to cooperate with efforts to bring to justice those who are suspects.
In addition, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya renews its support for the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism as well as its support for such General Assembly resolutions as resolution 55/158, in which the Assembly “strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed”.
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya continues to endorse the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, which is contained in the annex to General Assembly resolution 49/60. That Declaration stipulates that all States shall “refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in territories of other States, or from acquiescing in or encouraging terrorist activities within their territories directed towards the commission of such acts”. It also stipulates that “those responsible for acts of international terrorism must be brought to justice”.
In line with this forceful denunciation of terrorism in all its forms, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has signed regional conventions and bilateral agreements as well as the twelve international conventions to fight terrorism. It recently reported those steps to the Security Council and pledged to refrain from becoming involved in any acts of terrorism. In particular, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya pledged “not to engage in, attempt, or participate in any way whatever in the organization, financing or commission of terrorist acts or to incite the commission of terrorist acts or support them directly or indirectly; and to prevent its territory from being used for the planning, organization or perpetration of terrorist offences by, inter alia, preventing the illicit entry, sheltering or sojourn of terrorist elements or by receiving, sheltering, training, arming or financing them or by providing them with facilities”(see S/2001/1323). Libya’s report to the Security Council also detailed the specific steps that were taken to implement those pledges.
Suffice it to say that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has pledged itself not only to cooperate in the international fight against terrorism but also to take practical measures to ensure that such cooperation is effective.
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya appreciates the efforts made and the parts played by the Member States of the United Nations, by the Secretary-General and by other entities in bringing about the resolution of this long-standing matter. In expressing such appreciation, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya affirms that it will have fulfilled all Security Council requirements relevant to the Lockerbie incident upon transfer of the necessary sums to the agreed escrow account. It trusts that the Council will agree. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 16 of Council resolution 883 (1993) and paragraph 8 of resolution 1192 (1998), the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya requests that in that event the Council immediately lift the measures set forth in its resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993).
I should be grateful if you would have the present letter circulated as a document of the Security Council.
(Signed) Ahmed A. Own
Ambassador
Chargé d’affaires a.i.
Monday, 25 August 2008
The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie
The trailer for this programme, which is to be broadcast on BBC Two on Sunday, 31 August 2008 at 21.00 BST, can be viewed here.
Sunday, 24 August 2008
Lockerbie - Mueller, Thurman, Bollier, Lumpert and a timer
This is the heading over a post dated 23 August on the Terrorism blog. Amongst many other things, it quotes responses from The Herald website to the two Lockerbie letters published there. Once again, however, it contains the false statement that Abdelbaset Megrahi's counsel at Zeist, Bill Taylor QC, has become a sheriff.
Saturday, 23 August 2008
Reaction to the High Court of Justiciary decision
There are two letters in today's issue of The Herald, welcoming the decision of the High Court on the issue of the appellant's access to productions used at the Zeist trial, and the speed with which that decision was arrived at. They are from Dr Jim Swire and Tom Minogue, a long-standing campaigner against injustices perpetrated by the Scottish court system. The letters can be read here. The comments from members of the public which follow the letters are also well worth reading.
Friday, 22 August 2008
English court's robust approach to "national security" non-disclosure claim
Given that the thrust of the Advocate General's submissions to the High Court of Justiciary on the public interest immunity (PII) issue has been to seek to induce the Scottish court to adopt an approach identical to, or more closely in line with, that taken in the English courts, it is instructive to read yesterday's judgement by Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones in the case of Binyam Mohamed (the last UK resident imprisoned at Guantanamo).
The Foreign Secretary in that case contended that although information had been supplied to the US authorities from UK security and intelligence sources about the circumstances of Mr Mohamed's detention and interrogation, that information need not be supplied to the defence team. The basis of the Foreign Secretary's contention was "that disclosure, even on a limited basis ... would seriously prejudice the viability of the United Kingdom's liaison relationships with highly valued partners ... and the importance of keeping secret information received on a confidential basis from informants and liaison intelligence agencies so as to protect the operational effectiveness of the United Kingdom security and intelligence agencies."
This is precisely the basis of the Foreign Secretary's PII certificate in the Lockerbie appeal.
In the Binyam Mohamed case the English court overrode the secrecy claim and ordered disclosure. The full judgement can be read here.
[I am grateful to Big David for drawing my attention to this judgement.]
The Foreign Secretary in that case contended that although information had been supplied to the US authorities from UK security and intelligence sources about the circumstances of Mr Mohamed's detention and interrogation, that information need not be supplied to the defence team. The basis of the Foreign Secretary's contention was "that disclosure, even on a limited basis ... would seriously prejudice the viability of the United Kingdom's liaison relationships with highly valued partners ... and the importance of keeping secret information received on a confidential basis from informants and liaison intelligence agencies so as to protect the operational effectiveness of the United Kingdom security and intelligence agencies."
This is precisely the basis of the Foreign Secretary's PII certificate in the Lockerbie appeal.
In the Binyam Mohamed case the English court overrode the secrecy claim and ordered disclosure. The full judgement can be read here.
[I am grateful to Big David for drawing my attention to this judgement.]
A view from France
The website of the French news agency Alter Info today publishes a lengthy article on the Libyan political scene. It starts with a discussion of the Lockerbie affair and takes the view that Libya was framed. Much weight is given to the recent affidavit by MEBO engineer Ulrich Lumpert relating to the provenance of the fragment of MST-13 circuit board that was such an important link in incriminating Libya and Megahi. The relevant portion of the article reads as follows:
'Après l'attentat de Lockerbie, les USA ont prouvé la culpabilité de la Libye sur le fait qu'un élément de détonateur de fabrication Suisse avait été trouvé sur les lieux. Justement, la Suisse venait de vendre 20 détonateurs de ce modèle à la Libye. Cette dernière était néanmoins parvenue à présenter les 20 détonateurs à des émissaires. Mais "tout concordait". Cette cabale a coûté un libyen innoçent en prison à perpetuité et 2,7 milliards d'US$ d'indemnités aux familles de victimes. 10 millions de dollars à chacune des familles des 270 victimes de l'attentat.
'Coup de théatre, en 2007, un ingénieur Suisse du nom d'Ulrich Lumpert, ex-employé du fabricant des détonateurs, l'entreprise Suisse MEBO, avoue avoir menti et avoir volé le fragment de détonateur et l'avoir "donné" à un des enquêteurs écossais. La CIA a dès lors eu beau jeu de prouver la culpabilité de la Libye. Ce fragment était en fait issu d'un détonateur défectueux mis au rebut, n'ayant pas passé le contrôle qualité. Après "traitement" (après "l'explosion de l'avion") par la CIA, le fragment était difficilement identifiable comme tel. Ce qui a néanmoins été fait par Ulrich Lumpert!
'Ulrich Lumpert, ingénieur Suisse travaillant pour le fabricant des détonateurs à l'époque de l'attentat de Lockerbie, a donc "donné" (pour quel prix? Mystère) la preuve nécessaire à la CIA pour faire accuser la Libye. La CIA avait de bonnes raisons de conspirer contre la Libye, dont le fait que Kadhafi était le héros de la nation africaine parce qu'il visait le développement de l'Union Africaine qui stagnait, minée par les occidentaux. Mais aussi parce que Kadhafi avait eu le talent de joindre une démocratie populaire à une intégration de sa culture musulmane et l'éradication de l'islamisme dans son pays.
'Les USA dépensent des milliards pour rendre les musulmans belliqueux, ce n'est pas pour qu'un Kadhafi calme le jeu.
'L'attentat de Lockerbie, après des mois et des mois d'enquête, personne ne l'avait revendiqué et il n'y avait pas de coupable. Par conséquent, il était librement attribuable à n'importe qui. La Libye, gêneur de première grandeur dans les plans africains de l'occident, dont la "Révolution Verte", pour ne citer que ça, était le coupable idéal. La CIA a monté le dossier de toute pièce et s'est approchée d'Ulrich Lumpert.
'Durant des années la Libye s'est trouvée sous embargo de l'ONU sur exigence des Etats-Unis. Voyant son peuple privé de tous les éléments de première nécessité, nourriture, médicaments, Kadhafi s'est mis à genoux en avouant publiquement "la faute" de la Libye. L'embargo a été partiellement levé. Pour le lever complètement, il a été exigé de Kadhafi qu'il livre les "coupables", deux Libyens qui passaient par là justement ce jour-là et ont été filmés par les caméras de surveillance, et qu'il indemnise les familles.
'Kadhafi n'a pas eu d'autre choix que de s'exécuter. Les "coupables" se sont livrés, courageusement, pour leur pays. Ils sont allés d'eux-même se faire juger en Ecosse. Kadhafi à versé 10 millions de d'USdollars à chaque famille des 270 victimes, soit 2,7 milliards de dollars en tout. Un des libyens a été acquitté. Trop difficile à "prouver" sa culpabilité. L'autre a été condamné à vie alors qu'il est parfaitement innocent (il est toujours en prison en l'occurrence).'
'Après l'attentat de Lockerbie, les USA ont prouvé la culpabilité de la Libye sur le fait qu'un élément de détonateur de fabrication Suisse avait été trouvé sur les lieux. Justement, la Suisse venait de vendre 20 détonateurs de ce modèle à la Libye. Cette dernière était néanmoins parvenue à présenter les 20 détonateurs à des émissaires. Mais "tout concordait". Cette cabale a coûté un libyen innoçent en prison à perpetuité et 2,7 milliards d'US$ d'indemnités aux familles de victimes. 10 millions de dollars à chacune des familles des 270 victimes de l'attentat.
'Coup de théatre, en 2007, un ingénieur Suisse du nom d'Ulrich Lumpert, ex-employé du fabricant des détonateurs, l'entreprise Suisse MEBO, avoue avoir menti et avoir volé le fragment de détonateur et l'avoir "donné" à un des enquêteurs écossais. La CIA a dès lors eu beau jeu de prouver la culpabilité de la Libye. Ce fragment était en fait issu d'un détonateur défectueux mis au rebut, n'ayant pas passé le contrôle qualité. Après "traitement" (après "l'explosion de l'avion") par la CIA, le fragment était difficilement identifiable comme tel. Ce qui a néanmoins été fait par Ulrich Lumpert!
'Ulrich Lumpert, ingénieur Suisse travaillant pour le fabricant des détonateurs à l'époque de l'attentat de Lockerbie, a donc "donné" (pour quel prix? Mystère) la preuve nécessaire à la CIA pour faire accuser la Libye. La CIA avait de bonnes raisons de conspirer contre la Libye, dont le fait que Kadhafi était le héros de la nation africaine parce qu'il visait le développement de l'Union Africaine qui stagnait, minée par les occidentaux. Mais aussi parce que Kadhafi avait eu le talent de joindre une démocratie populaire à une intégration de sa culture musulmane et l'éradication de l'islamisme dans son pays.
'Les USA dépensent des milliards pour rendre les musulmans belliqueux, ce n'est pas pour qu'un Kadhafi calme le jeu.
'L'attentat de Lockerbie, après des mois et des mois d'enquête, personne ne l'avait revendiqué et il n'y avait pas de coupable. Par conséquent, il était librement attribuable à n'importe qui. La Libye, gêneur de première grandeur dans les plans africains de l'occident, dont la "Révolution Verte", pour ne citer que ça, était le coupable idéal. La CIA a monté le dossier de toute pièce et s'est approchée d'Ulrich Lumpert.
'Durant des années la Libye s'est trouvée sous embargo de l'ONU sur exigence des Etats-Unis. Voyant son peuple privé de tous les éléments de première nécessité, nourriture, médicaments, Kadhafi s'est mis à genoux en avouant publiquement "la faute" de la Libye. L'embargo a été partiellement levé. Pour le lever complètement, il a été exigé de Kadhafi qu'il livre les "coupables", deux Libyens qui passaient par là justement ce jour-là et ont été filmés par les caméras de surveillance, et qu'il indemnise les familles.
'Kadhafi n'a pas eu d'autre choix que de s'exécuter. Les "coupables" se sont livrés, courageusement, pour leur pays. Ils sont allés d'eux-même se faire juger en Ecosse. Kadhafi à versé 10 millions de d'USdollars à chaque famille des 270 victimes, soit 2,7 milliards de dollars en tout. Un des libyens a été acquitté. Trop difficile à "prouver" sa culpabilité. L'autre a été condamné à vie alors qu'il est parfaitement innocent (il est toujours en prison en l'occurrence).'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)