Libyan Nuke Program Was CIA-MI6 Sting Op

This is the heading over an article on OhMyNews International by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer in which he expands upon the Mathaba.Net allegations featured in the immediately preceding post on this blog. Founding upon information published on Der Spiegel's website on 13 March 2006, in The Guardian on 27 July 2006, and in The New York Times on 25 August 2008 he contends that the Libyan nuclear programme was a CIA-MI6 sting operation designed to bring down the A Q Khan nuclear mafia.

The article can be read here.

Further developments in this saga are related in an Associated Press article dated 22 January 2009 which can be read here.

From a Libyan source

The following is from an article published today on the website of the Libyan news agency Mathaba.Net:

'Rice began a four-nation tour of North Africa in Tripoli, Libya on Friday, meeting with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and other top officials in what the State Department is calling a landmark trip that will symbolize the opening of a new era in ties between the United States and the oil-rich country of Libya.

'Libya succeeded in obtaining good relations with the USA by making several concessions which included billions of dollars in payments to the USA. The "concessions" included allowing the USA and Britain to lay the blame on Libya for the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie which killed hundreds of people. To this day the real perpetrators of this crime have not been sought, with an innocent Libyan languishing in a Scottish jail.

'It also involved Libya creating a fictitious "nuclear weapons" program, so that some odd looking parts and charts, could be handed over to the USA so as to show that any nation that "give up" its weapons can become a friend of the USA. Needless to say, no program ever existed, and the hiring of Pakistanis and others by Libya was merely designed to give some credence to the plan.

'Furthermore, Libya paid huge "compensation" payments to families of the Lockerbie bombing, agreed to release doctors and nurses who had been found guilty of deliberately infecting children in Libya with AIDS, sharing of intelligence, giving up records and intelligence on the Irish Republican Army and other organizations, and allowing USA to show Libya as an opposite example to Iraq.

'The lessons remain clear for all to see: if you have WMD do not give them up, for you will not be attacked - witness North Korea, China, Russia, India, Pakistan and the Zionist entity. If you do not have WMD, expect to be attacked, unless you are clever enough as Libya to allow a good PR campaign for the US by creating and then giving up a fictitious program.'

US Secretary of State's visit to Libya

The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is starting her North African tour today in Libya. Al-Jazeera's English language website has an interesting article on the subject. Here is what it has to say on Lockerbie:

'Rice is also expected to push Gaddafi on a compensation package signed last month.

'No money has been paid into the compensation fund yet but the lead US negotiator with Libya, David Welch, said he was optimistic it would happen soon.

'Libya finalised legalities to set up the fund on Wednesday and one senior US official said it would take "more than days" before enough money was in the account and payments could be made to both sides.

'No details have been given over who will put money into the fund or how much it will amount to but outstanding legal claims could run into billions.

'US victims covered include those who died in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people, and the 1986 attack on a Berlin disco that killed three people and wounded 229.

'It should also compensate Libyans killed in 1986 when US aircraft bombed Tripoli and Benghazi, killing 40 people.

'Rice has come under criticism at home for making the trip before the money is paid out.'

The full article can be read here.

Dr Swire's response to Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi

The Bromsgrove Advertiser (the local newspaper for the area in which he used to practise) has an article on Dr Jim Swire's response to the contention by Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi that the relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie disaster were "greedy" in their compensation claims. The article is largely based on the contents of Dr Swire's letter in The Herald on 29 August 2008. The article, which can be read here, erroneously states that Dr Swire now lives in Glasgow. He still lives in England, but spends a considerable amount of time at his house on the Isle of Skye.

Foreign Secretary's response to Professor Köchler

In July Professor Hans Köchler, appointed by the UN Secretary-General as an observer at the Lockerbie trial, wrote a letter to the UK Foreign Secretary about (a) an error on the Foreign Office's website about the Lockerbie trial and (b) about the Foreign Secretary's assertion of public interest immunity in respect of certain documents, the failure to supply which to the defence formed one of the grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The Foreign Secretary has now replied to Professor Köchler, whose press release reads as follows:

'Vienna, 1 September 2008/P/RE/20260c-is

'In a letter dated 27 August 2008, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom has informed Dr. Hans Koechler, an international observer of the Lockerbie trial appointed by the United Nations, that an erroneous entry about the Lockerbie verdict on the Office's country profile page on Libya has now been corrected. The Foreign Office's web site had wrongly reported that the verdict on the second Libyan suspect in the Lockerbie case, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was "not proven." The information has now been corrected to "not guilty." This is important because one of the main reasons for Dr. Koechler's criticism of the Lockerbie verdict had been its being inconsistent. (While the rationale of the indictment was based on the two Libyan nationals' having conspired together to get a piece of baggage containing a bomb loaded on a plane in Malta, the verdict had declared the first suspect, Mr. Abdelbasset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, "guilty" and the second suspect "not guilty" - both of which determinations require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt.")

'On 21 July 2008 Dr. Hans Koechler had alerted David Miliband about the misleading entry and had also expressed his concerns about the public interest immunity (PII) certificate issued earlier by the Foreign Secretary in connection with certain "sensitive" material that has been withheld from the Defence in the Lockerbie case.

'In the above mentioned letter, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has reiterated the Foreign Secretary's position that release of the material in question "would do real and lasting damage to the UK's relations with other states and the UK's national security." At the same time, the Foreign Office has acknowledged vis-à-vis Dr. Koechler that: "Ultimately, it will be for the Court to decide whether the material should be disclosed, not the Foreign Secretary." In the letter, the Foreign Office furthermore asserted the Scottish Court's being bound by the European Human Rights Convention: "Under the Human Rights Act 1998 the Court has a duty to act in compliance with Convention rights in terms of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including the right to a fair trial."

'In a statement issued today, Dr. Koechler said that it is now up to the Scottish judges to assert the independence of the Scottish judiciary and ensure that the conditions for a fair trial (second appeal) are scrupulously met (which implies disclosure to the Defence of all evidence that is in the possession of the Prosecution). There is absolutely no doubt that in a country where the rule of law prevails a fair trial is ex definitione in the public interest. Dr. Koechler expressed the hope that the final decision on the disclosure of the "sensitive" material will not be delayed further. The new appeal cannot go ahead without this step.

'Dr. Hans Koechler will visit Scotland next week for discussions on the Lockerbie case.'

[Note by RB: Professor Köchler is mistaken when he says that the trial court's finding of "not guilty" in respect of the co-accused, Lamin Fhimah, required proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For acquittal, whether by a verdict of not guilty or one of not proven, all that is required is that the court is not satisfied that the Crown has proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court is certainly not required to be satisfied (beyond reasonable doubt or by any other measure) that he is innocent.]

View The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie programme

I am grateful to a reader of the blog who informs me that the programme is in fact now available for viewing online (at least in the United Kingdom) at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00dc21f/.

According to a report on The Guardian website, 'BBC2's documentary The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie picked up 2 million viewers and an 8% share [of viewers] in the 9pm hour.'

The Conspiracy Files documentary

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.]

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.'

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.