The treaty setting up a prisoner transfer agreement between the United Kingdom and Libya was laid before the UK Parliament on 27 January 2009. At least twenty-one parliamentary sitting days must elapse before the UK Government can ratify the treaty. Both governments must do so before the Treaty becomes operational. Because of a parliamentary recess, the UK's ratification cannot take place before 4 March 2009. How long the Libyan ratification process will take, I have no idea. The text of the treaty can be read here.
Art 2(3) reads: "Transfer may be requested by either the transferring State or the receiving State."
Art 3 provides: "A prisoner may be transferred under this Treaty only if the following criteria are met: (...)
(b) the judgment is final and no other criminal proceedings relating to the offence ... are pending in the transferring State; (...)
(e) the transferring and receiving States agree to the transfer."
It is clear therefore that no transfer could be requested without Mr Megrahi's abandoning the current appeal.
Saturday, 31 January 2009
A doleful anniversary
On 31 January 2001 the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist convicted Abdelbaset Megrahi of the murder of 259 people on board Pan Am 103 and eleven people on the ground in Lockerbie. Perhaps before the ninth anniversary this miscarriage of justice will have been rectified. But at the speed that the present appeal proceedings are progressing, I would not counsel you to hold your breath.
Troubling talk
[The following is from an article with the above title by Col Oliver North published on 30 January 2009 on the Fox News website. The full text can be read here. Comment seems superfluous.]
During the interview [with Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite network] Obama also spoke wistfully of the "respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago," and added, "there's no reason why we can't restore that."
Some will say it isn't fair to make our new commander in chief stick to the facts. That's the trouble with television interviews. They are on tape and stay around for years. If you are going to do them, it helps to know the facts.
Let's see, 30 years ago — 1979 — the year that Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran, the "Islamic Revolution" was proclaimed, the U.S. was first described as "the Great Satan," our embassy in Tehran was sacked and 53 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. That's probably not the kind of "respect" Mr. Obama had in mind.
How about 20 years ago — 1989: While investigators were still combing the wreckage of PanAm flight 103, in Lockerbie, Scotland, Libyan dictator Muammar Ghadafi sent MiG-23s to attack a U.S. Navy Carrier Battle Group in the Mediterranean.
During the interview [with Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite network] Obama also spoke wistfully of the "respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago," and added, "there's no reason why we can't restore that."
Some will say it isn't fair to make our new commander in chief stick to the facts. That's the trouble with television interviews. They are on tape and stay around for years. If you are going to do them, it helps to know the facts.
Let's see, 30 years ago — 1979 — the year that Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran, the "Islamic Revolution" was proclaimed, the U.S. was first described as "the Great Satan," our embassy in Tehran was sacked and 53 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. That's probably not the kind of "respect" Mr. Obama had in mind.
How about 20 years ago — 1989: While investigators were still combing the wreckage of PanAm flight 103, in Lockerbie, Scotland, Libyan dictator Muammar Ghadafi sent MiG-23s to attack a U.S. Navy Carrier Battle Group in the Mediterranean.
Friday, 30 January 2009
The Zeist verdict – Prepare to be astonished
[What follows is an article with this title by Dr Jim Swire prepared for The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper with a large circulation, particularly in the North-east of Scotland. I am informed that the article was published in the edition of 27 January 2009, but I have been unable to verify this.]
Present throughout the trial and first appeal at Zeist, as a lay person, I went there fully expecting to hear the guilt of the two Libyans confirmed to the criminal law standard of the removal of any ‘reasonable doubt’.
The prosecution tale was of how clothing found round the crash site led the police to a small shop in Malta, whence a random assortment of children’s and other clothing, had been bought.
Identification of the buyer and the date of sale were immediately unsatisfactory. Gauci, the shopkeeper was on record as saying that pictures of Megrahi shown to him by the police were like the buyer, but he would have to have been taller and younger. Meanwhile his brother had shown him a picture of a man called [Abu] Talb on the front page of the Sunday Times, which he had immediately recognized as the buyer. He had also been aware that up to $4,000,000 reward was on offer for a conviction.
I thought Gauci did his best, under pressure, but reasonable doubt about the buyer’s identity was certainly left. Ex Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser was more critical later, calling Gauci ‘One apple short of a picnic’.
The prosecution led no evidence as to how Megrahi was supposed to have penetrated Malta’s airport security, which appeared much better than that at the Heathrow of those days.
If the bomb had started from Malta, then the bomber would have had to have used a programmable long running timer but even then, how extraordinary that a route involving two changes of aircraft, and timing only allowing 38 minutes of flight time from Heathrow should be used. Why not load it at Heathrow and explode it over mid-Atlantic, a couple of hours later?
The court heard that ‘proof’ of the use of such a timer was alleged to have come solely from finding a fragment of its circuit board. Unfortunately, someone unidentified had gone to considerable trouble to alter the label on its police evidence bag, as though to draw attention to its presence among pieces of cloth within, and the forensic team entered it retrospectively in their hand written report, having to renumber subsequent pages and in addition even failed to test to see if it bore explosive residues. Was it really genuine, beyond reasonable doubt?
The court also heard that the CIA had come into possession of two such timers before Lockerbie, and confirmed that they were of a type that could indeed have been set to run long enough to go off over mid Atlantic.
But there were two main reasons for me why the prosecution case seemed unlikely to be correct.
First, to believe it required belief in the most extraordinary set of ‘coincidences’.
Second, a far more likely and much simpler explanation was suggested by the actual evidence heard in court. It converts the ‘coincidences’ into supportive evidence.
The court heard how Iran had had an airbus shot down by a US ship 6 months before Lockerbie and had sworn revenge. That was an even stronger motive than Libya’s. Also Iran was closely associated with a Syrian based terror group called the PFLP-GC. That group, the court was told, had perfected bombs for use against aircraft. They contained an air pressure switch and a fixed timer. The pressure switch prevented anything happening at ground level, but if put in an aircraft, then 7 minutes after take-off it would switch on the timer. The PFLP-GC timers all ran for about 30 minutes before exploding the Semtex. Thus any aircraft containing such a bomb would be blown up around 7 + 30 minutes after take-off. The user could not alter the flight time: it had to be around 37 minutes. This too was explained to the court
These bombs could be smuggled into an airport at any time – hours days or weeks before they would be used, yet if put aboard they would still explode around 38 minutes after take-off.
The Lockerbie flight lasted 38 minutes from its Heathrow take off. A staggering coincidence?
At the first appeal, the appeal court heard that there had been a break-in to Heathrow airside the night before Lockerbie, giving access to Iran Air’s facilities. It accepted that a break-in was a very unusual event.
Another amazing coincidence?
Was a PFLP-GC bomb brought into the airport for use the following night by the Iran Air personnel? Raises reasonable doubts, doesn’t it?
On the evening of the Lockerbie disaster, the court heard, the Heathrow baggage handler loaded a layer of bags into the container for the Lockerbie flight, went for a tea break, and on coming back noticed that someone had put two more bags on top of those he had loaded. He did not remove them.
A third extraordinary coincidence?
The Court also heard that that placed the two unauthorized, cases close to the position in the very container where the explosion was found to have originated.
Yet another coincidence?
At the time the cases were seen by the Heathrow baggage handler the feeder flight from Frankfurt, on which the prosecution case depended, had not even landed.
These are but a few of the reasons why I personally do not believe the verdict reached at Zeist.
Who did buy the clothes from Gauci then? Remember the name Talb, whose picture was shown to Gauci in the Sunday Times? He was later arrested in Sweden for causing an explosion in a terrorist attack unrelated to Lockerbie. In his flat in Sweden, the police found some more of the clothing from Gauci’s shop, and a calendar on which the 21st December 1988 was ringed.
Again, an amazing coincidence?
Why are we still waiting to see these questions re-addressed?
If we add up just these ‘coincidences’ then, for me, not even the civil standard of the ‘balance of probabilities’ is met
Did the SCCRC really need three years to decide this verdict might be unsafe?
The first appeal was completed on Valentine’s day 2002.
Present throughout the trial and first appeal at Zeist, as a lay person, I went there fully expecting to hear the guilt of the two Libyans confirmed to the criminal law standard of the removal of any ‘reasonable doubt’.
The prosecution tale was of how clothing found round the crash site led the police to a small shop in Malta, whence a random assortment of children’s and other clothing, had been bought.
Identification of the buyer and the date of sale were immediately unsatisfactory. Gauci, the shopkeeper was on record as saying that pictures of Megrahi shown to him by the police were like the buyer, but he would have to have been taller and younger. Meanwhile his brother had shown him a picture of a man called [Abu] Talb on the front page of the Sunday Times, which he had immediately recognized as the buyer. He had also been aware that up to $4,000,000 reward was on offer for a conviction.
I thought Gauci did his best, under pressure, but reasonable doubt about the buyer’s identity was certainly left. Ex Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser was more critical later, calling Gauci ‘One apple short of a picnic’.
The prosecution led no evidence as to how Megrahi was supposed to have penetrated Malta’s airport security, which appeared much better than that at the Heathrow of those days.
If the bomb had started from Malta, then the bomber would have had to have used a programmable long running timer but even then, how extraordinary that a route involving two changes of aircraft, and timing only allowing 38 minutes of flight time from Heathrow should be used. Why not load it at Heathrow and explode it over mid-Atlantic, a couple of hours later?
The court heard that ‘proof’ of the use of such a timer was alleged to have come solely from finding a fragment of its circuit board. Unfortunately, someone unidentified had gone to considerable trouble to alter the label on its police evidence bag, as though to draw attention to its presence among pieces of cloth within, and the forensic team entered it retrospectively in their hand written report, having to renumber subsequent pages and in addition even failed to test to see if it bore explosive residues. Was it really genuine, beyond reasonable doubt?
The court also heard that the CIA had come into possession of two such timers before Lockerbie, and confirmed that they were of a type that could indeed have been set to run long enough to go off over mid Atlantic.
But there were two main reasons for me why the prosecution case seemed unlikely to be correct.
First, to believe it required belief in the most extraordinary set of ‘coincidences’.
Second, a far more likely and much simpler explanation was suggested by the actual evidence heard in court. It converts the ‘coincidences’ into supportive evidence.
The court heard how Iran had had an airbus shot down by a US ship 6 months before Lockerbie and had sworn revenge. That was an even stronger motive than Libya’s. Also Iran was closely associated with a Syrian based terror group called the PFLP-GC. That group, the court was told, had perfected bombs for use against aircraft. They contained an air pressure switch and a fixed timer. The pressure switch prevented anything happening at ground level, but if put in an aircraft, then 7 minutes after take-off it would switch on the timer. The PFLP-GC timers all ran for about 30 minutes before exploding the Semtex. Thus any aircraft containing such a bomb would be blown up around 7 + 30 minutes after take-off. The user could not alter the flight time: it had to be around 37 minutes. This too was explained to the court
These bombs could be smuggled into an airport at any time – hours days or weeks before they would be used, yet if put aboard they would still explode around 38 minutes after take-off.
The Lockerbie flight lasted 38 minutes from its Heathrow take off. A staggering coincidence?
At the first appeal, the appeal court heard that there had been a break-in to Heathrow airside the night before Lockerbie, giving access to Iran Air’s facilities. It accepted that a break-in was a very unusual event.
Another amazing coincidence?
Was a PFLP-GC bomb brought into the airport for use the following night by the Iran Air personnel? Raises reasonable doubts, doesn’t it?
On the evening of the Lockerbie disaster, the court heard, the Heathrow baggage handler loaded a layer of bags into the container for the Lockerbie flight, went for a tea break, and on coming back noticed that someone had put two more bags on top of those he had loaded. He did not remove them.
A third extraordinary coincidence?
The Court also heard that that placed the two unauthorized, cases close to the position in the very container where the explosion was found to have originated.
Yet another coincidence?
At the time the cases were seen by the Heathrow baggage handler the feeder flight from Frankfurt, on which the prosecution case depended, had not even landed.
These are but a few of the reasons why I personally do not believe the verdict reached at Zeist.
Who did buy the clothes from Gauci then? Remember the name Talb, whose picture was shown to Gauci in the Sunday Times? He was later arrested in Sweden for causing an explosion in a terrorist attack unrelated to Lockerbie. In his flat in Sweden, the police found some more of the clothing from Gauci’s shop, and a calendar on which the 21st December 1988 was ringed.
Again, an amazing coincidence?
Why are we still waiting to see these questions re-addressed?
If we add up just these ‘coincidences’ then, for me, not even the civil standard of the ‘balance of probabilities’ is met
Did the SCCRC really need three years to decide this verdict might be unsafe?
The first appeal was completed on Valentine’s day 2002.
Thursday, 29 January 2009
More on the Susan Lindauer saga
The PhoeniciaPhoenix blog today publishes a lengthy post headed "Former CIA asset speaks out after criminal charges dropped." It reads in part:
'Former CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) non-official cover (NOC) asset Susan Lindauer is speaking out after, in one of its final acts, the Bush Justice Department dropped all criminal charges against her for acting as an "unregistered" agent of the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein, traveling to Baghdad, and other acts. Lindauer was arrested in March 2004 after she volunteered to testify before a blue ribbon commission on pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Lindauer, the second cousin of George W. Bush White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and the daughter of a one-time Republican gubernatorial candidate in Alaska, approached two commission members, Trent Lott of Mississippi and John McCain of Arizona with her offer of testimony about intelligence. It was after she made her approach that she was arrested on charges of acting on behalf of Iraq's government. (...)
'In her NOC asset role, Lindauer covered the Iraqi and Libyan missions to the United Nations in New York. She refused to discuss details of the non-official cover status under which she worked, saying it remains sensitive information. Neither country had diplomatic relations with the United States and, therefore, had no embassies in Washington, DC. Lindauer was responsible for maintaining "back channel" links between U.S. intelligence and Iraq and Libya, primarily dealing with counter-terrorism matters. (...)
'Lindauer said her CIA handler, Richard Fuisz, a long-time U.S. intelligence agent in the Middle East, said the CIA learned from the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland that terrorists might use hijacked planes as weapons. (...)
'Like CIA NOC Valerie Plame Wilson, who, along with her NOC firm Brewster Jennings & Associates, was outed by the Bush White House, the failure of the Bush administration to protect Lindauer and her contacts had potentially catastrophic consequences. Lindauer said her intelligence work with Iraq and Libya had made her enemy number one for Syrian-based Ahmed Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command, the actual perpetrators, along with Iran, of the Pan Am 103 bombing.'
'Former CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) non-official cover (NOC) asset Susan Lindauer is speaking out after, in one of its final acts, the Bush Justice Department dropped all criminal charges against her for acting as an "unregistered" agent of the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein, traveling to Baghdad, and other acts. Lindauer was arrested in March 2004 after she volunteered to testify before a blue ribbon commission on pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Lindauer, the second cousin of George W. Bush White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and the daughter of a one-time Republican gubernatorial candidate in Alaska, approached two commission members, Trent Lott of Mississippi and John McCain of Arizona with her offer of testimony about intelligence. It was after she made her approach that she was arrested on charges of acting on behalf of Iraq's government. (...)
'In her NOC asset role, Lindauer covered the Iraqi and Libyan missions to the United Nations in New York. She refused to discuss details of the non-official cover status under which she worked, saying it remains sensitive information. Neither country had diplomatic relations with the United States and, therefore, had no embassies in Washington, DC. Lindauer was responsible for maintaining "back channel" links between U.S. intelligence and Iraq and Libya, primarily dealing with counter-terrorism matters. (...)
'Lindauer said her CIA handler, Richard Fuisz, a long-time U.S. intelligence agent in the Middle East, said the CIA learned from the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland that terrorists might use hijacked planes as weapons. (...)
'Like CIA NOC Valerie Plame Wilson, who, along with her NOC firm Brewster Jennings & Associates, was outed by the Bush White House, the failure of the Bush administration to protect Lindauer and her contacts had potentially catastrophic consequences. Lindauer said her intelligence work with Iraq and Libya had made her enemy number one for Syrian-based Ahmed Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command, the actual perpetrators, along with Iran, of the Pan Am 103 bombing.'
Is there no end to inaccuracy?
On the website of the Sudanese daily newspaper Sudan Vision, the former Secretary General of the Arab Bar Association, Farouq Abu Issa is quoted as saying:
"In my capacity as the Secretary General to the Arab Bar Association, I used to urge the Arab rulers to join the ICC [International Criminal Court] with which I was totally convinced. But, the present international political environment within which the ICC is operating renders its moves against Sudan [ie the arrest warrant sought against President Ahmad al-Bashir] as risking the overall security and stability of the country, hence, the surrender of any national to this Court will escalate such risks. Therefore, I hereby, announce my rejection of any interaction with the ICC, given the double standard dealing that I had witnessed with my very eyes when I was a member to the Defense Board during Lockerbie case prosecution. So, I hereby, would like to advise not only the Sudan, rather, all the Arab States to refrain from dealing with the International Criminal Court."
The Lockerbie trial, of course, was not held in the ICC but in a Scottish court sitting in The Netherlands. Whether Mr Abu Issa was a member of the "Defence Board" (presumably the international group of lawyers convened by Dr Ibrahim Legwell, the then Libyan lawyer acting for Messrs Megrahi and Fhimah) I do not know.
The full article can be read here.
"In my capacity as the Secretary General to the Arab Bar Association, I used to urge the Arab rulers to join the ICC [International Criminal Court] with which I was totally convinced. But, the present international political environment within which the ICC is operating renders its moves against Sudan [ie the arrest warrant sought against President Ahmad al-Bashir] as risking the overall security and stability of the country, hence, the surrender of any national to this Court will escalate such risks. Therefore, I hereby, announce my rejection of any interaction with the ICC, given the double standard dealing that I had witnessed with my very eyes when I was a member to the Defense Board during Lockerbie case prosecution. So, I hereby, would like to advise not only the Sudan, rather, all the Arab States to refrain from dealing with the International Criminal Court."
The Lockerbie trial, of course, was not held in the ICC but in a Scottish court sitting in The Netherlands. Whether Mr Abu Issa was a member of the "Defence Board" (presumably the international group of lawyers convened by Dr Ibrahim Legwell, the then Libyan lawyer acting for Messrs Megrahi and Fhimah) I do not know.
The full article can be read here.
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
Is accuracy a forlorn hope?
The World Policy Institute is a reputable US-based organisation concerned with international affairs. It hosts the World Policy blog, on which distinguished commentators write on international policy issues. A recent contribution by Jonathan Power, a syndicated columnist for -- amongst others -- the International Herald Tribune is headed "Libya's lesson for Iran". It contains the following passages:
"Libya increasingly restrained its bad behavior in its African backyard. In 1999, Libya offered to give up its weapons of mass destruction programs. In 2000, it surrendered the two thugs suspected in the Lockerbie bombing. In March 2003, the Lockerbie legal case was settled with the agreement of a Libyan donation of $2.7 billion to the bereaved families. The trial of the Lockerbie suspects began in a Scottish court a year later. (...)
"While the continuous threat of U.S. force was probably a factor it was not the factor. Active diplomacy (rather than active military pressure) made it possible for Libyans to feel that they were not conceding from a position of weakness; rather they were acting out of self-interest."
The second passage may well be true; but the first contains such egregious errors that one is reminded of the clock that strikes thirteen -- everything else that it communicates is thereby cast into doubt.
"Libya increasingly restrained its bad behavior in its African backyard. In 1999, Libya offered to give up its weapons of mass destruction programs. In 2000, it surrendered the two thugs suspected in the Lockerbie bombing. In March 2003, the Lockerbie legal case was settled with the agreement of a Libyan donation of $2.7 billion to the bereaved families. The trial of the Lockerbie suspects began in a Scottish court a year later. (...)
"While the continuous threat of U.S. force was probably a factor it was not the factor. Active diplomacy (rather than active military pressure) made it possible for Libyans to feel that they were not conceding from a position of weakness; rather they were acting out of self-interest."
The second passage may well be true; but the first contains such egregious errors that one is reminded of the clock that strikes thirteen -- everything else that it communicates is thereby cast into doubt.
Saturday, 24 January 2009
Looking for Lockerbie
[This is the title of a new book about the town of Lockerbie. In contrast to Jill Haldane's recent book, which is an oral history of the experiences of Lockerbie residents at the time of the disaster and thereafter, this book is a pictorial portrait of the town. A review by Boyd Tonkin in The Independent reads as follows:]
When disasters happen, small places marked out by fate may endure a spell in the unwanted limelight, then vanish from our minds. So it was when 270 people died as a bomb destroyed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in the Scottish borders on 21 December 1988.
But among the victims were 35 students from Syracuse University in New York State, homeward bound. Since the early 1990s, a determined programme of exchanges has sent young people from Lockerbie to Syracuse, and (a few years later) vice versa.
These healing contacts are now commemorated in Looking for Lockerbie (Syracuse University Press, £39.95), a book of pictures and words dedicated to the town and compiled by Syracuse professors Lawrence Mason Jr and Melissa Chessher. From chippies and hunt gatherings to boy racers and sheep farmers, they document the community in tender, lavish detail.
Mason calls the book "a love poem from one population to another". And, because they look so hard, they find more than the cliché images of rural Scotland.
When disasters happen, small places marked out by fate may endure a spell in the unwanted limelight, then vanish from our minds. So it was when 270 people died as a bomb destroyed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in the Scottish borders on 21 December 1988.
But among the victims were 35 students from Syracuse University in New York State, homeward bound. Since the early 1990s, a determined programme of exchanges has sent young people from Lockerbie to Syracuse, and (a few years later) vice versa.
These healing contacts are now commemorated in Looking for Lockerbie (Syracuse University Press, £39.95), a book of pictures and words dedicated to the town and compiled by Syracuse professors Lawrence Mason Jr and Melissa Chessher. From chippies and hunt gatherings to boy racers and sheep farmers, they document the community in tender, lavish detail.
Mason calls the book "a love poem from one population to another". And, because they look so hard, they find more than the cliché images of rural Scotland.
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
Pan Am 103 and UTA 772
The latest post on The Masonic Verses blog concerns the destruction of UTA 772 over Niger on 19 September 1989. Interesting parallels and contrasts are drawn with the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.
The wheels of justice...
... grind exceeding slow.
In my coverage on this blog of the tenth procedural hearing on 18 December 2008, I wrote the following:
'The remaining issue discussed was the timing of the next procedural hearing (to consider the further petitions for disclosure lodged on behalf of the appellant before the ninth procedural hearing on 27 and 28 November). Maggie Scott QC for Mr Megrahi proposed that it should be on a date between 21 and 23 January, it having been indicated by the court administrative office that all three of the judges were available then. Ronnie Clancy QC argued that this was, for various reasons, far too early for the Crown and that a date should be fixed in February or March. The Advocate General concurred. The court indicated that it would consider these submissions and intimate its decision on the date of the next hearing “in early course”.'
The dates fixed by the court for this procedural hearing are Wednesday 18th to Friday 20th February 2009.
In my coverage on this blog of the tenth procedural hearing on 18 December 2008, I wrote the following:
'The remaining issue discussed was the timing of the next procedural hearing (to consider the further petitions for disclosure lodged on behalf of the appellant before the ninth procedural hearing on 27 and 28 November). Maggie Scott QC for Mr Megrahi proposed that it should be on a date between 21 and 23 January, it having been indicated by the court administrative office that all three of the judges were available then. Ronnie Clancy QC argued that this was, for various reasons, far too early for the Crown and that a date should be fixed in February or March. The Advocate General concurred. The court indicated that it would consider these submissions and intimate its decision on the date of the next hearing “in early course”.'
The dates fixed by the court for this procedural hearing are Wednesday 18th to Friday 20th February 2009.
Sunday, 18 January 2009
Megrahi's explanation for use of coded passport
[What follows is from an article by Marcello Mega in today’s issue of the Sunday Mail. The full text can be read here. Two other short articles in the same newspaper dealing with aspects of the evidence in the case can be accessed here and here.]
Secret testimony by Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi which he claims proves his innocence can today be revealed by the Sunday Mail.
In two dramatic statements NEVER read out during his trial for mass murder, he: Admits he was a secret agent who illegally bought plane parts, police cars and food which Libya could not import due to sanctions.
Insists he needed a fake passport for his wheeling and dealing - not to slip into Malta to plant a bomb in the suitcase which blew up Pan Am Flight 103.
Claims he went to Malta to buy carpets and find a carpenter willing to supply materials unavailable in Libya at the time.
Critically, the judges who convicted him of killing 270 people did not hear this explanation.
His false passport carrying the name Abdusamad was cited as damning proof by prosecutors that he worked for the Libyan secret service and was trying to cover up his trips.
In the judgment that condemned him for mass murder, they said: "There was no evidence as to why this passport was issued to him."
But terminally ill Megrahi said he needed the passport to do his job for Libyan Arab Airlines.
This allowed him to beat sanctions when trading with other countries for new parts for his bosses. (…)
He said: "I am told that I used the Abdusamad passport when I went to Malta on December 20. This was not for any clandestine reason.
"In order to travel from Tripoli to Malta I do not need to use a passport at all and can simply use an identification card issued by the Immigration Department in Libya.
"All Libyans could do this, although it applied only for trips to and from Malta.
"Secondly, as an Libyan Arab Airlines employee and as someone well known in Tripoli and at the airport in Malta, I could get away without using a passport or an identification card but simply by wearing my LAA uniform. This may sound ridiculous but it is true. If I wanted to do something clandestine in such a way, there would be absolutely no record at all of me going from Tripoli to Malta and back again."
Megrahi wanted to take the stand at his trial in 2000 and 2001 but his legal team, headed by Bill Taylor QC, opted to rely on their belief that the Crown had failed to prove their case.
Without hearing his account, three judges, sitting without a jury, found Megrahi guilty of the worst terrorist act ever perpetrated in Europe.
They attached considerable weight to his short trip on December 20 and 21, 1988, accepting the Crown's argument that Megrahi played a central role in getting the bomb on to a flight at Luqa Airport.
Megrahi's … statement was taken after he and his co-accused, [al-Amin] Khalifa Fhimah, had submitted to the Scottish authorities for trial under Scots law in the Netherlands. (…)
Megrahi's account will lend further weight to the arguments of people who believe in his innocence.
They include Professor Robert Black QC, the architect of the trial in a neutral land, and Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the bombing.
Secret testimony by Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi which he claims proves his innocence can today be revealed by the Sunday Mail.
In two dramatic statements NEVER read out during his trial for mass murder, he: Admits he was a secret agent who illegally bought plane parts, police cars and food which Libya could not import due to sanctions.
Insists he needed a fake passport for his wheeling and dealing - not to slip into Malta to plant a bomb in the suitcase which blew up Pan Am Flight 103.
Claims he went to Malta to buy carpets and find a carpenter willing to supply materials unavailable in Libya at the time.
Critically, the judges who convicted him of killing 270 people did not hear this explanation.
His false passport carrying the name Abdusamad was cited as damning proof by prosecutors that he worked for the Libyan secret service and was trying to cover up his trips.
In the judgment that condemned him for mass murder, they said: "There was no evidence as to why this passport was issued to him."
But terminally ill Megrahi said he needed the passport to do his job for Libyan Arab Airlines.
This allowed him to beat sanctions when trading with other countries for new parts for his bosses. (…)
He said: "I am told that I used the Abdusamad passport when I went to Malta on December 20. This was not for any clandestine reason.
"In order to travel from Tripoli to Malta I do not need to use a passport at all and can simply use an identification card issued by the Immigration Department in Libya.
"All Libyans could do this, although it applied only for trips to and from Malta.
"Secondly, as an Libyan Arab Airlines employee and as someone well known in Tripoli and at the airport in Malta, I could get away without using a passport or an identification card but simply by wearing my LAA uniform. This may sound ridiculous but it is true. If I wanted to do something clandestine in such a way, there would be absolutely no record at all of me going from Tripoli to Malta and back again."
Megrahi wanted to take the stand at his trial in 2000 and 2001 but his legal team, headed by Bill Taylor QC, opted to rely on their belief that the Crown had failed to prove their case.
Without hearing his account, three judges, sitting without a jury, found Megrahi guilty of the worst terrorist act ever perpetrated in Europe.
They attached considerable weight to his short trip on December 20 and 21, 1988, accepting the Crown's argument that Megrahi played a central role in getting the bomb on to a flight at Luqa Airport.
Megrahi's … statement was taken after he and his co-accused, [al-Amin] Khalifa Fhimah, had submitted to the Scottish authorities for trial under Scots law in the Netherlands. (…)
Megrahi's account will lend further weight to the arguments of people who believe in his innocence.
They include Professor Robert Black QC, the architect of the trial in a neutral land, and Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the bombing.
Police call to scrap the right to trial by jury
Scotland's senior police officers have told ministers the automatic right to trial by jury for the most serious crimes should be abolished. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (Acpos) said juries should remain the general rule in criminal trials, but in long and complex cases "a jury may be disposed of ... with such trials proceeding in another manner".
Options include a single judge sitting alone or a panel of judges.
Acpos also said ministers should be consulted on which trials are run without a jury - a fundamental break from the current system, where the Crown Office decides how to prosecute cases independently of politicians.
One human rights lawyer last night called the police plan "a recipe for disaster".
Jury trials for the most serious, or "solemn", crimes have been a pillar of the Scottish legal system since the Middle Ages.
The only modern precedent for dispensing with a jury in solemn proceedings was the trial of two men accused of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, which was heard by three judges.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission later concluded that the conviction arising from the trial of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was unsafe, and it is now being appealed.
[From today's edition of the Sunday Herald. The full article can be read here.]
Options include a single judge sitting alone or a panel of judges.
Acpos also said ministers should be consulted on which trials are run without a jury - a fundamental break from the current system, where the Crown Office decides how to prosecute cases independently of politicians.
One human rights lawyer last night called the police plan "a recipe for disaster".
Jury trials for the most serious, or "solemn", crimes have been a pillar of the Scottish legal system since the Middle Ages.
The only modern precedent for dispensing with a jury in solemn proceedings was the trial of two men accused of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, which was heard by three judges.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission later concluded that the conviction arising from the trial of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was unsafe, and it is now being appealed.
[From today's edition of the Sunday Herald. The full article can be read here.]
Saturday, 17 January 2009
Case against Susan Lindauer dropped
On 17 October 2007, I posted on this blog an article by Michael Collins about Susan Lindauer and her connection to the Lockerbie case. That post can be read here. In a new article in Scoop Independent News, Collins reports that the US federal Government on 15 January 2009 dropped the charges (of acting as an unregistered agent for Iraq) against Ms Lindauer. One paragraph reads:
'Lindauer offered an affidavit concerning the Lockerbie bombing in 1998. Her statement was based on her discussions with Dr Richard Fuisz, whom she named as her CIA handler. Dr Fuisz was said to be "a major operative in the Middle East in the 1980s." Since then the Scottish Criminal Cases [Review] Commission has since uncovered irregularities in the evidence against the two Libyans convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.'
'Lindauer offered an affidavit concerning the Lockerbie bombing in 1998. Her statement was based on her discussions with Dr Richard Fuisz, whom she named as her CIA handler. Dr Fuisz was said to be "a major operative in the Middle East in the 1980s." Since then the Scottish Criminal Cases [Review] Commission has since uncovered irregularities in the evidence against the two Libyans convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.'
Megrahi should be released on bail urgently
If Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is between a rock and a hard place (Leader, The Herald, January 15), then it is a combination of political and judicial manoeuvring that places him there.
The political and legal establishments have all the appearance of being tied to a rail-line as Megrahi's appeal inexorably bears down on them. How to derail him and avert the impending disaster that will reverberate around the world? I can understand your assertion that the Crown Office would find Megrahi's repatriation to Libya palatable but for exactly the opposite reason; the realisation that it did not have a case would have it wishing to get rid of him by any means other than having to re-examine this case in full view of the world's media.
The Scottish Government will come under intense pressure to accede to the wishes of Westminster. The Scottish Government should resist, indeed pre-empt, that pressure by First Minister Alex Salmond bailing Mr Megrahi immediately on compassionate grounds, pending his appeal.
Let us hear no more about the legal impediments to such action. A coach and horses was driven through Scottish legal requirements to bring Megrahi to trial in the first place.
The need to put someone, anyone, in the dock for the Lockerbie bombing has already left the Scottish legal establishment's reputation undermined. If this appeal reaches court, it will be further damaged. Now is the last opportunity to deal fairly with this man and, in turn, redeem what is left of our reputation.
[A letter from John Fowler, published in today's issue of The Herald. The Scottish Government has no power to release Mr Megrahi on bail pending his appeal: that is a matter for the court. But the Scottish Government does have the power, if it so chooses, to order his compassionate release from HMP Greenock because of the state of his health. See the Justice for Megrahi website.]
The political and legal establishments have all the appearance of being tied to a rail-line as Megrahi's appeal inexorably bears down on them. How to derail him and avert the impending disaster that will reverberate around the world? I can understand your assertion that the Crown Office would find Megrahi's repatriation to Libya palatable but for exactly the opposite reason; the realisation that it did not have a case would have it wishing to get rid of him by any means other than having to re-examine this case in full view of the world's media.
The Scottish Government will come under intense pressure to accede to the wishes of Westminster. The Scottish Government should resist, indeed pre-empt, that pressure by First Minister Alex Salmond bailing Mr Megrahi immediately on compassionate grounds, pending his appeal.
Let us hear no more about the legal impediments to such action. A coach and horses was driven through Scottish legal requirements to bring Megrahi to trial in the first place.
The need to put someone, anyone, in the dock for the Lockerbie bombing has already left the Scottish legal establishment's reputation undermined. If this appeal reaches court, it will be further damaged. Now is the last opportunity to deal fairly with this man and, in turn, redeem what is left of our reputation.
[A letter from John Fowler, published in today's issue of The Herald. The Scottish Government has no power to release Mr Megrahi on bail pending his appeal: that is a matter for the court. But the Scottish Government does have the power, if it so chooses, to order his compassionate release from HMP Greenock because of the state of his health. See the Justice for Megrahi website.]
Friday, 16 January 2009
Follow-up on prisoner transfer
Today's issue of The Herald has a follow-up article on the alleged moves (which would involve abandonment of the current appeal) to secure Abdelbaset Megrahi's transfer back to Libya to serve the remainder of his sentence. It reads in part:
'The father of one of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing plans to meet the man convicted of carrying out the atrocity to discuss a diplomatic deal which would allow the Libyan to return home, ending any prospect of an appeal.
'As revealed by The Herald yesterday, official talks have been held in secret on allowing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi to serve the remainder of his 27-year sentence in Libya but any appeal proceedings would have to be dropped for the transfer to be agreed. (...)
'He wants to raise the issues at a meeting with Megrahi which he hopes will take place "fairly soon" but he said he would not ask the Libyan, who is suffering from advanced prostate cancer, to stay in Scotland simply so the evidence can be heard in court.
'He said: "I couldn't possibly go to him and say Please continue the appeal because we want to get to the truth'. I couldn't possibly take that attitude. He is an intelligent man, an honest kind of guy. I wouldn't be surprised if he is mulling over his decision, considering the effects of it on people like myself, people who want to get to the truth.
"I wouldn't want him hanging back on the decision to go home because he thought that he shouldn't, out of loyalty to people like me." (...)
'Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Camp Zeist, said it was "very important" that evidence collated for a future appeal should be released even if legal proceedings are dropped.
'He said: "Theoretically all of this material is Megrahi's. He is the client and he, or his wife and children, would make the decision. I can't think of any reason why the material that Megrahi's lawyers have gathered for the appeal shouldn't simply be released into the public domain.
'"It would be a very unusual step and there are difficulties. Some of the material that has been discovered will be, I think, highly defamatory so if it is simply disclosed without any legal protection that could cause legal difficulties."
'Dr Swire, who first met Megrahi more than three years ago, said: "I would hope some outlet for the evidence could be found but it would have to be used in a format where there was credibility."
'During First Minister's Questions at the Scottish Parliament yesterday, the "prisoner transfer agreement" was raised by Conservative leader Annabel Goldie, who asked whether the integrity and principles of the Scottish justice system would be upheld in relation to any plan to release Megrahi. Alex Salmond replied "yes".
'The Tory leader then asked if Megrahi would be returned to Libya, adding that releasing the bomber would cause "deep unease". Mr Salmond said he could not prejudge or comment on a decision he might be asked to make.'
The Scotsman also has a brief article on the matter. It can be read here.
'The father of one of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing plans to meet the man convicted of carrying out the atrocity to discuss a diplomatic deal which would allow the Libyan to return home, ending any prospect of an appeal.
'As revealed by The Herald yesterday, official talks have been held in secret on allowing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi to serve the remainder of his 27-year sentence in Libya but any appeal proceedings would have to be dropped for the transfer to be agreed. (...)
'He wants to raise the issues at a meeting with Megrahi which he hopes will take place "fairly soon" but he said he would not ask the Libyan, who is suffering from advanced prostate cancer, to stay in Scotland simply so the evidence can be heard in court.
'He said: "I couldn't possibly go to him and say Please continue the appeal because we want to get to the truth'. I couldn't possibly take that attitude. He is an intelligent man, an honest kind of guy. I wouldn't be surprised if he is mulling over his decision, considering the effects of it on people like myself, people who want to get to the truth.
"I wouldn't want him hanging back on the decision to go home because he thought that he shouldn't, out of loyalty to people like me." (...)
'Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Camp Zeist, said it was "very important" that evidence collated for a future appeal should be released even if legal proceedings are dropped.
'He said: "Theoretically all of this material is Megrahi's. He is the client and he, or his wife and children, would make the decision. I can't think of any reason why the material that Megrahi's lawyers have gathered for the appeal shouldn't simply be released into the public domain.
'"It would be a very unusual step and there are difficulties. Some of the material that has been discovered will be, I think, highly defamatory so if it is simply disclosed without any legal protection that could cause legal difficulties."
'Dr Swire, who first met Megrahi more than three years ago, said: "I would hope some outlet for the evidence could be found but it would have to be used in a format where there was credibility."
'During First Minister's Questions at the Scottish Parliament yesterday, the "prisoner transfer agreement" was raised by Conservative leader Annabel Goldie, who asked whether the integrity and principles of the Scottish justice system would be upheld in relation to any plan to release Megrahi. Alex Salmond replied "yes".
'The Tory leader then asked if Megrahi would be returned to Libya, adding that releasing the bomber would cause "deep unease". Mr Salmond said he could not prejudge or comment on a decision he might be asked to make.'
The Scotsman also has a brief article on the matter. It can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)