I have just discovered an article in The Scotsman on 11 February 2009 by Ross Lydall regarding Scottish Questions in the House of Commons. The issue that he raises is whether, given there is now a devolved Scottish Government and Parliament, there is any point in having a UK Parliament session of questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland when he no longer has ministerial responsibility for anything other than such few topics as remain undevolved. In the course of this article, the following sentence appears:
"Similarly, the highly-sensitive negotiations involving the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, and those who stood trial in London in connection with the Glasgow Airport attack, would have involved oversight by Scotland Office officials."
I do not know what "highly-sensitive negotiations" Mr Lydall is referring to. If he is alluding to the contacts that have taken place regarding a possible transfer of Abdelbaset Megrahi to Libya to serve the remainder of his sentence, I know that on the British side those involved have been the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (responsible for the undevolved topic of foreign relations) and the Scottish Government Justice Department (responsible for the devolved topic of prisoner transfer in respect of persons in Scottish prisons). It would surprise me greatly if the Scotland Office, which has absolutely no relevant ministerial responsibility, had been involved in those contacts.
Saturday, 14 February 2009
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
'Lockerbie Witnesses Were Paid'
This is the headline over a new article by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer on OhMyNews International. It reads in part:
'In recent times, allegations have resurfaced regarding payments offered to key witnesses of the Lockerbie trial.
'Specifically, there have been rumors that Majid Giaka, Paul and Tony Gauci were each paid about US$4 million for their help in the conviction of Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988. (...)
'Richard Marquise, the FBI agent who led the Lockerbie investigation, forcefully denied that witnesses were ever offered any money.
'"I can assure you that no witnesses were ever offered any money by anyone--including the CIA," Marquise told OhmyNews. "This issue came up at trial and I spoke with the defense lawyers about it in Edinburgh in 1999 -- before trial. No one was promised or even told that they could get money for saying anything. Every FBI agent was under specific orders not to mention money to any potential witness." (...)
'A source speaking on condition of anonymity told Jeff Stein, the national security editor of the Congressional Quarterly, that a key witness, Tony Gauci, and his brother were each paid somewhere between $3 million to $4 million for providing information leading to the conviction of Megrahi.
'Moreover, former State Department lawyer Michael Scharf confirmed to OhmyNews that rewards were paid in the context of the Lockerbie trial.
'"I knew that rewards payments were made, but not the amount. The Awards for Terrorism Information program has been around since the 1980s, and has been expanded to rewards for information leading to the arrest or conviction of international indicted war criminals like Karadzic and Mladic. When I worked at the Office of the Legal Adviser of the State Department I was involved in the program," Scharf wrote in an email to OhmyNews. (...)
'Prof Black, often referred to as the architect of the Lockerbie trial, agrees. "The issue of payments made or promised to witnesses forms an important part of the Grounds of Appeal," Black told the author.
'"At one time in Scotland, if payment had been made, or promised, to a witness that was an absolute bar to his giving evidence. Today, it is simply a factor that must be taken into account in assessing his credibility. However, in order for this to be done, it is necessary that the court should know that the payment was made or promised. Failure by the Crown to disclose the promise or the payment is a serious breach of their duty to the court and to the administration of justice," Black said.'
'In recent times, allegations have resurfaced regarding payments offered to key witnesses of the Lockerbie trial.
'Specifically, there have been rumors that Majid Giaka, Paul and Tony Gauci were each paid about US$4 million for their help in the conviction of Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988. (...)
'Richard Marquise, the FBI agent who led the Lockerbie investigation, forcefully denied that witnesses were ever offered any money.
'"I can assure you that no witnesses were ever offered any money by anyone--including the CIA," Marquise told OhmyNews. "This issue came up at trial and I spoke with the defense lawyers about it in Edinburgh in 1999 -- before trial. No one was promised or even told that they could get money for saying anything. Every FBI agent was under specific orders not to mention money to any potential witness." (...)
'A source speaking on condition of anonymity told Jeff Stein, the national security editor of the Congressional Quarterly, that a key witness, Tony Gauci, and his brother were each paid somewhere between $3 million to $4 million for providing information leading to the conviction of Megrahi.
'Moreover, former State Department lawyer Michael Scharf confirmed to OhmyNews that rewards were paid in the context of the Lockerbie trial.
'"I knew that rewards payments were made, but not the amount. The Awards for Terrorism Information program has been around since the 1980s, and has been expanded to rewards for information leading to the arrest or conviction of international indicted war criminals like Karadzic and Mladic. When I worked at the Office of the Legal Adviser of the State Department I was involved in the program," Scharf wrote in an email to OhmyNews. (...)
'Prof Black, often referred to as the architect of the Lockerbie trial, agrees. "The issue of payments made or promised to witnesses forms an important part of the Grounds of Appeal," Black told the author.
'"At one time in Scotland, if payment had been made, or promised, to a witness that was an absolute bar to his giving evidence. Today, it is simply a factor that must be taken into account in assessing his credibility. However, in order for this to be done, it is necessary that the court should know that the payment was made or promised. Failure by the Crown to disclose the promise or the payment is a serious breach of their duty to the court and to the administration of justice," Black said.'
Saturday, 7 February 2009
Looking for Lockerbie (cont'd)
On 24 January, I mentioned on the blog a new book with this title: see http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/01/looking-for-lockerbie.html. A lengthy and very interesting article about the book appears today in the Daily Record.
Logarbaidh: ceartas Lagh na h-Alba no dìoghaltas Ameireaga?
This is the title of a long article by Seon C Caimbeul in Gaelic about Lockerbie in today's issue of The Scotsman. As a Lowland Scot, I do not, I'm afraid, speak or read Gaelic. If any kind, Gaelic-speaking reader provides me with a translation or a summary, I'll be delighted to post it on this blog.
Truth and justice mean more than national security
[The following letter from Rev John Mosey, whose daughter Helga died aboard Pan Am 103, appears in today's edition of The Herald.]
The Herald is to be congratulated on its excellent coverage of the comments made in London by Their Lordships Thomas and Lloyd Jones in their written ruling concerning "threats" to "national security" were they to publish a summary of alleged torture of a suspect detained at Guantanamo Bay ("MP demands truth on UK torture claim", and Leader, The Herald, February 5).
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, has commented at some length (and with obvious discomfort) on the "intelligence relationship" and the "real risk" posed by the disclosure of terror-related intelligence in the public arena. This is not a new ploy but one being increasingly used by western politicians to hide embarrassing and unpalatable truths.
As a member of UK Families Flight 103 (the British Lockerbie victims families support group) I attended all but 12 days of the 10-month Lockerbie trial in Zeist and the subsequent first appeal. More recently, during the initial stages of the second appeal of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, allegedly "significant information" which, in the submission of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission could significantly affect the verdict has been deliberately withheld from the defence and thereby the public by virtue of the fact that (being the subject of a Public Interest Immunity Certificate signed by Mr Miliband) it may not be revealed in open court because it "might jeopardise UK security".
The main guarantees of justice in both England and Scotland are (a) the independence of the judiciary to be free and unrestrained by "political" inducements, threats or considerations and (b) a free press allowed to report and comment on what is said within the court confines.
So, we currently have two cases (in England and Scotland) where the full and impartial administration of justice is being actively obstructed and inhibited by political considerations said to be on the basis of national security. The European Convention on Human Rights requires that any accused should enjoy "equality of arms" and both English and Scottish law require that "justice shall be done and be seen to be done". That all now seems to be subject to any dubious and unexplorable claim that it is "not in the interests of national security"
In the first century the satirist Juvenal asked: "Who will guard the guards themselves?" Now we find that in two separate jurisdictions the Foreign Secretary and person or persons unknown are trying to obstruct or inhibit the fair and impartial conduct of two very major cases.
When is truth and justice going to become more important than vested geopolitical interests?
The Herald is to be congratulated on its excellent coverage of the comments made in London by Their Lordships Thomas and Lloyd Jones in their written ruling concerning "threats" to "national security" were they to publish a summary of alleged torture of a suspect detained at Guantanamo Bay ("MP demands truth on UK torture claim", and Leader, The Herald, February 5).
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, has commented at some length (and with obvious discomfort) on the "intelligence relationship" and the "real risk" posed by the disclosure of terror-related intelligence in the public arena. This is not a new ploy but one being increasingly used by western politicians to hide embarrassing and unpalatable truths.
As a member of UK Families Flight 103 (the British Lockerbie victims families support group) I attended all but 12 days of the 10-month Lockerbie trial in Zeist and the subsequent first appeal. More recently, during the initial stages of the second appeal of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, allegedly "significant information" which, in the submission of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission could significantly affect the verdict has been deliberately withheld from the defence and thereby the public by virtue of the fact that (being the subject of a Public Interest Immunity Certificate signed by Mr Miliband) it may not be revealed in open court because it "might jeopardise UK security".
The main guarantees of justice in both England and Scotland are (a) the independence of the judiciary to be free and unrestrained by "political" inducements, threats or considerations and (b) a free press allowed to report and comment on what is said within the court confines.
So, we currently have two cases (in England and Scotland) where the full and impartial administration of justice is being actively obstructed and inhibited by political considerations said to be on the basis of national security. The European Convention on Human Rights requires that any accused should enjoy "equality of arms" and both English and Scottish law require that "justice shall be done and be seen to be done". That all now seems to be subject to any dubious and unexplorable claim that it is "not in the interests of national security"
In the first century the satirist Juvenal asked: "Who will guard the guards themselves?" Now we find that in two separate jurisdictions the Foreign Secretary and person or persons unknown are trying to obstruct or inhibit the fair and impartial conduct of two very major cases.
When is truth and justice going to become more important than vested geopolitical interests?
Thursday, 5 February 2009
Proposed amendment to speed Lockerbie appeal verdict
Professor Robert Black, an expert in Scots law, has written an amendment to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 which would allow the judges to make a judgment after hearing just one part of the appeal.
Alex Neil, SNP MSP for Central Scotland, has offered to table the amendment and speak to Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, about the issue. (...)
The appeal, due to begin on April 27, is expected to last for more than a year and because of its complexity will be broken down into separate subject chapters with a gap of some four weeks between each.
Mr Black hopes the amendment would mean judges could release Megrahi after just two or three "chapters" rather than waiting until the summer of 2010 for a decision.
Mr Black said: "If the court is satisfied there has been a miscarriage of justice after just two chapters, why not decide it there and then?
"As far as I am aware this is the first time in Scotland an appeal has been broken down like this into such specific, separate chapters. Once they have heard enough, I want them to be able to say they quash the conviction and release Megrahi to allow him to die as a free man.
"To ensure the rest of the evidence cannot then be swept under the carpet, I would want them to hear the rest of the chapters in open court afterwards."
[From an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. The full article can be read here.]
The complete text of the proposed amendment, along with an explanatory memorandum is as follows:
New section to be inserted into Part VIII of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c 46)
Staged Appeals
(1) Where an appeal is heard in stages with specific grounds of appeal allocated to each stage and there is an interval of more than four weeks between the end of any stage and the beginning of the next, the court, if the appellant at or before the end of any stage requests, shall
(a) give judgement on such grounds of appeal as have been argued, and
(b) exercise such of its powers under section 118(1) as it deems appropriate
before the commencement of argument on the grounds of appeal allocated to the succeeding stage.
(2) Where the interval between the end of any stage and the beginning of the next is less than four weeks, the court may, if it thinks fit and the appellant requests, exercise the powers conferred in subsection (1).
(3) Where the court exercises the power conferred in subsection (1) or subsection (2), it shall continue to hear and shall give judgement upon the grounds of appeal allocated to the remaining stages of the appeal unless the appellant intimates his abandonment thereof.
(4) Where, in respect of each individual stage, the court has disposed of the grounds of appeal allocated thereto by affirming the verdict of the trial court, the court shall, at the conclusion of the appeal, consider whether, having regard to the whole grounds of appeal, a miscarriage of justice occurred in the proceedings in which the appellant was convicted.
(5) This section shall apply to appeals already before the court.
Explanatory Memorandum
1. In criminal appeals it is the normal practice for all of the grounds of appeal to be argued at a single diet extending over as many days as are required for the submissions of the appellant and the Crown to be heard. Judgement is then delivered by the Appeal Court, either immediately or after taking time -- whether days or weeks -- to consider. If an adjournment is for any reason required before the arguments are concluded, it is normally short and, on recommencement of the hearing, the arguments resume where they had left off.
2. In long and complex criminal appeals, it is competent for the Appeal Court to order that the appeal be heard in sections or stages, with specific grounds of appeal allocated to each individual stage, and with an interval of weeks or months between those stages. This has been done in relation to Abdelbaset Megrahi’s current appeal. The purpose of this amendment of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c 46) is to secure that the Appeal Court has power in such cases to deliver judgement at the end of each individual stage on the grounds of appeal argued in the course of that stage.
3. Subsection (1) provides that where there is an interval of more than four weeks between the end of one stage and the beginning of the next, the Appeal Court must give judgement on the grounds of appeal argued in the first stage before the second stage commences, if the appellant has made a request to that effect at or before the end of the first stage. Subsection (2) provides that where the interval is less than four weeks, the Appeal Court may at its discretion give judgement on those grounds of appeal where the appellant has so requested.
4. Subsection (3) provides that the Appeal Court shall continue to hear the remaining stages of the appeal even if the court has delivered judgement quashing the appellant’s conviction after the conclusion of a prior stage. This is subject to the power of the appellant to abandon the grounds of appeal allocated to all or any of the remaining stages.
5. Subsection (4) provides that where the Appeal Court has given judgement at the end of each stage rejecting all of the grounds of appeal allocated to that stage, the court must nevertheless at the end of the final stage consider whether, having regard to the cumulative effect of the submissions on all of the grounds of appeal, a miscarriage of justice occurred in the proceedings out of which the appeal arose.
6. Subsection (5) provides that the powers conferred shall apply to appeals which have already been lodged in court at the date of passing of the section.
[Briefing note: It is rumoured that the various stages in Abdelbaset Megrahi’s current appeal, which is scheduled to begin on 28 April 2009, may not be concluded until well into 2010. Mr Megrahi is terminally ill with incurable prostate cancer. The purpose of this piece of law reform is to make it possible for his conviction to be quashed without his having to wait until after all the separate stages of his appeal have been concluded for the court to deliver judgement. This will maximise his chances of seeing his name cleared before he succumbs to his disease.]
Alex Neil, SNP MSP for Central Scotland, has offered to table the amendment and speak to Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, about the issue. (...)
The appeal, due to begin on April 27, is expected to last for more than a year and because of its complexity will be broken down into separate subject chapters with a gap of some four weeks between each.
Mr Black hopes the amendment would mean judges could release Megrahi after just two or three "chapters" rather than waiting until the summer of 2010 for a decision.
Mr Black said: "If the court is satisfied there has been a miscarriage of justice after just two chapters, why not decide it there and then?
"As far as I am aware this is the first time in Scotland an appeal has been broken down like this into such specific, separate chapters. Once they have heard enough, I want them to be able to say they quash the conviction and release Megrahi to allow him to die as a free man.
"To ensure the rest of the evidence cannot then be swept under the carpet, I would want them to hear the rest of the chapters in open court afterwards."
[From an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. The full article can be read here.]
The complete text of the proposed amendment, along with an explanatory memorandum is as follows:
New section to be inserted into Part VIII of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c 46)
Staged Appeals
(1) Where an appeal is heard in stages with specific grounds of appeal allocated to each stage and there is an interval of more than four weeks between the end of any stage and the beginning of the next, the court, if the appellant at or before the end of any stage requests, shall
(a) give judgement on such grounds of appeal as have been argued, and
(b) exercise such of its powers under section 118(1) as it deems appropriate
before the commencement of argument on the grounds of appeal allocated to the succeeding stage.
(2) Where the interval between the end of any stage and the beginning of the next is less than four weeks, the court may, if it thinks fit and the appellant requests, exercise the powers conferred in subsection (1).
(3) Where the court exercises the power conferred in subsection (1) or subsection (2), it shall continue to hear and shall give judgement upon the grounds of appeal allocated to the remaining stages of the appeal unless the appellant intimates his abandonment thereof.
(4) Where, in respect of each individual stage, the court has disposed of the grounds of appeal allocated thereto by affirming the verdict of the trial court, the court shall, at the conclusion of the appeal, consider whether, having regard to the whole grounds of appeal, a miscarriage of justice occurred in the proceedings in which the appellant was convicted.
(5) This section shall apply to appeals already before the court.
Explanatory Memorandum
1. In criminal appeals it is the normal practice for all of the grounds of appeal to be argued at a single diet extending over as many days as are required for the submissions of the appellant and the Crown to be heard. Judgement is then delivered by the Appeal Court, either immediately or after taking time -- whether days or weeks -- to consider. If an adjournment is for any reason required before the arguments are concluded, it is normally short and, on recommencement of the hearing, the arguments resume where they had left off.
2. In long and complex criminal appeals, it is competent for the Appeal Court to order that the appeal be heard in sections or stages, with specific grounds of appeal allocated to each individual stage, and with an interval of weeks or months between those stages. This has been done in relation to Abdelbaset Megrahi’s current appeal. The purpose of this amendment of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c 46) is to secure that the Appeal Court has power in such cases to deliver judgement at the end of each individual stage on the grounds of appeal argued in the course of that stage.
3. Subsection (1) provides that where there is an interval of more than four weeks between the end of one stage and the beginning of the next, the Appeal Court must give judgement on the grounds of appeal argued in the first stage before the second stage commences, if the appellant has made a request to that effect at or before the end of the first stage. Subsection (2) provides that where the interval is less than four weeks, the Appeal Court may at its discretion give judgement on those grounds of appeal where the appellant has so requested.
4. Subsection (3) provides that the Appeal Court shall continue to hear the remaining stages of the appeal even if the court has delivered judgement quashing the appellant’s conviction after the conclusion of a prior stage. This is subject to the power of the appellant to abandon the grounds of appeal allocated to all or any of the remaining stages.
5. Subsection (4) provides that where the Appeal Court has given judgement at the end of each stage rejecting all of the grounds of appeal allocated to that stage, the court must nevertheless at the end of the final stage consider whether, having regard to the cumulative effect of the submissions on all of the grounds of appeal, a miscarriage of justice occurred in the proceedings out of which the appeal arose.
6. Subsection (5) provides that the powers conferred shall apply to appeals which have already been lodged in court at the date of passing of the section.
[Briefing note: It is rumoured that the various stages in Abdelbaset Megrahi’s current appeal, which is scheduled to begin on 28 April 2009, may not be concluded until well into 2010. Mr Megrahi is terminally ill with incurable prostate cancer. The purpose of this piece of law reform is to make it possible for his conviction to be quashed without his having to wait until after all the separate stages of his appeal have been concluded for the court to deliver judgement. This will maximise his chances of seeing his name cleared before he succumbs to his disease.]
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
Break in service
For the next few days I shall be at Gannaga Lodge, where there is no internet connection. Any Lockerbie developments will be taken account of when I return to Middelpos, probably on Friday 6th.
Sunday, 1 February 2009
Mum of shot WPC calls for Megrahi swap
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]
The mother of Yvonne Fletcher, the policewoman shot dead outside the Libyan embassy in London almost 25 years ago, has urged the British government to allow the Lockerbie bomber to serve the rest of his sentence in Libya.
Queenie Fletcher, 75, said it would be right for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who is suffering from advanced prostate cancer, to be allowed to return home. (...)
“I know he is ill and I think he should be returned to a prison in Libya so his family can visit him,” said Fletcher.
“The appeal could still go ahead in Scotland, but he could stay in prison in Libya.
“It’s got to be a fair exchange, so Yvonne’s case can be closed. I’d like the police here to be given permission to interview whoever they’ve got to interview in Libya and see whoever they need to for someone to be brought to trial.” (...)
Megrahi lost a previous appeal against his conviction in 2002. However, in 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his case back to court after deciding that his conviction was not safe. A bail application was refused last year despite claims by Megrahi’s defence team that he did not have long to live. The court ruled that he did not meet the requirement of having less than three months to live.
Tony Kelly, Megrahi’s lawyer, said: “I can’t say anything about [Queenie Fletcher's] request in terms of allowing detectives access to Libya. But in relation to her comments about my client being allowed to return to Libya, this is a testament to Mrs Fletcher’s humanity and compassion.”
[The full article can be read here. Two points of clarification: 1. A transfer of Megrahi back to Libya could not in law take place unless he abandoned his present appeal. He cannot be repatriated and the appeal continue (see the immediately preceding post). 2. For bail to be granted by the court pending an appeal, there is no legal requirement that the appellant have less than three months to live. That is a rule of practice, not of law, that is applied where a prisoner applies to the Scottish Government for release on compassionate grounds. If Megrahi were to be granted bail by the court, or compassionate release by the Scottish Government, his appeal could continue and he could live with his family in Scotland during the appeal proceedings.]
The mother of Yvonne Fletcher, the policewoman shot dead outside the Libyan embassy in London almost 25 years ago, has urged the British government to allow the Lockerbie bomber to serve the rest of his sentence in Libya.
Queenie Fletcher, 75, said it would be right for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who is suffering from advanced prostate cancer, to be allowed to return home. (...)
“I know he is ill and I think he should be returned to a prison in Libya so his family can visit him,” said Fletcher.
“The appeal could still go ahead in Scotland, but he could stay in prison in Libya.
“It’s got to be a fair exchange, so Yvonne’s case can be closed. I’d like the police here to be given permission to interview whoever they’ve got to interview in Libya and see whoever they need to for someone to be brought to trial.” (...)
Megrahi lost a previous appeal against his conviction in 2002. However, in 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his case back to court after deciding that his conviction was not safe. A bail application was refused last year despite claims by Megrahi’s defence team that he did not have long to live. The court ruled that he did not meet the requirement of having less than three months to live.
Tony Kelly, Megrahi’s lawyer, said: “I can’t say anything about [Queenie Fletcher's] request in terms of allowing detectives access to Libya. But in relation to her comments about my client being allowed to return to Libya, this is a testament to Mrs Fletcher’s humanity and compassion.”
[The full article can be read here. Two points of clarification: 1. A transfer of Megrahi back to Libya could not in law take place unless he abandoned his present appeal. He cannot be repatriated and the appeal continue (see the immediately preceding post). 2. For bail to be granted by the court pending an appeal, there is no legal requirement that the appellant have less than three months to live. That is a rule of practice, not of law, that is applied where a prisoner applies to the Scottish Government for release on compassionate grounds. If Megrahi were to be granted bail by the court, or compassionate release by the Scottish Government, his appeal could continue and he could live with his family in Scotland during the appeal proceedings.]
Saturday, 31 January 2009
Prisoner Transfer Agreement laid before Parliament
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)