[This is the headline over an article in today's issue of The Times. It refers to the report in yesterday's issue of The Observer that forms the subject-matter of the blog post that can be read here. The article in The Times reads in part:]
The Scottish government claimed last night it had been fully justified in protesting that Tony Blair’s Government had kept it in the dark about a prisoner transfer agreement negotiated between the UK and Libya.
Its comments came after the publication of e-mails in a Sunday newspaper which revealed that the Government at Westminster had tried to secure the backing of the Scottish government for the deal — which allowed for the release of the Lockerbie bomber — weeks after it had agreed to it in principle in 2007.
The disclosure of the prisoner transfer agreement led to furious exchanges between the UK Government and Alex Salmond’s Scottish Administration, with the Scots saying that they had not been consulted. While the Blair Government responded by saying that the agreement did not specifically refer to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, in Greenock jail at the time, Mr Salmond pointed out that he was the only Libyan prisoner held in the UK.
A Scottish government spokesman said last night: “This confirms everything that the Scottish government said at the time about how UK ministers kept Scotland in the dark about the prisoner transfer agreement [PTA] process being negotiated by Tony Blair with Libya.
“When we did find out about it, UK ministers at first agreed to our request to have anyone involved in the Lockerbie atrocity excluded from the PTA, but they then reneged on that.”
The e-mails exchanged between both sides in the dispute show civil servants in Whitehall sought to convene a meeting with their Scottish justice counterparts “to establish the UK’s negotiating position” only at the end of June 2007 or the beginning of July 2007. This was more than a month after Mr Blair signed a memorandum of understanding with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, in which both sides agreed to a binding deal to exchange prisoners.
The e-mails can be seen as bolstering claims that the Blair Government was keen to sign the agreement, which has since being linked with wider deals covering arms exports and oil.
In the same month the memorandum was signed, BP agreed a billion-dollar oil deal with Libya, and Britain agreed to sell the former pariah Libyan state water cannons. (...)
The e-mails will serve to reinforce suspicions that the UK Government was willing to ride roughshod over Scottish sensitivities when it came to the Lockerbie bomber.
In an emergency statement at Holyrood at the time, Mr Salmond expressed his fury that the understanding signed between Blair and the Libyans did not specifically exclude al-Megrahi. Over the next few months, Mr Salmond made several requests for al-Megrahi to be excluded from the agreement. In December 2007, Jack Straw finally wrote to Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, to say that he had been unable to secure such an exclusion and that time had run out.
In the event, the prisoner transfer agreement was not used in the case of al-Megrahi. To the undisguised fury of American relatives of the 270 Lockerbie victims, he was released on the ground of compassion by Mr MacAskill in August last year. The reason for his release was that he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer and he had only about three months to live. (...)
Monday, 4 January 2010
Sunday, 3 January 2010
Who released al-Megrahi?
[This is the heading over a post on the Hythlodæus blog. It refers to a report which is said to appear in today's edition of The Observer. As the post itself states, the report is not to be found on the newspaper's website. The post reads in part:]
It may be many years before the whole story behind the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the alleged Lockerbie bomber, is told. However, there are regular snippets being released under freedom of information requests.
The latest such releases seem to have been picked up by The Observer in Scotland alone, not even deemed important enough to be published online alongside the rest of the Observer’s content. In a short article, the little-read left-wing paper reveals that, as was widely speculated, the move to release al-Megrahi began more then two years before Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill announced the actual release.
The new timeline of events as presented in today’s article is as follows:
May 2007
*SNP Government elected to Holyrood.
*Tony Blair signs a Memorandum of Understanding with Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya. This Memorandum was a standard text, allowing for the exchange of all prisoners and remains legally binding upon both the UK and Libya.
June/July 2007
*BP, the British-owned oil giant, sign a multi-million dollar deal to exploit oil resources in Libya.
*The British Government signs an agreement to supply Libya, a dictatorship, with water cannons. Rumours persist regarding sales of additional lethal and non-lethal arms to Libya.
*Tony Blair stands down as Prime Minister.
*Whitehall-based Civil Servants contact their Scottish counterparts in order to fix the UK’s “negotiating position” on the already signed Memorandum of Understanding.
June-December 2007
*The SNP Government lobby various Westminster figures, including Lord Falconer, to add a clause to the Memorandum of Understanding excluding al-Megrahi from prisoner exchange deals.
December 2007
*Jack Straw, at that time Home Secetary, writes to Kenny MacAskill stating that the UK Government is unable to secure a deal on al-Megrahi and that time has run out as far as negotiating is concerned.
August 2009
*Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi released and repatriated to Libya.
*Kenny MacAskill faces censure by the Scottish Parliament for his decision to release al-Megrahi but maintains that the decision to release him was his alone.
*The Scottish Government is heavily criticised by the US Government and various British political figures. The British Government, beset by it’s own problems, maintain their support for the decision.
Despite what Kenny MacAskill maintains, it does appear that the decision to release al-Megrahi was out of his hands. By signing a treaty which legally bound the Scottish Government to release Libyan prisoners, the Westminster administration over-ruled the devolution settlement undermining the sovereignty of the Scottish Government and the democratic will of the Scottish People in order to appease a dictatorship. (...)
It may be many years before the whole story behind the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the alleged Lockerbie bomber, is told. However, there are regular snippets being released under freedom of information requests.
The latest such releases seem to have been picked up by The Observer in Scotland alone, not even deemed important enough to be published online alongside the rest of the Observer’s content. In a short article, the little-read left-wing paper reveals that, as was widely speculated, the move to release al-Megrahi began more then two years before Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill announced the actual release.
The new timeline of events as presented in today’s article is as follows:
May 2007
*SNP Government elected to Holyrood.
*Tony Blair signs a Memorandum of Understanding with Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya. This Memorandum was a standard text, allowing for the exchange of all prisoners and remains legally binding upon both the UK and Libya.
June/July 2007
*BP, the British-owned oil giant, sign a multi-million dollar deal to exploit oil resources in Libya.
*The British Government signs an agreement to supply Libya, a dictatorship, with water cannons. Rumours persist regarding sales of additional lethal and non-lethal arms to Libya.
*Tony Blair stands down as Prime Minister.
*Whitehall-based Civil Servants contact their Scottish counterparts in order to fix the UK’s “negotiating position” on the already signed Memorandum of Understanding.
June-December 2007
*The SNP Government lobby various Westminster figures, including Lord Falconer, to add a clause to the Memorandum of Understanding excluding al-Megrahi from prisoner exchange deals.
December 2007
*Jack Straw, at that time Home Secetary, writes to Kenny MacAskill stating that the UK Government is unable to secure a deal on al-Megrahi and that time has run out as far as negotiating is concerned.
August 2009
*Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi released and repatriated to Libya.
*Kenny MacAskill faces censure by the Scottish Parliament for his decision to release al-Megrahi but maintains that the decision to release him was his alone.
*The Scottish Government is heavily criticised by the US Government and various British political figures. The British Government, beset by it’s own problems, maintain their support for the decision.
Despite what Kenny MacAskill maintains, it does appear that the decision to release al-Megrahi was out of his hands. By signing a treaty which legally bound the Scottish Government to release Libyan prisoners, the Westminster administration over-ruled the devolution settlement undermining the sovereignty of the Scottish Government and the democratic will of the Scottish People in order to appease a dictatorship. (...)
Saturday, 2 January 2010
Relatives of Lockerbie victims begin new legal fight for public inquiry
[This is the headline over a report recently published on the Telegraph website. It reads in part:]
UK Families Flight 103, the relatives' campaign group, will use human rights laws in a bid to uncover the truth about the terrorist attack, which claimed 270 lives in December 1988.
The group has hired Gareth Peirce, the prominent human rights solicitor better known for her work representing terror suspects, to devise a legal strategy to secure the inquiry for which families have long campaigned.
It is the first time the families have formally hired lawyers to pursue an inquiry.
The development comes after Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, rejected the group's latest demands for an independent review of the bombing. He informed them of his decision in a letter, dated Christmas Eve, which was received by the relatives last week.
In the letter, Mr Brown said: "All of the matters which you have raised in support of the case for an inquiry are points which were raised at the original trial or the appeal in Scotland, and I do not see that it would be in the public interest to air them again at an inquiry." (...)
Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter was killed in the atrocity, said: "We are arguing that our human rights have been transgressed by the failure to hold an inquiry.
"This is the first time we have hired lawyers to do this. We have until now relied on appealing to the good sense and good nature of our politicians, and that has been to no avail."
The Rev John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, was among the victims when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, said: "I feel extremely positive about this development. For 21 years we have been asking the same questions and asking for an inquiry but I think we are nearer to getting it than we have ever been."
Legal tactics used by UK Families Flight 103 are likely to focus on Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, enshrined in British law by the Human Rights Act, which details the right to life.
Previous legal cases have shown that any failure by the state to properly investigate a suspected murder may amount to a breach of the right to life of the victim.
Options open to the families include launching a judicial review of the Government's decision to refuse an inquiry, or using human rights laws to overturn Megrahi's conviction so that ministers are forced to act.
Dr Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter Flora died on the flight, said it was crucial to overturn Megrahi's guilty verdict so that "public outrage" left the Prime Minister with no choice but to allow in independent inquiry into the bombing.
Jean Berkley, who lost her 29-year-old son Alistair, said Mr Brown's letter "was not a well-considered reply" and added: "This is a kind of treatment we are used to receiving. Our perfectly-well thought out points were dismissed in a rather thoughtless way."
[The Prime Minister's letter, dated 24 December 2009, is in reply to the letter delivered by the UK relatives on 27 October 2009. It reads as follows:]
Thank you for your letter of 27 October.
As I said in my letter of 23 October, I am deeply aware of the pain and suffering caused to you and the other families of the Lockerbie bombing victims. You continue to have my deepest sympathies for your loss.
You referred in your previous letters to the need for a public inquiry into the investigation of the Lockerbie bombing and in your letter of 27 October you again referred to the Heathrow incident. As I said in my last letter, the Heathrow incident to which you refer was examined by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland, which concluded that it did not render the conviction of Mr Megrahi unsafe.
All of the matters which you have raised in support of the case for an inquiry are points which were raised at the original trial or the appeal in Scotland, and I do not see that it would be in the public interest to air them again at an inquiry.
I do appreciate that this answer is still not what you were looking for. Please be assured that my thoughts, and those of the Government, remain with you and the other families, especially at what must be a particularly difficult time of year for you all.
UK Families Flight 103, the relatives' campaign group, will use human rights laws in a bid to uncover the truth about the terrorist attack, which claimed 270 lives in December 1988.
The group has hired Gareth Peirce, the prominent human rights solicitor better known for her work representing terror suspects, to devise a legal strategy to secure the inquiry for which families have long campaigned.
It is the first time the families have formally hired lawyers to pursue an inquiry.
The development comes after Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, rejected the group's latest demands for an independent review of the bombing. He informed them of his decision in a letter, dated Christmas Eve, which was received by the relatives last week.
In the letter, Mr Brown said: "All of the matters which you have raised in support of the case for an inquiry are points which were raised at the original trial or the appeal in Scotland, and I do not see that it would be in the public interest to air them again at an inquiry." (...)
Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter was killed in the atrocity, said: "We are arguing that our human rights have been transgressed by the failure to hold an inquiry.
"This is the first time we have hired lawyers to do this. We have until now relied on appealing to the good sense and good nature of our politicians, and that has been to no avail."
The Rev John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, was among the victims when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, said: "I feel extremely positive about this development. For 21 years we have been asking the same questions and asking for an inquiry but I think we are nearer to getting it than we have ever been."
Legal tactics used by UK Families Flight 103 are likely to focus on Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, enshrined in British law by the Human Rights Act, which details the right to life.
Previous legal cases have shown that any failure by the state to properly investigate a suspected murder may amount to a breach of the right to life of the victim.
Options open to the families include launching a judicial review of the Government's decision to refuse an inquiry, or using human rights laws to overturn Megrahi's conviction so that ministers are forced to act.
Dr Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter Flora died on the flight, said it was crucial to overturn Megrahi's guilty verdict so that "public outrage" left the Prime Minister with no choice but to allow in independent inquiry into the bombing.
Jean Berkley, who lost her 29-year-old son Alistair, said Mr Brown's letter "was not a well-considered reply" and added: "This is a kind of treatment we are used to receiving. Our perfectly-well thought out points were dismissed in a rather thoughtless way."
[The Prime Minister's letter, dated 24 December 2009, is in reply to the letter delivered by the UK relatives on 27 October 2009. It reads as follows:]
Thank you for your letter of 27 October.
As I said in my letter of 23 October, I am deeply aware of the pain and suffering caused to you and the other families of the Lockerbie bombing victims. You continue to have my deepest sympathies for your loss.
You referred in your previous letters to the need for a public inquiry into the investigation of the Lockerbie bombing and in your letter of 27 October you again referred to the Heathrow incident. As I said in my last letter, the Heathrow incident to which you refer was examined by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland, which concluded that it did not render the conviction of Mr Megrahi unsafe.
All of the matters which you have raised in support of the case for an inquiry are points which were raised at the original trial or the appeal in Scotland, and I do not see that it would be in the public interest to air them again at an inquiry.
I do appreciate that this answer is still not what you were looking for. Please be assured that my thoughts, and those of the Government, remain with you and the other families, especially at what must be a particularly difficult time of year for you all.
Reaction to "Gadhafi admitted it!"
[The following comment on the "Gadhafi admitted it!" thread comes from Peter Biddulph. It was too long to be posted directly as a comment on that thread.]
The timing of this information is most strange.
According to Wikipaedia and other sources, Arnaud de Borchgrave appears to have an impeccable background. According to him, the CIA debriefing arranged by Woolsey took place in 1993.
But I am informed by an expert on these matters that Gaddafi never, repeat never, was without at least one armed personal bodyguard. To be alone with an American journalist with many contacts in Washington would be, for Gaddafi, impossible.
And if this information was known in 1993, why on earth did the CIA, the FBI and the Scottish Crown office not know of it in the next seven years leading up to the trial?
Why was de Borchgrave not invited to be deposed or give evidence to the Lockerbie trial, or even an affidavit?
It might be said to be hearsay, and therefore not admissable in court.
But several hearsay issues and affidavits were extensively investigated by the court, notably the Goben Memorandum, and the account of the interview of bomb maker Marwan Khreesat by FBI Agent Edward Marshman. Even a hearsay account that Gaddafi confessed to the crime would have cast serious doubt on al-Megrahi's defence.
The original 1991 indictment could have been varied to reflect the latest knowledge. Indeed, the final version of the indictment was agreed by the US Department of Justice and the Scottish Crown Office in 2000, only three weeks before the trial commenced.
If the FBI did know it, why did they not mention any of this in a May 1995 Channel 4 discussion following the screening of the documentary The Maltese Double Cross? Buck Revell of the FBI became quite intense in answering Jim Swire's questions and those of presenter Sheena McDonald. But he said not a word about the Gaddafi "confession". Why?
Also, how come Marquise - as he says himself "Chief FBI Investigator of the Lockerbie bombing" - was not aware of it in the seven years leading up to the 2000 trial or the nine years since? That is, sixteen years of ignorance?
And why did CIA Vincent Cannistraro himself not mention it when interviewed on camera on at least two occasions in 1994 by Alan Francovich for the documentary film The Maltese Double Cross?
As head of the CIA team investigating Libya, Cannistraro would be the first to be briefed by the Langley central office. He was happy to provide hearsay evidence to the media and film camera against Oliver North and any Libyan or Iranian that got in his way. He spoke at length about green and brown timer boards, and potential witnesses.
To relate on camera the Gaddafi "confession" would have been greatly to Cannistraro's advantage, a slam-dunk in the public mind. Indeed, even a hint in the media would have ham-strung al-Megrahis defence before proceedings commenced.
But between 1993 and 2009 from Cannistraro not a word. And when it comes to America's interests, the CIA never follow Queensberry rules.
CIA Robert Baer too, as a Middle Eastern specialist has given no hint of this. Such information would surely have come within the "need to know" category. Yet he has maintained on two occasions that Iran commissioned the job and paid the PFLP-GC handsomely two days after the attack. His conclusion suggests strongly that the so-called fragment of the bomb was planted.
The real reasons for this late announcement, we believe, are as follows:
1. It is well known among those who study these things in the field that there are two candidates shortly to succeed Gaddafi. His son Saif, and his son-in law Sennusi. Meanwhile Sennusi is not top of the pops with Arab leaders in the region. They would love it if he were out of the frame. The Borchgrave revelation discredits Sennusi perfectly.
2. The SCCRC is shortly to publish information which some believe will cause serious embarrassment to the FBI And CIA. The Borchgrave email is huge smoke and mirrors, a spoiler.
It all looks highly suspicious. Just another carefully crafted phase in a long, long history of disinformation.
The timing of this information is most strange.
According to Wikipaedia and other sources, Arnaud de Borchgrave appears to have an impeccable background. According to him, the CIA debriefing arranged by Woolsey took place in 1993.
But I am informed by an expert on these matters that Gaddafi never, repeat never, was without at least one armed personal bodyguard. To be alone with an American journalist with many contacts in Washington would be, for Gaddafi, impossible.
And if this information was known in 1993, why on earth did the CIA, the FBI and the Scottish Crown office not know of it in the next seven years leading up to the trial?
Why was de Borchgrave not invited to be deposed or give evidence to the Lockerbie trial, or even an affidavit?
It might be said to be hearsay, and therefore not admissable in court.
But several hearsay issues and affidavits were extensively investigated by the court, notably the Goben Memorandum, and the account of the interview of bomb maker Marwan Khreesat by FBI Agent Edward Marshman. Even a hearsay account that Gaddafi confessed to the crime would have cast serious doubt on al-Megrahi's defence.
The original 1991 indictment could have been varied to reflect the latest knowledge. Indeed, the final version of the indictment was agreed by the US Department of Justice and the Scottish Crown Office in 2000, only three weeks before the trial commenced.
If the FBI did know it, why did they not mention any of this in a May 1995 Channel 4 discussion following the screening of the documentary The Maltese Double Cross? Buck Revell of the FBI became quite intense in answering Jim Swire's questions and those of presenter Sheena McDonald. But he said not a word about the Gaddafi "confession". Why?
Also, how come Marquise - as he says himself "Chief FBI Investigator of the Lockerbie bombing" - was not aware of it in the seven years leading up to the 2000 trial or the nine years since? That is, sixteen years of ignorance?
And why did CIA Vincent Cannistraro himself not mention it when interviewed on camera on at least two occasions in 1994 by Alan Francovich for the documentary film The Maltese Double Cross?
As head of the CIA team investigating Libya, Cannistraro would be the first to be briefed by the Langley central office. He was happy to provide hearsay evidence to the media and film camera against Oliver North and any Libyan or Iranian that got in his way. He spoke at length about green and brown timer boards, and potential witnesses.
To relate on camera the Gaddafi "confession" would have been greatly to Cannistraro's advantage, a slam-dunk in the public mind. Indeed, even a hint in the media would have ham-strung al-Megrahis defence before proceedings commenced.
But between 1993 and 2009 from Cannistraro not a word. And when it comes to America's interests, the CIA never follow Queensberry rules.
CIA Robert Baer too, as a Middle Eastern specialist has given no hint of this. Such information would surely have come within the "need to know" category. Yet he has maintained on two occasions that Iran commissioned the job and paid the PFLP-GC handsomely two days after the attack. His conclusion suggests strongly that the so-called fragment of the bomb was planted.
The real reasons for this late announcement, we believe, are as follows:
1. It is well known among those who study these things in the field that there are two candidates shortly to succeed Gaddafi. His son Saif, and his son-in law Sennusi. Meanwhile Sennusi is not top of the pops with Arab leaders in the region. They would love it if he were out of the frame. The Borchgrave revelation discredits Sennusi perfectly.
2. The SCCRC is shortly to publish information which some believe will cause serious embarrassment to the FBI And CIA. The Borchgrave email is huge smoke and mirrors, a spoiler.
It all looks highly suspicious. Just another carefully crafted phase in a long, long history of disinformation.
Friday, 1 January 2010
Special relationship ‘unharmed’
The decision to free the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will not cause any long-term damage to the so-called UK-US “special relationship”, the American ambassador to London has insisted.
Louis Susman, 71, a former banker from Chicago and one of Barack Obama’s key backers during the presidential campaign, said the special relationship was like a marriage in which there were disagreements.
He said: “This was a spat, a case where friends can disagree. Do I think it has diminished the relationship on a long-term basis? Absolutely not.”
Mr Susman dismissed threats of a boycott of British goods in wake of the decision by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, adding: “I will continue to drink Scotch whisky, I love Scottish golf courses and we buy Scottish sweaters.”
[From a report on the heraldscotland website.]
Louis Susman, 71, a former banker from Chicago and one of Barack Obama’s key backers during the presidential campaign, said the special relationship was like a marriage in which there were disagreements.
He said: “This was a spat, a case where friends can disagree. Do I think it has diminished the relationship on a long-term basis? Absolutely not.”
Mr Susman dismissed threats of a boycott of British goods in wake of the decision by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, adding: “I will continue to drink Scotch whisky, I love Scottish golf courses and we buy Scottish sweaters.”
[From a report on the heraldscotland website.]
Gadhafi admitted it!
This is the subject-heading of an e-mail sent by Arnaud de Borchgrave to Frank Duggan and copied by the latter to me. It reads as follows:
"As Gaddafi explained it to me, which you are familiar with, it was indeed Iran's decision to retaliate for the Iran Air Airbus shot down by the USS Vincennes on its daily flight from Bandar Abbas to Dubai that led to a first subcontracting deal to Syrian intel, which, in turn, led to the 2nd subcontract to Libyan intel. As he himself said if they had been first at this terrorist bat, they would not have put Malta in the mix; Cyprus would have made more sense to draw attention away from Libya."
According to Arnaud de Borchgrave, Gaddafi made the admission, off the record, in the course of an interview in 1993. His published account reads:
"Megrahi was a small cog in a much larger conspiracy. After a long interview with Gaddafi in 1993, this editor at large of The Washington Times asked Libya's supreme leader to explain, off the record, his precise involvement in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec 21, 1988, and for which Libya paid $2.7 billion in reparations. He dismissed all the aides in his tent (located that evening in the desert about 100 kilometers south of Tripoli) and began in halting English without benefit of an interpreter, as was the case in the on-the-record part of the interview.
"Gaddafi candidly admitted that Lockerbie was retaliation for the July 3, 1988, downing of an Iranian Airbus. Air Iran Flight 655, on a 28-minute daily hop from the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas in the Strait of Hormuz to the port city of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates on the other side of the Gulf, was shot down by a guided missile from the Aegis cruiser USS Vincennes. The Vincennes radar mistook it for an F-14 Tomcat fighter (which Iran still flies); 290 were killed, including 66 children. A year before, in 1987, the USS Stark was attacked by an Iraqi Mirage, killing 37 sailors. The Vincennes skipper, Capt. William Rogers, received the Legion of Merit, and the entire crew was awarded combat-action ribbons. The United States paid compensation of $61.8 million to the families of those killed on IR 655.
"Gaddafi told me, 'The most powerful navy in the world does not make such mistakes. Nobody in our part of the world believed it was an error.' And retaliation, he said, was clearly called for. Iranian intelligence subcontracted retaliation to one of the Syrian intelligence services (there are 14 of them), which, in turn, subcontracted part of the retaliatory action to Libyan intelligence (at that time run by Abdullah Senoussi, Gaddafi's brother-in-law). 'Did we know specifically what we were asked to do?' said Gaddafi. 'We knew it would be comparable retaliation for the Iranian Airbus, but we were not told what the specific objective was,' Gaddafi added.
"As he got up to take his leave, he said, 'Please tell the CIA that I wish to cooperate with America. I am just as much threatened by Islamist extremists as you are.'
"When we got back to Washington, we called Director of Central Intelligence Jim Woolsey to tell him what we had been told off the record. Woolsey asked me if I would mind being debriefed by the CIA. I agreed. And the rest is history."
On the assumption that this account of an off-the-record conversation in 1993 is accurate, it in no way affects the wrongfulness of the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. As I have tried (without success) to explain to US zealots in the past, the fact -- if it be the fact -- that Libya was in some way involved in Lockerbie does not entail as a consequence that any particular Libyan citizen was implicated. The evidence led at the Zeist trial did not justify the guilty verdict against Megrahi. On that basis alone his conviction should have been quashed had the recently-abandoned appeal gone the full distance. That conclusion is reinforced (a) by the material uncovered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and (b) by the material released on Mr Megrahi's website.
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Thank you
Sincere thanks to all those commentators who have debated and disputed, informed and entertained on this blog in the course of 2009. Lang may your lums reek!
"A guid new year to ane an' a'
An' mony may ye see,
An' during a' the years to come,
O happy may ye be.
An' may ye ne'er hae cause to mourn,
To sigh or shed a tear;
To ane an' a' baith great an' sma'
A hearty guid New Year."
"A guid new year to ane an' a'
An' mony may ye see,
An' during a' the years to come,
O happy may ye be.
An' may ye ne'er hae cause to mourn,
To sigh or shed a tear;
To ane an' a' baith great an' sma'
A hearty guid New Year."
On Libya's admission of "responsibility"
[This is the heading over the latest Lockerbie post by Adam "Caustic Logic" Larson on his blog The 12/7-9/11 Treadmill and Beyond. It begins as follows:]
I recently started an interesting discussion thread at the JREF forum, fishing for thoughts on why people believe the official line on the Lockerbie bombing so fervently. I hadn't yet encountered any serious questions in the course of previous brilliant and provocative discussions - just a few drive-by statements supporting Megrahi's and Col. Gaddafy's absolute guilt, but never accompanied by evidence of any real knowledge. Among the questions and counter-points I suggested people could offer, if they knew anything, was "Libya admitted responsibility and paid out billions of dollars!" And if they had asked, I would answer like this:
There is no doubt that the Libyan government did issue a statement admitting responsibility, and agreed to pay compensation, among other measures, in 2003. It was an explicit pre-condition, inssted by Washington, to having broad UN sanctions lifted. Triploi has always defended its innocence of Lockerbie, but to function in the global economy, they had to do something. Here they managed to not explicitly break the rule, and using careful (cynical?) wordplay, managed to accept responsibility without admitting guilt. Sanctions were lifted.
[The remainder of the post gives a convincing explanation of how the "admission of responsibility" came about and how it has been (wilfully?) misconstrued in the media.]
I recently started an interesting discussion thread at the JREF forum, fishing for thoughts on why people believe the official line on the Lockerbie bombing so fervently. I hadn't yet encountered any serious questions in the course of previous brilliant and provocative discussions - just a few drive-by statements supporting Megrahi's and Col. Gaddafy's absolute guilt, but never accompanied by evidence of any real knowledge. Among the questions and counter-points I suggested people could offer, if they knew anything, was "Libya admitted responsibility and paid out billions of dollars!" And if they had asked, I would answer like this:
There is no doubt that the Libyan government did issue a statement admitting responsibility, and agreed to pay compensation, among other measures, in 2003. It was an explicit pre-condition, inssted by Washington, to having broad UN sanctions lifted. Triploi has always defended its innocence of Lockerbie, but to function in the global economy, they had to do something. Here they managed to not explicitly break the rule, and using careful (cynical?) wordplay, managed to accept responsibility without admitting guilt. Sanctions were lifted.
[The remainder of the post gives a convincing explanation of how the "admission of responsibility" came about and how it has been (wilfully?) misconstrued in the media.]
Bruised and battered, but Salmond will bounce back
This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Times by the newspaper's virulently anti-SNP Scottish political editor, Angus Macleod. The two paragraphs relating to Lockerbie read as follows:
"But if there was one event that brought Mr Salmond face to face with the consequences of power, it was the decision by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, to free Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi on the grounds that he had only a limited time to live.
"Condemnation rained down as US relatives of Lockerbie victims expressed outrage. At one point it appeared as though Scotland, in US eyes, was to assume the same mantle as Cuba during the Cold War. The First Minister looked as if he had just emerged from a car crash."
As far as Scottish public opinion is concerned, the release of Mr Megrahi seems to have done the SNP no harm and may, indeed, have enhanced its standing.
"But if there was one event that brought Mr Salmond face to face with the consequences of power, it was the decision by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, to free Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi on the grounds that he had only a limited time to live.
"Condemnation rained down as US relatives of Lockerbie victims expressed outrage. At one point it appeared as though Scotland, in US eyes, was to assume the same mantle as Cuba during the Cold War. The First Minister looked as if he had just emerged from a car crash."
As far as Scottish public opinion is concerned, the release of Mr Megrahi seems to have done the SNP no harm and may, indeed, have enhanced its standing.
New Year honour for Lockerbie councillor
A councillor who became a spokeswoman for the people of Lockerbie in the wake of the 1988 aircraft bombing has become an MBE in the New Year Honours list.
Marjory McQueen, 63, was a Conservative councillor for Lockerbie on Dumfries and Galloway Council for 12 years.
Mrs McQueen became a public face for the town during the trial of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who was convicted of carrying out the atrocity.
She also co-ordinated the media during the 10th anniversary of the bombing. (...)
Mother-of-two Mrs McQueen, who served as a councillor from 1995 until 2007, said she was both "surprised" and "privileged" to be appointed an MBE. (...)
"Lockerbie moved on very quickly. I know it will always be synonymous with the disaster but Lockerbie has always been about community.
"My role was to liaise with the media for the 10th anniversary and make sure that the town and its people were disturbed as little as possible by the media."
[From a report on the BBC News website.
Mrs McQueen is wholly right in saying that Lockerbie moved on very quickly. Within a couple of years of the disaster, the town had returned to its wonted normality. The inhabitants view continued media interest in the town as an annoyance and an intrusion. Relatives of those who died are undemonstratively accepted when they visit. But even the most insensitive journalists quickly realise that their presence is unwelcome.]
Marjory McQueen, 63, was a Conservative councillor for Lockerbie on Dumfries and Galloway Council for 12 years.
Mrs McQueen became a public face for the town during the trial of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who was convicted of carrying out the atrocity.
She also co-ordinated the media during the 10th anniversary of the bombing. (...)
Mother-of-two Mrs McQueen, who served as a councillor from 1995 until 2007, said she was both "surprised" and "privileged" to be appointed an MBE. (...)
"Lockerbie moved on very quickly. I know it will always be synonymous with the disaster but Lockerbie has always been about community.
"My role was to liaise with the media for the 10th anniversary and make sure that the town and its people were disturbed as little as possible by the media."
[From a report on the BBC News website.
Mrs McQueen is wholly right in saying that Lockerbie moved on very quickly. Within a couple of years of the disaster, the town had returned to its wonted normality. The inhabitants view continued media interest in the town as an annoyance and an intrusion. Relatives of those who died are undemonstratively accepted when they visit. But even the most insensitive journalists quickly realise that their presence is unwelcome.]
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
Forthcoming Lockerbie play
[The following are excerpts from an article in today's edition of the Nottingham Evening Post.]
After a few years working on dramas like Heartbeat, Nottingham writer Michael Eaton is returning to the topical territory where his heart lies. A new play commissioned by Nottingham Playhouse for June will revisit an emotional subject he pieced together with some success for ITV 20 years ago – Lockerbie. (...)
He was sitting in Nottingham Playhouse a few months ago, in talks with artistic director Giles Croft, when he picked up a copy of Private Eye.
Giles noticed he was absorbed in an article about the release of Al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of involvement in Lockerbie released on compassionate grounds.
Together, they decided Lockerbie remained a subject worthy of examination – this time for the theatre in a piece called The Families of Lockerbie.
Michael's original docu-drama Why Lockerbie? examined the build-up to the tragedy. "I did that film 20 years ago," he explains. It was written the year after the disaster. This time, I wanted to do something that caught up with what had happened in the past two decades but from a more emotional, reflective standpoint.
"I was very struck with the different responses of the American and British families to the release of Al Megrahi." (...)
The Families of Lockerbie has been scheduled for the Playhouse from June 10-19. (...)
"The TV work ended in an air traffic control office as the plane disappears from the screen. In a way, that's where this story starts," says Michael.
After a few years working on dramas like Heartbeat, Nottingham writer Michael Eaton is returning to the topical territory where his heart lies. A new play commissioned by Nottingham Playhouse for June will revisit an emotional subject he pieced together with some success for ITV 20 years ago – Lockerbie. (...)
He was sitting in Nottingham Playhouse a few months ago, in talks with artistic director Giles Croft, when he picked up a copy of Private Eye.
Giles noticed he was absorbed in an article about the release of Al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of involvement in Lockerbie released on compassionate grounds.
Together, they decided Lockerbie remained a subject worthy of examination – this time for the theatre in a piece called The Families of Lockerbie.
Michael's original docu-drama Why Lockerbie? examined the build-up to the tragedy. "I did that film 20 years ago," he explains. It was written the year after the disaster. This time, I wanted to do something that caught up with what had happened in the past two decades but from a more emotional, reflective standpoint.
"I was very struck with the different responses of the American and British families to the release of Al Megrahi." (...)
The Families of Lockerbie has been scheduled for the Playhouse from June 10-19. (...)
"The TV work ended in an air traffic control office as the plane disappears from the screen. In a way, that's where this story starts," says Michael.
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Ayr priest barred from Lockerbie memorial service in Virginia
[This is the headline over a report in the Ayrshire Post. It reads in part:]
An Ayr priest’s words were this week censored from a memorial service in the USA for the victims of the Lockerbie terror attack.
Canon Patrick Keegans was parish priest at Lockerbie when the attack occurred.
And he has spoken at previous services at the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia, where there is a memorial cairn.
Canon Keegans had sent over an address to be read on Monday – the 21st anniversary of the atrocity.
But it wasn’t read out, after the leader of the American victims’ group took exception to part of it.
Canon Keegan proclaimed the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi took ‘courage’ and was the ‘right decision’.
And he further said that although few in America believe Megrahi to be innocent, the victims of the bombing ‘deserve’ justice.
But Frank Duggan, president of Victims of Pan Am 103, saw the excerpt of Canon Keegans’ address, printed by The Herald newspaper.
And he said: “Fr Keegans’ remarks, as printed in the newspaper, were deemed to be very inappropriate for this memorial service." (...)
Canon Keegans’ address also included moving and poignant tributes to victims on the ground and in the air.
And he told the Post this week: “I felt that in view of what has happened this year, I should say the things I did.
“I thought it right to present my view, and the view of many in Scotland.
“I believe in freedom of speech, but Mr Duggan’s censorship of my words has given them greater impact.”
An Ayr priest’s words were this week censored from a memorial service in the USA for the victims of the Lockerbie terror attack.
Canon Patrick Keegans was parish priest at Lockerbie when the attack occurred.
And he has spoken at previous services at the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia, where there is a memorial cairn.
Canon Keegans had sent over an address to be read on Monday – the 21st anniversary of the atrocity.
But it wasn’t read out, after the leader of the American victims’ group took exception to part of it.
Canon Keegan proclaimed the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi took ‘courage’ and was the ‘right decision’.
And he further said that although few in America believe Megrahi to be innocent, the victims of the bombing ‘deserve’ justice.
But Frank Duggan, president of Victims of Pan Am 103, saw the excerpt of Canon Keegans’ address, printed by The Herald newspaper.
And he said: “Fr Keegans’ remarks, as printed in the newspaper, were deemed to be very inappropriate for this memorial service." (...)
Canon Keegans’ address also included moving and poignant tributes to victims on the ground and in the air.
And he told the Post this week: “I felt that in view of what has happened this year, I should say the things I did.
“I thought it right to present my view, and the view of many in Scotland.
“I believe in freedom of speech, but Mr Duggan’s censorship of my words has given them greater impact.”
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Megrahi’s case was ‘wrongful conviction’
[This is the headline over a report by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Gareth Peirce, one of the UK’s most high-profile lawyers, has described the Lockerbie case as a shocking “wrongful conviction”.
Ms Peirce, who is famous for her involvement with cases such as those of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Tipton Three, is now working with relatives of some of the victims of the tragedy.
The Herald revealed yesterday that Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was among 270 people who died in the 1988 tragedy, and relatives of 10 other British victims were working with Ms Peirce to use human rights legislation to force the UK Government to allow a public inquiry.
Speaking to The Herald yesterday, Ms Peirce said she believed the relatives had been “cheated” by being denied access to the details of what happened.
“I have looked at the case and the transcripts and was simply appalled at the echoes of classic wrongful convictions – including the same methodology and same personnel in terms of forensic scientists,” she said. “I was quite shocked at how much of the case seemed blatantly wrong.
“It blazes out that this is a wrongful conviction. That is not to say that addressing the conviction and addressing the need for an inquiry are an exact equation, but if this is the basis upon which he was convicted, in my view the relatives have never had the true picture placed before them.
“They have not had their right under international law, where there has been an unnatural death, to have a proper, independent inquiry into what happened. It seems to me they have been cheated.
“In other cases where evidence has been questioned or demolished, it has been deemed appropriate to have far-reaching public inquiries. At the very least that is what the relatives of the victims of Lockerbie deserve.” (...)
Lawyers say that under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which pertains to the right to life, there is also the right to an inquiry into how that life was taken.
Ms Peirce added: “If there was one unnatural death, particularly where the state may have had a role in adequately investigating the circumstances, they are responsible for correcting that and putting in place an adequate inquiry. The Fatal Accident Inquiry was completely circumscribed in what it felt it was allowed to look at. Its remit was very narrow because of the ongoing criminal investigation.”
Some of the British relatives believe a public inquiry offers the last realistic hope of finding out how and why their loved ones perished.
Gareth Peirce, one of the UK’s most high-profile lawyers, has described the Lockerbie case as a shocking “wrongful conviction”.
Ms Peirce, who is famous for her involvement with cases such as those of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Tipton Three, is now working with relatives of some of the victims of the tragedy.
The Herald revealed yesterday that Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was among 270 people who died in the 1988 tragedy, and relatives of 10 other British victims were working with Ms Peirce to use human rights legislation to force the UK Government to allow a public inquiry.
Speaking to The Herald yesterday, Ms Peirce said she believed the relatives had been “cheated” by being denied access to the details of what happened.
“I have looked at the case and the transcripts and was simply appalled at the echoes of classic wrongful convictions – including the same methodology and same personnel in terms of forensic scientists,” she said. “I was quite shocked at how much of the case seemed blatantly wrong.
“It blazes out that this is a wrongful conviction. That is not to say that addressing the conviction and addressing the need for an inquiry are an exact equation, but if this is the basis upon which he was convicted, in my view the relatives have never had the true picture placed before them.
“They have not had their right under international law, where there has been an unnatural death, to have a proper, independent inquiry into what happened. It seems to me they have been cheated.
“In other cases where evidence has been questioned or demolished, it has been deemed appropriate to have far-reaching public inquiries. At the very least that is what the relatives of the victims of Lockerbie deserve.” (...)
Lawyers say that under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which pertains to the right to life, there is also the right to an inquiry into how that life was taken.
Ms Peirce added: “If there was one unnatural death, particularly where the state may have had a role in adequately investigating the circumstances, they are responsible for correcting that and putting in place an adequate inquiry. The Fatal Accident Inquiry was completely circumscribed in what it felt it was allowed to look at. Its remit was very narrow because of the ongoing criminal investigation.”
Some of the British relatives believe a public inquiry offers the last realistic hope of finding out how and why their loved ones perished.
Compare and contrast
"Lucy, Lucy, Lucy. How did you get to be 'Chief Reporter?' I would be happy to give you the facts if you inquired. Fr Keegans was not invited to address the Pan Am 103 memorial service. In previous years, we have asked him if he would like us to read a statement from him, as a number of US families are very fond of him. He was not going to address the group, and we would have read his note this year except that it was deemed by the Board, not by me, to be inappropriate for a memorial service. We try to avoid any political statements or any discussions of the convicted bomber, so Fr Keegans' note was sent out to the families on our mailing list rather than read at the cemetery on December 21st.
"I hope you enjoyed your visit to Libya. I am sure they all took good care of you there. Have a blessed Christmas and a healthy New Year."
[The above is the text of an e-mail sent to Lucy Adams, Chief Reporter of The Herald, by Frank Duggan, President of the US relatives' group Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc.]
"You taught us to find the strength to carry on even when the world seems to make no sense at all, as it did again this past year. I will not recount those events here. But on behalf of President Obama, and on behalf of his administration, let me say this. The evidence was clear. The trial was fair. The guilt of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. His conviction stands. The sentence was just. And nothing — not his unjustified release and certainly not a deplorable scene on a tarmac in Tripoli — will ever change those facts or wash the guilt from his hands or from the hands of those who assisted him in carrying out this heinous crime."
[The above is an excerpt from the address delivered at the Arlington ceremony by John O Brennan who, a year before his Arlington address, withdrew his candidacy for the post of Director of the CIA in circumstances which are discussed here on the politics and government blog of The New York Times.
An excellent commentary by Adam "Caustic Logic" Larson entitled "Keeping the politics out of Arlington" can be read here on his blog The 12/7-9/11 Treadmill and Beyond.]
"I hope you enjoyed your visit to Libya. I am sure they all took good care of you there. Have a blessed Christmas and a healthy New Year."
[The above is the text of an e-mail sent to Lucy Adams, Chief Reporter of The Herald, by Frank Duggan, President of the US relatives' group Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc.]
"You taught us to find the strength to carry on even when the world seems to make no sense at all, as it did again this past year. I will not recount those events here. But on behalf of President Obama, and on behalf of his administration, let me say this. The evidence was clear. The trial was fair. The guilt of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. His conviction stands. The sentence was just. And nothing — not his unjustified release and certainly not a deplorable scene on a tarmac in Tripoli — will ever change those facts or wash the guilt from his hands or from the hands of those who assisted him in carrying out this heinous crime."
[The above is an excerpt from the address delivered at the Arlington ceremony by John O Brennan who, a year before his Arlington address, withdrew his candidacy for the post of Director of the CIA in circumstances which are discussed here on the politics and government blog of The New York Times.
An excellent commentary by Adam "Caustic Logic" Larson entitled "Keeping the politics out of Arlington" can be read here on his blog The 12/7-9/11 Treadmill and Beyond.]
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
Arlington address by John O Brennan
Remarks of John O Brennan
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
Pan Am Flight 103 Memorial Service
Arlington National Cemetery
Arlington, Virginia
December 21, 2009
Thank you, Frank, for your introduction and for your stewardship of this incredible organization — this family of families — dedicated to the memory of those who were loved so much.
To Mary Kay Stratis and all the spouses and families and friends, I am deeply humbled to join you on a day that I know is still difficult for so many of you. For others, 21 years might seem like a lifetime. To you, I know it seems like just yesterday.
And so for you and your families, this is an intensely personal moment. At the same time, it is a day for our nation — to remember, to reflect and to reaffirm our commitment to spare others the pain and loss you have known.
It was an attack against the world — a vicious crime against humanity that took the lives of innocents from more than 20 nations; men and women and children; American and European, African and Asian; Christian, Jew, Hindu, and Muslim.
It was an attack against our country — until that time, it was the worst terrorist attack against American civilians… People simply going about their daily lives: pilots and crew doing their jobs; business travelers between meetings; students headed home; soldiers returning from deployment; families preparing for the holidays.
But most of all — most of all — it was an unspeakable loss for your families. Your husband or wife. Your son or daughter. Your brother or sister. Your parents. Your colleagues. Your friends. The love you gave them. The joy they gave you.
It takes less than 20 minutes to read their names. But it has taken more than 20 years of grieving and grace to bring us to this day. As one pastor in Lockerbie said last year: “This is a list of those who died. But it is not a list of the victims, because we can never list all those names.”
And yet, long ago, you decided not to simply be victims. Instead of going gently into that good night, you raised your voices and demanded justice.
As I do most days, I met with President Obama in the Oval Office this morning. I told him I’d be joining you here at Arlington. And he asked me to carry his best wishes to you and your families. And he asked that I express to you America’s gratitude for all that you have done.
For you came together to honor your loved ones, but you — the families and friends of Pan Am Flight 103 — have left a legacy all your own. Indeed, long before there was 9-11, there was 12-21. And your example over the past 21 years has been an inspiration to all of us.
You have taught us how important it is to keep alive the memory of those taken much too soon. In the stone of this memorial cairn which stands, rightly, among our nation’s heroes. In scholarships of remembrance, which will inspire future generations. And in this ceremony today, along with those in Syracuse and Lockerbie. Because what happened that terrible December day is not “history.” It is still very much a part of each and every one of us, and it always will be.
You taught us that families can turn their grief into action and become powerful voices for change. For stronger security that protects our citizens. For legislation that ensures families are compensated. For sanctions that hold state sponsors of terrorism accountable for their crimes. And in so doing, you have inspired others touched by tragedy, including our 9-11 families.
You taught us to never stop seeking the truth, which is why one of the most complex international law enforcement efforts the world has ever seen was undertaken. I know that members of that effort are here today, men and women who have devoted their careers to uncovering the truth. And I believe I speak for all of us when I say that your passion and your persistence made us all want to work as hard as we could to see justice served.
You taught us to find the strength to carry on even when the world seems to make no sense at all, as it did again this past year. I will not recount those events here. But on behalf of President Obama, and on behalf of his administration, let me say this. The evidence was clear. The trial was fair. The guilt of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. His conviction stands. The sentence was just. And nothing—not his unjustified release and certainly not a deplorable scene on a tarmac in Tripoli—will ever change those facts or wash the guilt from his hands or from the hands of those who assisted him in carrying out this heinous crime.
Indeed, for any who truly seek it, it is here, in Arlington, among this gathering of families and friends, where you will find “compassionate grounds.” And that is where your government will always be — here, with you and your families.
Finally, by the lives you have led, by your very presence here today, you have taught us that we can and must carry on; that from our pain we can grow stronger — as individuals, as a people, as a nation. Among you are widows and widowers who raised children on your own; children who have grown into adults; grandchildren who will be inspired by stories of men and women they never knew. And to all Americans, your strength and your example is an inspiration.
More than two decades later, our adversaries may have changed, but their murderous tactics have not. There are those who still seek to slaughter the innocent. There are those who seek to sow terror. But as the President has pledged, we will thwart their plans. We will defeat their agenda of hatred and murder. And we will do everything in our power to keep this country safe. We owe nothing less to those who perished 21 years ago today.
Thank you so much for letting me share this day with you. May God bless you and your families, and may the wonderful memories of your loved ones always give you comfort, and travel with you the rest of your days. And may those we remember today continue to rest peacefully in God’s warm embrace.
[The address by Canon Pat Keegans that was apparently too controversial to be delivered at the ceremony can be read here.]
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
Pan Am Flight 103 Memorial Service
Arlington National Cemetery
Arlington, Virginia
December 21, 2009
Thank you, Frank, for your introduction and for your stewardship of this incredible organization — this family of families — dedicated to the memory of those who were loved so much.
To Mary Kay Stratis and all the spouses and families and friends, I am deeply humbled to join you on a day that I know is still difficult for so many of you. For others, 21 years might seem like a lifetime. To you, I know it seems like just yesterday.
And so for you and your families, this is an intensely personal moment. At the same time, it is a day for our nation — to remember, to reflect and to reaffirm our commitment to spare others the pain and loss you have known.
It was an attack against the world — a vicious crime against humanity that took the lives of innocents from more than 20 nations; men and women and children; American and European, African and Asian; Christian, Jew, Hindu, and Muslim.
It was an attack against our country — until that time, it was the worst terrorist attack against American civilians… People simply going about their daily lives: pilots and crew doing their jobs; business travelers between meetings; students headed home; soldiers returning from deployment; families preparing for the holidays.
But most of all — most of all — it was an unspeakable loss for your families. Your husband or wife. Your son or daughter. Your brother or sister. Your parents. Your colleagues. Your friends. The love you gave them. The joy they gave you.
It takes less than 20 minutes to read their names. But it has taken more than 20 years of grieving and grace to bring us to this day. As one pastor in Lockerbie said last year: “This is a list of those who died. But it is not a list of the victims, because we can never list all those names.”
And yet, long ago, you decided not to simply be victims. Instead of going gently into that good night, you raised your voices and demanded justice.
As I do most days, I met with President Obama in the Oval Office this morning. I told him I’d be joining you here at Arlington. And he asked me to carry his best wishes to you and your families. And he asked that I express to you America’s gratitude for all that you have done.
For you came together to honor your loved ones, but you — the families and friends of Pan Am Flight 103 — have left a legacy all your own. Indeed, long before there was 9-11, there was 12-21. And your example over the past 21 years has been an inspiration to all of us.
You have taught us how important it is to keep alive the memory of those taken much too soon. In the stone of this memorial cairn which stands, rightly, among our nation’s heroes. In scholarships of remembrance, which will inspire future generations. And in this ceremony today, along with those in Syracuse and Lockerbie. Because what happened that terrible December day is not “history.” It is still very much a part of each and every one of us, and it always will be.
You taught us that families can turn their grief into action and become powerful voices for change. For stronger security that protects our citizens. For legislation that ensures families are compensated. For sanctions that hold state sponsors of terrorism accountable for their crimes. And in so doing, you have inspired others touched by tragedy, including our 9-11 families.
You taught us to never stop seeking the truth, which is why one of the most complex international law enforcement efforts the world has ever seen was undertaken. I know that members of that effort are here today, men and women who have devoted their careers to uncovering the truth. And I believe I speak for all of us when I say that your passion and your persistence made us all want to work as hard as we could to see justice served.
You taught us to find the strength to carry on even when the world seems to make no sense at all, as it did again this past year. I will not recount those events here. But on behalf of President Obama, and on behalf of his administration, let me say this. The evidence was clear. The trial was fair. The guilt of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. His conviction stands. The sentence was just. And nothing—not his unjustified release and certainly not a deplorable scene on a tarmac in Tripoli—will ever change those facts or wash the guilt from his hands or from the hands of those who assisted him in carrying out this heinous crime.
Indeed, for any who truly seek it, it is here, in Arlington, among this gathering of families and friends, where you will find “compassionate grounds.” And that is where your government will always be — here, with you and your families.
Finally, by the lives you have led, by your very presence here today, you have taught us that we can and must carry on; that from our pain we can grow stronger — as individuals, as a people, as a nation. Among you are widows and widowers who raised children on your own; children who have grown into adults; grandchildren who will be inspired by stories of men and women they never knew. And to all Americans, your strength and your example is an inspiration.
More than two decades later, our adversaries may have changed, but their murderous tactics have not. There are those who still seek to slaughter the innocent. There are those who seek to sow terror. But as the President has pledged, we will thwart their plans. We will defeat their agenda of hatred and murder. And we will do everything in our power to keep this country safe. We owe nothing less to those who perished 21 years ago today.
Thank you so much for letting me share this day with you. May God bless you and your families, and may the wonderful memories of your loved ones always give you comfort, and travel with you the rest of your days. And may those we remember today continue to rest peacefully in God’s warm embrace.
[The address by Canon Pat Keegans that was apparently too controversial to be delivered at the ceremony can be read here.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)