Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Newsnight Lockerbie segment postponed
I understand that the Newsnight report on the Lockerbie evidence, which was due to be broadcast tonight, has been postponed because of a breaking political story in the UK. It will probably be broadcast on Friday, 8th January).
'Flaws' in key Lockerbie evidence
An investigation by BBC's Newsnight has cast doubts on the key piece of evidence which convicted the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
Tests aimed at reproducing the blast appear to undermine the case's central forensic link, based on a tiny fragment identified as part of a bomb timer.
The tests suggest the fragment, which linked the attack to Megrahi, would not have survived the mid-air explosion. (...)
Newsnight has been reviewing that evidence, and has exposed serious doubts about the forensics used to identify the fragment as being part of a trigger circuit board.
The fragment was found three weeks after the attack. For months it remained unnoticed and unremarked, but eventually it was to shape the entire investigation.
The fragment was embedded in a charred piece of clothing, which was marked with a label saying it was made in Malta. (...)
Newsnight has discovered that the fragment - crucial to the conviction - was never subjected to chemical analysis or swabbing to establish whether it had in fact been involved in any explosion.
And the UN's European consultant on explosives, John Wyatt, has told Newsnight that there are further doubts over the whether the fragment could have come from the trigger of the Lockerbie bomb.
He has recreated the suitcase bomb which it is said destroyed Pan Am 103, using the type of radio in which the explosive and the timer circuit board were supposedly placed, and the same kind of clothes on which the fragment was found.
In each test the timer and its circuit board were obliterated, prompting Mr Wyatt to question whether such a fragment could have survived the mid-air explosion.
He told Newsnight: "I do find it quite extraordinary and I think highly improbable and most unlikely that you would find a fragment like that - it is unbelievable.
"We carried out 20 tests, we didn't carry out 100 or 1,000, but in those 20 tests we found absolutely nothing at all - so I found it highly improbable that you would find anything like that, particularly at 10,000 feet when bits are dropping into long wet grass over hundreds of miles."
Watch Peter Marshall's full report on the Lockerbie bomb evidence on Newsnight at 2230 GMT on BBC Two, then afterwards on the Newsnight website.
[From a report on the BBC News website.
I am informed by a reader that it is likely that people not based in the UK will be unable to watch the video on the Newsnight website unless they are operating through a UK-based proxy server.]
Tests aimed at reproducing the blast appear to undermine the case's central forensic link, based on a tiny fragment identified as part of a bomb timer.
The tests suggest the fragment, which linked the attack to Megrahi, would not have survived the mid-air explosion. (...)
Newsnight has been reviewing that evidence, and has exposed serious doubts about the forensics used to identify the fragment as being part of a trigger circuit board.
The fragment was found three weeks after the attack. For months it remained unnoticed and unremarked, but eventually it was to shape the entire investigation.
The fragment was embedded in a charred piece of clothing, which was marked with a label saying it was made in Malta. (...)
Newsnight has discovered that the fragment - crucial to the conviction - was never subjected to chemical analysis or swabbing to establish whether it had in fact been involved in any explosion.
And the UN's European consultant on explosives, John Wyatt, has told Newsnight that there are further doubts over the whether the fragment could have come from the trigger of the Lockerbie bomb.
He has recreated the suitcase bomb which it is said destroyed Pan Am 103, using the type of radio in which the explosive and the timer circuit board were supposedly placed, and the same kind of clothes on which the fragment was found.
In each test the timer and its circuit board were obliterated, prompting Mr Wyatt to question whether such a fragment could have survived the mid-air explosion.
He told Newsnight: "I do find it quite extraordinary and I think highly improbable and most unlikely that you would find a fragment like that - it is unbelievable.
"We carried out 20 tests, we didn't carry out 100 or 1,000, but in those 20 tests we found absolutely nothing at all - so I found it highly improbable that you would find anything like that, particularly at 10,000 feet when bits are dropping into long wet grass over hundreds of miles."
Watch Peter Marshall's full report on the Lockerbie bomb evidence on Newsnight at 2230 GMT on BBC Two, then afterwards on the Newsnight website.
[From a report on the BBC News website.
I am informed by a reader that it is likely that people not based in the UK will be unable to watch the video on the Newsnight website unless they are operating through a UK-based proxy server.]
Monday, 4 January 2010
We were right to complain about Lockerbie prisoner pact, says SNP
[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. (...)
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. (...)
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)