[This is the headline over a report published on 27 April 2010 on the website of The Times. It reads in part:]
Tony Blair lobbied Colonel Muammar Gaddafi on behalf of Shell in a letter written for him in draft form by the oil company, documents obtained by The Times reveal.
The correspondence, written while Mr Blair was Prime Minister, bears a striking resemblance to a briefing note by Royal Dutch Shell weeks earlier promoting a $500 million (£325 million) deal it was trying to clinch in Libya.
While it is common for government ministers to champion British interests abroad, Shell’s draft reveals an unusual assurance in its ability to dictate Mr Blair’s conversation with the Libyan leader. It also raises questions about the motives behind Britain’s improved relations with Libya and the subsequent release of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber. Lockerbie victims have claimed that the Government paved the way for al-Megrahi’s release as part of a deal with Libya to give British companies access to Libya’s lucrative oil and gas industry.
In the draft, Shell tells Mr Blair to discuss positive progress on weapons of mass destruction as well as the investigation into the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in London in 1984. (...)
The Cabinet Office would release only a part of Mr Blair’s official letter but the section on Shell sounds very similar to the draft. “I understand that the necessary technical discussions with the relevant authorities in Libya have been completed satisfactorily,” it states. “All that is needed now are final decisions by the [Libyan] General People’s Committee to go ahead.” The Libyan Cabinet agreed the Shell deal shortly after this letter was written and the contract was signed in May 2005.
Both letters were released after a lengthy Freedom of Information process. The Times first asked for them after al-Megrahi was released last August on compassionate grounds by the Scottish Government, which said that he had only months to live.
Al-Megrahi, who killed 270 people on board Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, celebrated his 58th birthday in Tripoli last month. There was speculation that his release was part of a deal struck between Britain and Libya to improve diplomatic ties between the countries.
The Government denied this, although it emerged that Britain and Libya had signed a prisoner transfer deal in 2007 that included al-Megrahi. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary at the time, said that al-Megrahi had been included in the transfer deal “in view of the overwhelming interests of the UK”. (...)
Last September The Times requested all communication between the Department for Business and these companies. A limited number were released in December. One was an email from Shell to UK Trade & Investment dated September 2004 complaining of slow progress with its Libyan deal. Just months earlier Mr Blair and Colonel Gaddafi had met in a tent outside Tripoli to end Libya’s diplomatic isolation.
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Salmond defends decision to release the Lockerbie bomber
First Minister Alex Salmond yesterday defended the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber – although he said Dunblane killer Thomas Hamilton would not have been released under the same circumstances.
The SNP leader was questioned on the issue as he went head-to-head with Labour’s Jim Murphy, Scottish Conservative David Mundell and Liberal Democrat Scottish spokesman Alistair Carmichael in a live TV clash.
It was the Scotland’s second TV election debate of the general election campaign, and it saw the four politicians pressed on issues including benefits, the war in Iraq and the Pope’s visit to Britain.
The controversial release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was also discussed during the 90-minute debate, broadcast across the UK on Sky News.
A questioner asked if the Dunblane killer, had he lived and been sentenced to life in a Scottish jail, would have been released from prison if he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer.
Mr Salmond, whose cabinet colleague Kenny MacAskill made the decision to release Megrahi, said: “No, Thomas Hamilton shouldn’t and wouldn’t have been released.” He also insisted that Megrahi’s release was “made for the right reasons”.
Mr Mundell said, however, the decision to release Megrahi back to Libya was a “bad decision, badly made”.
Mr Carmichael further criticised Mr MacAskill for visiting the Libyan in prison before he made the decision to free him.
Meanwhile, Mr Murphy said his “personal reflection” was that if Hamilton was terminally ill in prison he should not be released “because his actions and the slaughter of those innocent children were just so vile”.
[From a report published on 26 April on the website of The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper circulating mainly in Aberdeen and the North-East of Scotland. The report of the interchange in The Times can be read here and that in The Scotsman can be read here.
Because of telephone line problems affecting most of the Northern Cape, I have been unable to access the internet from my Middelpos base since last Saturday. For the foreseeable future, I may be able to service this blog only during my weekly visits to Calvinia, where there is an internet cafe.]
The SNP leader was questioned on the issue as he went head-to-head with Labour’s Jim Murphy, Scottish Conservative David Mundell and Liberal Democrat Scottish spokesman Alistair Carmichael in a live TV clash.
It was the Scotland’s second TV election debate of the general election campaign, and it saw the four politicians pressed on issues including benefits, the war in Iraq and the Pope’s visit to Britain.
The controversial release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was also discussed during the 90-minute debate, broadcast across the UK on Sky News.
A questioner asked if the Dunblane killer, had he lived and been sentenced to life in a Scottish jail, would have been released from prison if he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer.
Mr Salmond, whose cabinet colleague Kenny MacAskill made the decision to release Megrahi, said: “No, Thomas Hamilton shouldn’t and wouldn’t have been released.” He also insisted that Megrahi’s release was “made for the right reasons”.
Mr Mundell said, however, the decision to release Megrahi back to Libya was a “bad decision, badly made”.
Mr Carmichael further criticised Mr MacAskill for visiting the Libyan in prison before he made the decision to free him.
Meanwhile, Mr Murphy said his “personal reflection” was that if Hamilton was terminally ill in prison he should not be released “because his actions and the slaughter of those innocent children were just so vile”.
[From a report published on 26 April on the website of The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper circulating mainly in Aberdeen and the North-East of Scotland. The report of the interchange in The Times can be read here and that in The Scotsman can be read here.
Because of telephone line problems affecting most of the Northern Cape, I have been unable to access the internet from my Middelpos base since last Saturday. For the foreseeable future, I may be able to service this blog only during my weekly visits to Calvinia, where there is an internet cafe.]
Saturday, 24 April 2010
A Time to Betray called a CIA plot by Iran’s fanatics
[This is the heading over a post on the Gather website by Reza Khalili. It reads in part:]
The Iranian government, through its daily paper, Aftab, published an article about me and my book, calling it, “A plot against the Islamic regime of Iran by the CIA.”
The paper starts with a lengthy headline:
"In a new scenario designed to create psychological warfare against Iran, the CIA has authorized a person who claims to have been a member of the Revolutionary Guards and to have spied for 10 years for the CIA to publish a book clearly named as a betrayal A Time to Betray by someone named Reza Kahlili."
The paper then goes on to attempt to refute some of the facts in my book:
"This person claims that the former President of Iran, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, ordered the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie. He says this despite the fact that Libyan TV has repeatedly shown Libyan leader, Muoamar Gaddafi, greeting al-Megrahi upon his return to Libya and that Megrahi was the only one indicted and sentenced for life for the bombing."
The paper fails to point out that I got my information from one of the regime’s own intelligence agents. This agent told me that the bombing was in retaliation for the downing of an Iranian commercial airliner by the US Navy.
[Reza Khalili's book, and Richard Marquise's reaction to it, is mentioned on this blog here.]
The Iranian government, through its daily paper, Aftab, published an article about me and my book, calling it, “A plot against the Islamic regime of Iran by the CIA.”
The paper starts with a lengthy headline:
"In a new scenario designed to create psychological warfare against Iran, the CIA has authorized a person who claims to have been a member of the Revolutionary Guards and to have spied for 10 years for the CIA to publish a book clearly named as a betrayal A Time to Betray by someone named Reza Kahlili."
The paper then goes on to attempt to refute some of the facts in my book:
"This person claims that the former President of Iran, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, ordered the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie. He says this despite the fact that Libyan TV has repeatedly shown Libyan leader, Muoamar Gaddafi, greeting al-Megrahi upon his return to Libya and that Megrahi was the only one indicted and sentenced for life for the bombing."
The paper fails to point out that I got my information from one of the regime’s own intelligence agents. This agent told me that the bombing was in retaliation for the downing of an Iranian commercial airliner by the US Navy.
[Reza Khalili's book, and Richard Marquise's reaction to it, is mentioned on this blog here.]
My Lai and Lockerbie Reconsidered
[This is the headline over a long article, dated 31 August 2009 but which has only just come to my attention, by Nick Turse in The Nation. It reads in part:]
A week ago, two convicted mass murderers leaped back into public consciousness as news coverage of their stories briefly intersected. One was freed from prison, continuing to proclaim his innocence, and his release was vehemently denounced in the United States as were the well-wishers who welcomed him home. The other expressed his contrition, after almost 35 years living in his country in a state of freedom, and few commented.
When Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Libyan sentenced in 2001 to twenty-seven years in prison for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, was released from incarceration by the Scottish government on "compassionate grounds," a furor erupted. On August 22nd, ABC World News with Charles Gibson featured a segment on outrage over the Libyan's release. It was aired shortly before a report on an apology offered by William Calley, who, in 1971 as a young lieutenant, was sentenced to life in prison for the massacre of civilians in the Vietnamese village of My Lai.
After al-Megrahi, who served eight years in prison, arrived home to a hero's welcome in Libya, officials in Washington expressed their dismay. To White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, it was "outrageous and disgusting"; to President Barrack Obama, "highly objectionable." Calley, who admitted at trial to killing Vietnamese civilians personally, but served only three years of house arrest following an intervention by President Richard Nixon, received a standing ovation from the Kiwanis Club of Greater Columbus, Georgia, the city where he lived for years following the war. (He now resides in Atlanta.) For him, there was no such uproar, and no one, apparently, thought to ask either Gibbs or the president for comment, despite the eerie confluence of the two men and their fates.
Part of the difference in treatment was certainly the passage of time and Calley's contrition, however many decades delayed, regarding the infamous massacre of more than 500 civilians. "There is not a day that goes by that I do not feel remorse for what happened that day in My Lai," the Vietnam veteran told his audience. "I feel remorse for the Vietnamese who were killed, for their families, for the American soldiers involved and their families. I am very sorry." For his part, al-Megrahi, now dying of cancer, accepted that relatives of the 270 victims of the Lockerbie bombing "have hatred for me. It's natural to behave like this...They believe I'm guilty, which in reality I'm not. One day the truth won't be hiding as it is now. We have an Arab saying: 'The truth never dies.'"
Calley was charged in the deaths of more than 100 civilians and convicted in the murder of twenty-two in one village, while al-Megrahi was convicted of the murder of 270 civilians aboard one airplane. Almost everyone, it seems, found it perverse, outrageous, or "gross and callous" that the Scottish government allowed a convicted mass murderer to return to a homeland where he was greeted with open arms. No one seemingly thought it odd that another mass murderer had lived freely in his home country for so long. The families of the Lockerbie victims were widely interviewed. As the Calley story broke, no American reporter apparently thought it worth the bother to look for the families of the My Lai victims, let alone ask them what they thought of the apology of the long-free officer who had presided over, and personally taken part in the killing of, their loved ones.
A week ago, two convicted mass murderers leaped back into public consciousness as news coverage of their stories briefly intersected. One was freed from prison, continuing to proclaim his innocence, and his release was vehemently denounced in the United States as were the well-wishers who welcomed him home. The other expressed his contrition, after almost 35 years living in his country in a state of freedom, and few commented.
When Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Libyan sentenced in 2001 to twenty-seven years in prison for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, was released from incarceration by the Scottish government on "compassionate grounds," a furor erupted. On August 22nd, ABC World News with Charles Gibson featured a segment on outrage over the Libyan's release. It was aired shortly before a report on an apology offered by William Calley, who, in 1971 as a young lieutenant, was sentenced to life in prison for the massacre of civilians in the Vietnamese village of My Lai.
After al-Megrahi, who served eight years in prison, arrived home to a hero's welcome in Libya, officials in Washington expressed their dismay. To White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, it was "outrageous and disgusting"; to President Barrack Obama, "highly objectionable." Calley, who admitted at trial to killing Vietnamese civilians personally, but served only three years of house arrest following an intervention by President Richard Nixon, received a standing ovation from the Kiwanis Club of Greater Columbus, Georgia, the city where he lived for years following the war. (He now resides in Atlanta.) For him, there was no such uproar, and no one, apparently, thought to ask either Gibbs or the president for comment, despite the eerie confluence of the two men and their fates.
Part of the difference in treatment was certainly the passage of time and Calley's contrition, however many decades delayed, regarding the infamous massacre of more than 500 civilians. "There is not a day that goes by that I do not feel remorse for what happened that day in My Lai," the Vietnam veteran told his audience. "I feel remorse for the Vietnamese who were killed, for their families, for the American soldiers involved and their families. I am very sorry." For his part, al-Megrahi, now dying of cancer, accepted that relatives of the 270 victims of the Lockerbie bombing "have hatred for me. It's natural to behave like this...They believe I'm guilty, which in reality I'm not. One day the truth won't be hiding as it is now. We have an Arab saying: 'The truth never dies.'"
Calley was charged in the deaths of more than 100 civilians and convicted in the murder of twenty-two in one village, while al-Megrahi was convicted of the murder of 270 civilians aboard one airplane. Almost everyone, it seems, found it perverse, outrageous, or "gross and callous" that the Scottish government allowed a convicted mass murderer to return to a homeland where he was greeted with open arms. No one seemingly thought it odd that another mass murderer had lived freely in his home country for so long. The families of the Lockerbie victims were widely interviewed. As the Calley story broke, no American reporter apparently thought it worth the bother to look for the families of the My Lai victims, let alone ask them what they thought of the apology of the long-free officer who had presided over, and personally taken part in the killing of, their loved ones.
Lockerbie bomber's medical file 'should be made public'
[This is the headline over a report published yesterday on The Scotsman website. The following are excerpts. By far the most significant part is the last two paragraphs.]
The Scottish Government has faced fresh calls for the Lockerbie bomber's medical reports to be released.
Labour and the Tories both pressed justice secretary Kenny MacAskill on the matter, more than eight months after Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was granted compassionate release. (...)
Yesterday, Labour's Lord Foulkes said there had been reports the bomber's health had improved to the extent that he was writing his autobiography.
The Lothians MSP raised the matter with Mr MacAskill in the Scottish Parliament, asking: "Does the cabinet secretary realise it is now eight months since he released al-Megrahi on the basis he had less than three months to live?
"And has he seen reports that al-Megrahi's health is improving, that he is working on his autobiography and he has welcomed over 30,000 visitors to his home?"
However, the justice secretary said: "In this country medical reports are private and confidential. That applies to people who have committed serious offences.
"These are not available to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, to members of the press or indeed to political parties."
SNP MSP Christine Grahame raised the issue of a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing, saying the case for this was now "overwhelming".
Mr MacAskill said there were "still lingering questions that people feel need to be answered". He said the Scottish Government would "fully co-operate with any inquiry".
The Scottish Government has faced fresh calls for the Lockerbie bomber's medical reports to be released.
Labour and the Tories both pressed justice secretary Kenny MacAskill on the matter, more than eight months after Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was granted compassionate release. (...)
Yesterday, Labour's Lord Foulkes said there had been reports the bomber's health had improved to the extent that he was writing his autobiography.
The Lothians MSP raised the matter with Mr MacAskill in the Scottish Parliament, asking: "Does the cabinet secretary realise it is now eight months since he released al-Megrahi on the basis he had less than three months to live?
"And has he seen reports that al-Megrahi's health is improving, that he is working on his autobiography and he has welcomed over 30,000 visitors to his home?"
However, the justice secretary said: "In this country medical reports are private and confidential. That applies to people who have committed serious offences.
"These are not available to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, to members of the press or indeed to political parties."
SNP MSP Christine Grahame raised the issue of a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing, saying the case for this was now "overwhelming".
Mr MacAskill said there were "still lingering questions that people feel need to be answered". He said the Scottish Government would "fully co-operate with any inquiry".
The Herald wins newspaper of the year award
The Herald was named Newspaper of the Year during a night of success for Herald & Times Group at the prestigious Scottish Press Awards last night.
Chief reporter Lucy Adams won Journalist of the Year and Reporter of the Year ...
Ms Adams’s double success is recognition for the way she led the story of the Scottish Government’s controversial decision to release cancer-stricken Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, on compassionate grounds so that he could return home to Libya in August.
She was the first UK journalist to interview Megrahi at his home in Tripoli. Under the headline "Truth never dies", Lucy reported his demands for a far-reaching public inquiry into the atrocity and his 10-year fight with the Scottish legal system to clear his name.
Donald Martin, editor-in-chief of Herald & Times Group and chair of the Scottish Newspaper Society’s Editors’ Committee, said: "(...) I am really delighted for our winners tonight, and nominees. It’s testimony to their talent, hard work and dedication. At the end of the day it’s quality that counts and, across all three titles, we have that in abundance.”
He added that Lucy “thoroughly deserves” her awards.
He said: “Lucy is a fantastic journalist, a real asset who impresses everyone she meets and works with. I am so pleased for her.”
[From a report posted on Friday on the heraldscotland website. Lucy Adams's Lockerbie stories (some of the most important ones written with Ian Ferguson) can be read here.]
Chief reporter Lucy Adams won Journalist of the Year and Reporter of the Year ...
Ms Adams’s double success is recognition for the way she led the story of the Scottish Government’s controversial decision to release cancer-stricken Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, on compassionate grounds so that he could return home to Libya in August.
She was the first UK journalist to interview Megrahi at his home in Tripoli. Under the headline "Truth never dies", Lucy reported his demands for a far-reaching public inquiry into the atrocity and his 10-year fight with the Scottish legal system to clear his name.
Donald Martin, editor-in-chief of Herald & Times Group and chair of the Scottish Newspaper Society’s Editors’ Committee, said: "(...) I am really delighted for our winners tonight, and nominees. It’s testimony to their talent, hard work and dedication. At the end of the day it’s quality that counts and, across all three titles, we have that in abundance.”
He added that Lucy “thoroughly deserves” her awards.
He said: “Lucy is a fantastic journalist, a real asset who impresses everyone she meets and works with. I am so pleased for her.”
[From a report posted on Friday on the heraldscotland website. Lucy Adams's Lockerbie stories (some of the most important ones written with Ian Ferguson) can be read here.]
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Emotional Blackmail: Deals, Appeals, and Megrahi's Compassionate Release
This is the heading over the most recent post on Caustic Logic's blog The Lockerbie Divide. It sets out a well-argued case for concluding that there was jiggery-pokery involved in inducing Abdelbaset Megrahi to drop his appeal even though that was not a requirement for compassionate release.
I may be being naive, but I continue to believe that the decision to abandon the appeal was taken simply because it kept open the possibility of repatriation under the UK-Libya Prisoner Transfer Agreement. Declining to abandon would have meant Megrahi putting all his eggs in the single basket labelled "compassionate release" at a time when he had no way of knowing which of the two alternatives Kenny MacAskill was likely to favour (if he was minded to grant repatriation at all).
Since the diagnosis of terminal prostate cancer was delivered, and in the light of the Scottish Prison Medical Service's conclusion that no life-extending treatment was possible (a conclusion that, incidentally, seems to have been falsified by events after Megrahi's return to Libya) Megrahi's overriding concern was to return to his homeland to die in the bosom of his family. Had he refused to terminate his appeal, he would have been depriving himself of one of the only two mechanisms available for securing that return. It ultimately transpired that the Justice Secretary opted for the mechanism that did not require abandonment. But Megrahi had no way of knowing that that was the way that Mr MacAskill would jump (and the Minister had stated that there would be no nods or winks before his decision was publicly announced) and so he decided to hedge his bets.
I may be being naive, but I continue to believe that the decision to abandon the appeal was taken simply because it kept open the possibility of repatriation under the UK-Libya Prisoner Transfer Agreement. Declining to abandon would have meant Megrahi putting all his eggs in the single basket labelled "compassionate release" at a time when he had no way of knowing which of the two alternatives Kenny MacAskill was likely to favour (if he was minded to grant repatriation at all).
Since the diagnosis of terminal prostate cancer was delivered, and in the light of the Scottish Prison Medical Service's conclusion that no life-extending treatment was possible (a conclusion that, incidentally, seems to have been falsified by events after Megrahi's return to Libya) Megrahi's overriding concern was to return to his homeland to die in the bosom of his family. Had he refused to terminate his appeal, he would have been depriving himself of one of the only two mechanisms available for securing that return. It ultimately transpired that the Justice Secretary opted for the mechanism that did not require abandonment. But Megrahi had no way of knowing that that was the way that Mr MacAskill would jump (and the Minister had stated that there would be no nods or winks before his decision was publicly announced) and so he decided to hedge his bets.
Sunday, 18 April 2010
Reflecting on Lockerbie
[This is the heading over a very recent post on John Cameron's Blog. It reads as follows:]
On 21 December 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 from London Heathrow to [New York] exploded over Lockerbie, killing all 259 passengers and crew, as well as 11 people on the ground.
Just a few months earlier, a US Navy battlecruiser, the Vincennes, had shot down an Iranian passenger jet over the Persian Gulf, killing 290 people.
Not only did the US government refuse to apologise, but the Pentagon went into full cover-up mode, decorating the warship’s crew.
The Lockerbie bombing was soon attributed to the Syrian-based radical Palestinian group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, as a revenge attack commissioned by the Iranian government.
Some weeks prior to Lockerbie, the German police had rounded up a Palestinian terrorist cell, in whose apartment they found equipment for fitting bombs into Toshiba radio-cassette players.
Unfortunately, not all of these barometric bombs were recovered – such a device was subsequently used at Lockerbie – and one of the key terrorists evaded capture.
By 1990, the crime had effectively been solved; however, at that point, the political background changed as a result of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.
The US and the UK now needed to court countries such as Syria and Iran so an alternative theory suddenly emerged in which Libya became the suspect.
In 2001, the case against two Libyans, Abdel Al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was heard at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands before three Scottish law lords.
Gadaffi would have been briefed about the vagaries of the Scottish criminal justice processes, but he clearly did not appreciate it could be so obtuse.
It might have been anticipated that only the most reputable forensic scientists would be used but in fact the Crown employed the services of three men whose credentials were a disgrace.
The evidence of Dr Thomas Hayes in previous trials had contributed to the convictions of several innocent people and he was later publicly humiliated by Sir John May’s inquiry which slated him for ‘knowingly placing a false and distorted scientific picture before the jury’.
Allan Fer[a]day had the barest of qualifications in the field and was condemned by the Lord Chief Justice in 1996 who stated he “should under no circumstances be considered an expert witness in explosives cases.”
Then there was the American Tom Thurman, who was later sacked by the FBI for ‘routinely altering reports in the explosives unit’ to support the prosecution case.
Fhimah was acquitted but Al-Megrahi was unaccountably convicted on the basis that he had placed the bomb on board a feeder flight in Malta.
Not only was there no evidence that the bomb had been put on board in Malta, but Air Malta had won a libel action in 1993 establishing that it was not!
So the trial led inexorably to the wrongful conviction of Al-Megrahi and the final betrayal of the bereaved families.
On 21 December 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 from London Heathrow to [New York] exploded over Lockerbie, killing all 259 passengers and crew, as well as 11 people on the ground.
Just a few months earlier, a US Navy battlecruiser, the Vincennes, had shot down an Iranian passenger jet over the Persian Gulf, killing 290 people.
Not only did the US government refuse to apologise, but the Pentagon went into full cover-up mode, decorating the warship’s crew.
The Lockerbie bombing was soon attributed to the Syrian-based radical Palestinian group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, as a revenge attack commissioned by the Iranian government.
Some weeks prior to Lockerbie, the German police had rounded up a Palestinian terrorist cell, in whose apartment they found equipment for fitting bombs into Toshiba radio-cassette players.
Unfortunately, not all of these barometric bombs were recovered – such a device was subsequently used at Lockerbie – and one of the key terrorists evaded capture.
By 1990, the crime had effectively been solved; however, at that point, the political background changed as a result of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.
The US and the UK now needed to court countries such as Syria and Iran so an alternative theory suddenly emerged in which Libya became the suspect.
In 2001, the case against two Libyans, Abdel Al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was heard at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands before three Scottish law lords.
Gadaffi would have been briefed about the vagaries of the Scottish criminal justice processes, but he clearly did not appreciate it could be so obtuse.
It might have been anticipated that only the most reputable forensic scientists would be used but in fact the Crown employed the services of three men whose credentials were a disgrace.
The evidence of Dr Thomas Hayes in previous trials had contributed to the convictions of several innocent people and he was later publicly humiliated by Sir John May’s inquiry which slated him for ‘knowingly placing a false and distorted scientific picture before the jury’.
Allan Fer[a]day had the barest of qualifications in the field and was condemned by the Lord Chief Justice in 1996 who stated he “should under no circumstances be considered an expert witness in explosives cases.”
Then there was the American Tom Thurman, who was later sacked by the FBI for ‘routinely altering reports in the explosives unit’ to support the prosecution case.
Fhimah was acquitted but Al-Megrahi was unaccountably convicted on the basis that he had placed the bomb on board a feeder flight in Malta.
Not only was there no evidence that the bomb had been put on board in Malta, but Air Malta had won a libel action in 1993 establishing that it was not!
So the trial led inexorably to the wrongful conviction of Al-Megrahi and the final betrayal of the bereaved families.
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
"Lockerbie Revisited" nominated for Rockie
Gideon Levy's Dutch television documentary Lockerbie Revisited has been nominated for a Rockie (the most prestigious international television award) at the 2010 Banff World Television Awards in the category Investigative and Current Affairs Programs. In October 2009 the documentary won the Prix Europa for the best television current affairs programme of the year.
The programme has never been broadcast on a United Kingdom television channel nor, I believe, in the United States. It can, however, be viewed here.
The programme has never been broadcast on a United Kingdom television channel nor, I believe, in the United States. It can, however, be viewed here.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
FBI agent dismisses CIA spy’s claim of Iran ties to Pan Am 103 bomb
[This is the heading over a post on Jeff Stein's Spy Talk blog hosted by The Washington Post. It reads in part:]
Retired Special Agent Richard Marquise, who headed the FBI’s investigation into the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, says there is no credible evidence for former Iranian double agent Reza Kahlili’s claim that Iran downed the plane.
Moreover, Kahlili's claim that his CIA handlers weren’t interested in hearing what he knew about it is ridiculous, Marquise said in an interview.
Kahlili (the name is a pseudonym) makes the claims in a memoir, "A Time to Betray: The Astonishing Double Life of a CIA Agent Inside the Revolutionary Guards of Iran," which has generated a lot of attention since it was published April 6. Its general theme is that Washington has underestimated the Iranian threat.
“I have read the parts about Lockerbie and did not see anything which was more than pure speculation on his part,” says Marquise, who headed the FBI task force on the bombing and later wrote a book about the probe.
”He said his info came from some guy he met in London after the attack. He never mentions anything about having knowledge of the attack before, and no information that would substantiate how it could have happened.“
Kahlili’s allegations aren’t nearly as specific in his book as they are in his interviews promoting it.
One news report summarizes Kahlili saying the CIA “didn’t seem interested in [his] information, which included details on the type of radio transmitter used in the bomb and other details not publicly known.”
But in the book, Khalili makes no claim of knowing technical details about the bomb, much less that the CIA wasn’t interested in what he knew.
In interviews, however, he has expanded on the theme.
“Shortly after the Pan Am incident I was in Europe on a mission and I had met with Iranian agents somewhere in Europe …” he told Roger L. Simon, the Hollywood writer and head of the Pajamas Media web site.
“We talked about the incident, they verified that Rafsanjani had ordered the Pan Am bombing and the retaliation for the Iranian airliner incident and they talked about a Palestinian suspect and the transistor — that the bomb was in the transistor radio. … In my conversation with them I was convinced that this was an Iranian act. It was delivered, as promised, through their proxies.”
Kahlili continues: “I reported my findings to the CIA, gave the names of the agents. They were traced — their travels were traced; where they were before, what countries they had visited. I told them of their connection to the Iranian hierarchy and so that’s where we left it off.”
Kahlili said he “expected a follow-up,” but “nothing happened.”
“The new US administration, President Bush Senior, made an assessment that Hashimi Rafsanjani, the new president, is ready for a change in diplomatic relations…,” he writes. George H.W. Bush wanted to move on
Twenty years later, U.S. intelligence is still covering up the Iranian role in the Pan Am bombing, Kahlili hints darkly.
“In August 2009,” he writes in his book, “Scottish authorities freed Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted for downing the plane, just when his legal team was ready to present US Defense Intelligence Agency documents implicating Iran.”
It's true that DIA sources did report, soon after the plane went down, that Iran orchestrated the bombing through Syria and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, or PFLP.
And the FBI’s Marquise, now retired, does acknowledge that Iran was first suspected of carrying out the bombing, because U.S. fighters had mistakenly downed an Iranian Airbus over the Persian Gulf five months before.
But investigators eventually discounted the reports for lack of evidence, he said.
Amid the debris, Marquise recounted, an investigator found the main piece of evidence that eventually led to Libya’s authorship of the crime: a piece of the circuit board that set off the bomb.
The FBI traced it to the head of a Swiss firm, who told them he had made only “20 or 21” of the type, “all of which were delivered to Libyan officials,” Marquise said.
All the physical evidence pointed to Libya.
“Nothing ties Iran to the evidence,” he declared. “There is no evidence, nothing that could be used in court, that ties Iran to those timers.”
Asked for comment, Kahlili repeated the main points in his book and said, "I think the lack of investigation of Iran's involvement into Pan Am bombing and behind the scene negotiations between Rafsanjani and President Bush were related."
Retired Special Agent Richard Marquise, who headed the FBI’s investigation into the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, says there is no credible evidence for former Iranian double agent Reza Kahlili’s claim that Iran downed the plane.
Moreover, Kahlili's claim that his CIA handlers weren’t interested in hearing what he knew about it is ridiculous, Marquise said in an interview.
Kahlili (the name is a pseudonym) makes the claims in a memoir, "A Time to Betray: The Astonishing Double Life of a CIA Agent Inside the Revolutionary Guards of Iran," which has generated a lot of attention since it was published April 6. Its general theme is that Washington has underestimated the Iranian threat.
“I have read the parts about Lockerbie and did not see anything which was more than pure speculation on his part,” says Marquise, who headed the FBI task force on the bombing and later wrote a book about the probe.
”He said his info came from some guy he met in London after the attack. He never mentions anything about having knowledge of the attack before, and no information that would substantiate how it could have happened.“
Kahlili’s allegations aren’t nearly as specific in his book as they are in his interviews promoting it.
One news report summarizes Kahlili saying the CIA “didn’t seem interested in [his] information, which included details on the type of radio transmitter used in the bomb and other details not publicly known.”
But in the book, Khalili makes no claim of knowing technical details about the bomb, much less that the CIA wasn’t interested in what he knew.
In interviews, however, he has expanded on the theme.
“Shortly after the Pan Am incident I was in Europe on a mission and I had met with Iranian agents somewhere in Europe …” he told Roger L. Simon, the Hollywood writer and head of the Pajamas Media web site.
“We talked about the incident, they verified that Rafsanjani had ordered the Pan Am bombing and the retaliation for the Iranian airliner incident and they talked about a Palestinian suspect and the transistor — that the bomb was in the transistor radio. … In my conversation with them I was convinced that this was an Iranian act. It was delivered, as promised, through their proxies.”
Kahlili continues: “I reported my findings to the CIA, gave the names of the agents. They were traced — their travels were traced; where they were before, what countries they had visited. I told them of their connection to the Iranian hierarchy and so that’s where we left it off.”
Kahlili said he “expected a follow-up,” but “nothing happened.”
“The new US administration, President Bush Senior, made an assessment that Hashimi Rafsanjani, the new president, is ready for a change in diplomatic relations…,” he writes. George H.W. Bush wanted to move on
Twenty years later, U.S. intelligence is still covering up the Iranian role in the Pan Am bombing, Kahlili hints darkly.
“In August 2009,” he writes in his book, “Scottish authorities freed Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted for downing the plane, just when his legal team was ready to present US Defense Intelligence Agency documents implicating Iran.”
It's true that DIA sources did report, soon after the plane went down, that Iran orchestrated the bombing through Syria and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, or PFLP.
And the FBI’s Marquise, now retired, does acknowledge that Iran was first suspected of carrying out the bombing, because U.S. fighters had mistakenly downed an Iranian Airbus over the Persian Gulf five months before.
But investigators eventually discounted the reports for lack of evidence, he said.
Amid the debris, Marquise recounted, an investigator found the main piece of evidence that eventually led to Libya’s authorship of the crime: a piece of the circuit board that set off the bomb.
The FBI traced it to the head of a Swiss firm, who told them he had made only “20 or 21” of the type, “all of which were delivered to Libyan officials,” Marquise said.
All the physical evidence pointed to Libya.
“Nothing ties Iran to the evidence,” he declared. “There is no evidence, nothing that could be used in court, that ties Iran to those timers.”
Asked for comment, Kahlili repeated the main points in his book and said, "I think the lack of investigation of Iran's involvement into Pan Am bombing and behind the scene negotiations between Rafsanjani and President Bush were related."
Blogger's victory over inaccurate press reporting
An interesting account of a blogger's complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about the Daily Record's falsification of the caption under a photograph accompanying a report in November on the health of Abdelbaset Megrahi can be read here.
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Anger over bomber claims
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of the Barrhead News, a local newspaper circulating in Renfrewshire. It reads in part:]
Claims that the Lockerbie bomber is refusing to co-operate with East Renfrewshire Council have been rubbished.
It had been claimed by a candidate for the East Renfrewsire Parliamentary seat that convicted terrorist Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was not co-operating with the council. (...)
However, a council spokesman pointed out that they have to treat Megrahi the same as everyone else within the local authority when it comes to confidential information.
Personal details the council holds of any Barrhead residents will not be released without the owner's consent and the same applies to Megrahi.
The council spokesman said: "We receive monthly medical reports as part of the release licence for Mr Megrahi.
"They are private and confidential medical reports and we won't be releasing them.
"We wouldn't release medical reports for any client and he, despite the circumstances and international background, is a criminal justice client like any other."
It was revealed that MSP George Foulkes had requested the details under the Freedom of Information Act but this was rejected, as was his appeal.
The council spokesman said: "We were asked to release personal medical reports about Mr Megrahi.
"We refused because these are personal data and their release would breach the data protection act which protects personal information.
"When the refusal was reviewed our senior legal adviser rightly checked through every possible avenue to test the original decision.
"The data protection act provides that it would not be a breach to release sensitive personal data about a person, if that person agrees to its release.
"As part of the review, it was absolutely right that we checked that position with Mr Megrahi's representatives and the response, which has been passed to Mr Foulkes, is that they wouldn't agree and therefore the original decision stands."
Claims that the Lockerbie bomber is refusing to co-operate with East Renfrewshire Council have been rubbished.
It had been claimed by a candidate for the East Renfrewsire Parliamentary seat that convicted terrorist Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was not co-operating with the council. (...)
However, a council spokesman pointed out that they have to treat Megrahi the same as everyone else within the local authority when it comes to confidential information.
Personal details the council holds of any Barrhead residents will not be released without the owner's consent and the same applies to Megrahi.
The council spokesman said: "We receive monthly medical reports as part of the release licence for Mr Megrahi.
"They are private and confidential medical reports and we won't be releasing them.
"We wouldn't release medical reports for any client and he, despite the circumstances and international background, is a criminal justice client like any other."
It was revealed that MSP George Foulkes had requested the details under the Freedom of Information Act but this was rejected, as was his appeal.
The council spokesman said: "We were asked to release personal medical reports about Mr Megrahi.
"We refused because these are personal data and their release would breach the data protection act which protects personal information.
"When the refusal was reviewed our senior legal adviser rightly checked through every possible avenue to test the original decision.
"The data protection act provides that it would not be a breach to release sensitive personal data about a person, if that person agrees to its release.
"As part of the review, it was absolutely right that we checked that position with Mr Megrahi's representatives and the response, which has been passed to Mr Foulkes, is that they wouldn't agree and therefore the original decision stands."
Monday, 5 April 2010
Lockerbie bomber to die ‘within next month’
[This is the headline over a report in yesterday's edition of The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]
The Lockerbie bomber is expected to die “within four weeks” of the terminal cancer that led to his release from a British prison.
Karol Sikora, a British cancer specialist who advised the Scottish government on Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi’s illness before he was freed, said that the convicted terrorist was spending his final days bed-ridden and on morphine.
He dismissed claims that the seriousness of the Libyan bomber’s condition had been exaggerated to secure his release.
Mr Sikora, who is being regularly updated by a doctor in Tripoli, said that al-Megrahi’s cancer had spread from his prostate to his kidneys, liver, pelvis and lymph nodes.
“I say he will be dead within four weeks. My understanding is that he’s bed-bound, at home, not going to the hospital, receiving palliative care and no active treatment at all,” he added.
Doctors have stopped al-Megrahi’s hospital visits in the past few weeks after he ceased responding to chemotherapy and other treatments.
Mr Sikora, medical director of CancerPartnersUK and dean of Buckingham University medical school, was one of three doctors who gave advice before al-Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds last August from Greenock prison. (...)
MSPs have questioned Mr Sikora’s position. Bill Aitken, justice spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, said: “I’m not a clinician, but Karl Sikora’s previous prognosis has been shown to be wildly inaccurate.
“I suppose we will just have to wait and see what happens, but even still, there is immense anger and bitterness that the biggest mass murderer in UK history has been released and survived for a period of almost eight months when he was supposed to be at death’s door.”
Mr Sikora said that al-Megrahi’s life may have been extended by the “psychological boost” he received from being surrounded by his family.
The cancer specialist is understood to be updated by Ibrahim Sherif, al-Megrahi’s British-trained doctor in Libya.
Abdurrhman Swessi, the Libyan consul general in Glasgow, a post established to deal with al-Megrahi’s case, said that the bomber’s health was rapidly deteriorating: “It’s much, much worse.” (...)
Commercial considerations were key to his release. In 2007 Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, wrote to Mr MacAskill that it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make him eligible for return to Libya.
[A similar report is published today in The Scotsman. It can be read here.]
The Lockerbie bomber is expected to die “within four weeks” of the terminal cancer that led to his release from a British prison.
Karol Sikora, a British cancer specialist who advised the Scottish government on Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi’s illness before he was freed, said that the convicted terrorist was spending his final days bed-ridden and on morphine.
He dismissed claims that the seriousness of the Libyan bomber’s condition had been exaggerated to secure his release.
Mr Sikora, who is being regularly updated by a doctor in Tripoli, said that al-Megrahi’s cancer had spread from his prostate to his kidneys, liver, pelvis and lymph nodes.
“I say he will be dead within four weeks. My understanding is that he’s bed-bound, at home, not going to the hospital, receiving palliative care and no active treatment at all,” he added.
Doctors have stopped al-Megrahi’s hospital visits in the past few weeks after he ceased responding to chemotherapy and other treatments.
Mr Sikora, medical director of CancerPartnersUK and dean of Buckingham University medical school, was one of three doctors who gave advice before al-Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds last August from Greenock prison. (...)
MSPs have questioned Mr Sikora’s position. Bill Aitken, justice spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, said: “I’m not a clinician, but Karl Sikora’s previous prognosis has been shown to be wildly inaccurate.
“I suppose we will just have to wait and see what happens, but even still, there is immense anger and bitterness that the biggest mass murderer in UK history has been released and survived for a period of almost eight months when he was supposed to be at death’s door.”
Mr Sikora said that al-Megrahi’s life may have been extended by the “psychological boost” he received from being surrounded by his family.
The cancer specialist is understood to be updated by Ibrahim Sherif, al-Megrahi’s British-trained doctor in Libya.
Abdurrhman Swessi, the Libyan consul general in Glasgow, a post established to deal with al-Megrahi’s case, said that the bomber’s health was rapidly deteriorating: “It’s much, much worse.” (...)
Commercial considerations were key to his release. In 2007 Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, wrote to Mr MacAskill that it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make him eligible for return to Libya.
[A similar report is published today in The Scotsman. It can be read here.]
Surely Mr Marquise should know the answer?
[What follows is a response by Dr Jim Swire to a comment by Richard Marquise on the article "Taking Another Look at the Destruction of Pan Am 103" that recently appeared in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. The article, and Mr Marquise's comment, can be read here.]
How remarkable that a man of your stature, Mr Marquise, should publish a comment which starts by claiming that those who wrote this article and those who do not believe that the Megrahi verdict was correct 'Have no knowledge other than what they have read in blogs on the internet offering an "opinion" of the evidence at Lockerbie....'
I sat, Mr Marquise, in the court at Zeist throughout the main trial and the first appeal: were you there? Frequently I still refer to the full set of transcripts to try to ensure that I make as few mistakes as possible. But I would add that it is what is not there that is often so interesting.
I presume you know, sir, that the trial judges were forced to report that it was 'a difficulty for the prosecution case that no evidence was led as to how Megrahi breached security in Malta'. Perhaps with your resources Mr Marquise, you can tell me, why was it that the break-in the night before Lockerbie at Heathrow airport was concealed from the main trial? It only emerged after 12 years: too late for the trial court to use.
Why was that? If you were indeed in charge of the case, presumably you know the answer. The Crown Office tell me they didn't know about it during that time either, what do you think? Did you know about it yourself? You were in charge you say of the investigation. If you knew, why didn't you tell, if you didn't know then it can't have been a very careful investigation can it? One or the other must be true. Did you know or not?
You must know by now that the break-in gave an unknown intruder access to Heathrow airside close to where the PanAm baggage container (later shown in court evidence to have contained the IED) had stood unguarded the following evening. Where the man loading that container gave evidence at Zeist that he had seen an unauthorised bag which he failed to remove, and that he'd seen it before the Frankfurt feeder flight (PA103A) had even landed at Heathrow.
What verdict do you think their Lordships at the main trial would have reached had they been required to compare the evidence from Luqa airport with the break-in evidence at Heathrow? Would they really then have been able to surmount the hurdle of 'reasonable doubt'? Their Lordships in the trial knew from the evidence led that terrorists had access to IEDs stable at ground level for days or even weeks, but designed always to explode around 40 minutes after take off, courtesy of their air pressure sensitive switches. No human intervention required in airside, except to get one into the target airplane. What if the Heathrow intruder brought one of those in with him? What if he left it with a message in the IranAir facility nearby?
So many queries because there was no scrap of evidence that the break-in was responsibly investigated at the time, that was not your fault, sir, because proper investigation, to be effective, would have had to start before the disaster had occurred, would it not?
Yes, I know that President Bush was trying back-channel negotiations with the Iranians in those days, despite the embarrassing shoot-down of an Iranian airbus by the US Cruiser Vincennes six months before, for which Iran had sworn revenge. That attempted negotiation wouldn't be a legitimate reason for interfering with a criminal trial would it? Not unless one was working in intelligence on one's country's behalf rather than as a criminal investigator.
Might not that break-in be the reason why my daughter's life was snuffed out in an explosion over Lockerbie 38 minutes after take-off from Heathrow with its now proven failed security perimeter?
Before you say 'Ah, but despite the Heathrow evidence, the first appeal failed' let me point out that Megrahi's defence had decided they would not challenge the 'sufficiency of evidence' led in the main trial. That extraordinary decision meant that their Lorships of appeal had no obligation to sift through that main trial evidence. That in turn meant that their belief that the 16 hours between the break-in and the take-off meant that it might be too long for it to be relevant may have been reached without the detailed knowledge of the nature of the available IEDs of which the main trial knew so much.
Did you know about the Heathrow break-in while the trial was in progress Mr Marquise, or did you not?
Do not fear, we are only after the truth, and I don't blog on the internet either. The fact that other well informed people do, makes it very difficult to conceal things for ever these days, doesn't it?
How remarkable that a man of your stature, Mr Marquise, should publish a comment which starts by claiming that those who wrote this article and those who do not believe that the Megrahi verdict was correct 'Have no knowledge other than what they have read in blogs on the internet offering an "opinion" of the evidence at Lockerbie....'
I sat, Mr Marquise, in the court at Zeist throughout the main trial and the first appeal: were you there? Frequently I still refer to the full set of transcripts to try to ensure that I make as few mistakes as possible. But I would add that it is what is not there that is often so interesting.
I presume you know, sir, that the trial judges were forced to report that it was 'a difficulty for the prosecution case that no evidence was led as to how Megrahi breached security in Malta'. Perhaps with your resources Mr Marquise, you can tell me, why was it that the break-in the night before Lockerbie at Heathrow airport was concealed from the main trial? It only emerged after 12 years: too late for the trial court to use.
Why was that? If you were indeed in charge of the case, presumably you know the answer. The Crown Office tell me they didn't know about it during that time either, what do you think? Did you know about it yourself? You were in charge you say of the investigation. If you knew, why didn't you tell, if you didn't know then it can't have been a very careful investigation can it? One or the other must be true. Did you know or not?
You must know by now that the break-in gave an unknown intruder access to Heathrow airside close to where the PanAm baggage container (later shown in court evidence to have contained the IED) had stood unguarded the following evening. Where the man loading that container gave evidence at Zeist that he had seen an unauthorised bag which he failed to remove, and that he'd seen it before the Frankfurt feeder flight (PA103A) had even landed at Heathrow.
What verdict do you think their Lordships at the main trial would have reached had they been required to compare the evidence from Luqa airport with the break-in evidence at Heathrow? Would they really then have been able to surmount the hurdle of 'reasonable doubt'? Their Lordships in the trial knew from the evidence led that terrorists had access to IEDs stable at ground level for days or even weeks, but designed always to explode around 40 minutes after take off, courtesy of their air pressure sensitive switches. No human intervention required in airside, except to get one into the target airplane. What if the Heathrow intruder brought one of those in with him? What if he left it with a message in the IranAir facility nearby?
So many queries because there was no scrap of evidence that the break-in was responsibly investigated at the time, that was not your fault, sir, because proper investigation, to be effective, would have had to start before the disaster had occurred, would it not?
Yes, I know that President Bush was trying back-channel negotiations with the Iranians in those days, despite the embarrassing shoot-down of an Iranian airbus by the US Cruiser Vincennes six months before, for which Iran had sworn revenge. That attempted negotiation wouldn't be a legitimate reason for interfering with a criminal trial would it? Not unless one was working in intelligence on one's country's behalf rather than as a criminal investigator.
Might not that break-in be the reason why my daughter's life was snuffed out in an explosion over Lockerbie 38 minutes after take-off from Heathrow with its now proven failed security perimeter?
Before you say 'Ah, but despite the Heathrow evidence, the first appeal failed' let me point out that Megrahi's defence had decided they would not challenge the 'sufficiency of evidence' led in the main trial. That extraordinary decision meant that their Lorships of appeal had no obligation to sift through that main trial evidence. That in turn meant that their belief that the 16 hours between the break-in and the take-off meant that it might be too long for it to be relevant may have been reached without the detailed knowledge of the nature of the available IEDs of which the main trial knew so much.
Did you know about the Heathrow break-in while the trial was in progress Mr Marquise, or did you not?
Do not fear, we are only after the truth, and I don't blog on the internet either. The fact that other well informed people do, makes it very difficult to conceal things for ever these days, doesn't it?
Thursday, 1 April 2010
US relative's reaction to Megrahi's 58th birthday
The grieving mum of a Lockerbie victim has launched a fresh attack on Kenny MacAskill - ahead of the freed bomber's birthday today.
Cancer-stricken Abdelbaset Ali al Megrahi was released by the Justice Secretary last August after reports claimed he had just three months to live.
But Susan Cohen - who lost daughter Theo in the atrocity - claims the fact the killer is alive to celebrate turning 58 in Libya today proves he should have been kept in jail.
She said: "It's sickening. This shows it was a shocking decision to free him.
"This man will have a birthday party, but my daughter will never have another one.
"She only had 20 birthdays and he should have remained in jail."
The 72-year-old, of Cape May Court House in New Jersey, added: "It was obvious that he was not going to die. It was a big fraud. It had nothing to do with compassion.
"Where's the compassion for my daughter and the other people who died?
"Megrahi is a terrorist who murdered 270 people. There is no way he should have been let out."
[From a report in today's edition of The Sun.]
Cancer-stricken Abdelbaset Ali al Megrahi was released by the Justice Secretary last August after reports claimed he had just three months to live.
But Susan Cohen - who lost daughter Theo in the atrocity - claims the fact the killer is alive to celebrate turning 58 in Libya today proves he should have been kept in jail.
She said: "It's sickening. This shows it was a shocking decision to free him.
"This man will have a birthday party, but my daughter will never have another one.
"She only had 20 birthdays and he should have remained in jail."
The 72-year-old, of Cape May Court House in New Jersey, added: "It was obvious that he was not going to die. It was a big fraud. It had nothing to do with compassion.
"Where's the compassion for my daughter and the other people who died?
"Megrahi is a terrorist who murdered 270 people. There is no way he should have been let out."
[From a report in today's edition of The Sun.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)