[This is the headline over a report just published on the website of The Guardian. It reads in part:]
Scottish prosecutors have asked to interview Moussa Koussa about the Lockerbie bombing after the Libyan foreign minister and spy chief defected to Britain.
The request from the Crown Office in Scotland follows demands from Libya's rebel leadership for Koussa to be returned to Libya for trial for murder and crimes against humanity after Muammar Gaddafi is toppled from power.
William Hague, the British foreign secretary, has said the UK is not offering Koussa immunity from prosecution.
The Crown Office in Edinburgh has said it is formally asking for its prosecutors and detectives from Dumfries and Galloway police to question Koussa about the 1988 bombing. "We have notified the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that the Scottish prosecuting and investigating authorities wish to interview Mr Koussa in connection with the Lockerbie bombing," it said.
"The investigation into the Lockerbie bombing remains open and we will pursue all relevant lines of inquiry."
Dumfries and Galloway police, which investigated the Lockerbie case, has confirmed its detectives are keen to interview Koussa.
It remains unclear what role Koussa played when Pan Am flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie in December 1988, killing 270 passengers, crew and townspeople. He later emerged as head of Libyan intelligence services. (...)
Senior figures in the Lockerbie case – including Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the attack, and Professor Robert Black, a lawyer and architect of the trial of two Libyans accused of the atrocity – have said they believe Koussa might have significant information about Libya's role.
Koussa was pivotal in the negotiations to hand over the two suspects – Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah – for trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001. He oversaw Libya's negotiations to pay billion of pounds in reparations for the attack.
The Libyans' consistent denial of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing has been repeatedly rejected by the UK and US governments, and Scottish prosecutors.
Swire, from UK Families of Pan Am Flight 103, and Black, emeritus professor of Scots law at Edinburgh University, have said they believe Megrahi is innocent. He remains the only man convicted of the bombing.
As Libyan foreign minister, Koussa met Foreign Office and Scottish government officials at least twice in 2008 and 2009 to negotiate Megrahi's release from Greenock prison. Koussa visited Megrahi in jail. Megrahi's lawyer, Tony Scott [RB: now corrected to Tony Kelly], has declined to comment on the latest developments.
Swire said the weight of evidence pointed to Syria as the main culprit but "within the Libyan regime [Koussa] is in the best position of anyone other than Gaddafi himself to tell us what the regime knows or did. He would be a peerless source of information".
Detective Superintendent Mickey Dalgliesh, who is in charge of the Lockerbie case at Dumfries and Galloway police, said the Crown Office request to interview Koussa was "in line with our position that the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing remains open and we are determined to pursue all relevant lines of inquiry".
[A column by former UK ambassador to Libya Oliver Miles has just been published on the Comment is free website of The Guardian. It is headed "Moussa Koussa's defection should be exploited: Denying Moussa Koussa immunity from prosecution in Britain does nothing to encourage others to desert Gaddafi".
A further Guardian report headlined "Moussa Koussa's defection surprises Libya – and maybe Britain too" can be read here.
The report on this issue on the BBC News website quotes extensively from this blog.]
Thursday, 31 March 2011
Moussa Koussa to be interviewed by Crown and police
[This is the heading over a press release issued today by the Scottish National Party. It reads as follows:]
Welcoming the defection of former Libyan Foreign Minister Mr Moussa Koussa, and the statements that they wish to interview him by the Crown Office and Dumfries & Galloway policy, First Minister and Scottish National Party leader Mr Alex Salmond said:
“Moussa Koussa’s defection is a very welcome development, and a clear sign that the Gaddafi regime is decaying from within.
“The Crown Office have confirmed to the UK Government that the prosecuting and investigating authorities in Scotland wish to interview Mr Koussa and pursue all relevant lines of inquiry, which is an extremely positive step forward. Mr Koussa may well have important information to reveal which can assist what has always remained a live investigation.
“Megrahi was convicted by a Scottish Court on the basis that he was a Libyan intelligence officer, and that he did not act alone. This welcome announcement by the Crown Office, and the intention of Dumfries & Galloway police to interview him, will hopefully lead to further information and lines of inquiry coming to light about the Lockerbie atrocity.”
[I am not as sure as Alex Salmond appears to be that this is a conventional defection, as opposed to a diplomatic manoeuvre. I would be amazed if the Scottish investigating and prosecuting authorities got access to Moussa any time soon or, for that matter, tried very hard to do so.]
Welcoming the defection of former Libyan Foreign Minister Mr Moussa Koussa, and the statements that they wish to interview him by the Crown Office and Dumfries & Galloway policy, First Minister and Scottish National Party leader Mr Alex Salmond said:
“Moussa Koussa’s defection is a very welcome development, and a clear sign that the Gaddafi regime is decaying from within.
“The Crown Office have confirmed to the UK Government that the prosecuting and investigating authorities in Scotland wish to interview Mr Koussa and pursue all relevant lines of inquiry, which is an extremely positive step forward. Mr Koussa may well have important information to reveal which can assist what has always remained a live investigation.
“Megrahi was convicted by a Scottish Court on the basis that he was a Libyan intelligence officer, and that he did not act alone. This welcome announcement by the Crown Office, and the intention of Dumfries & Galloway police to interview him, will hopefully lead to further information and lines of inquiry coming to light about the Lockerbie atrocity.”
[I am not as sure as Alex Salmond appears to be that this is a conventional defection, as opposed to a diplomatic manoeuvre. I would be amazed if the Scottish investigating and prosecuting authorities got access to Moussa any time soon or, for that matter, tried very hard to do so.]
Moussa Koussa could know truth about Lockerbie bombing, say campaigners
[This is the headline over a report just published on the website of The Guardian by Severin Carrell, the paper's Scotland correspondent. It reads in part:]
Crucial questions about Libya's role in the Lockerbie bombing could finally be answered after the defection of the country's foreign minister, say campaigners.
Professor Robert Black and Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, was killed in the attack, said Moussa Koussa had been a pivotal figure in the Gaddafi regime and his defection was a "fantastic day" for the victims' families.
Scottish prosecution authorities plan to interview Koussa about the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people on 21 December 1988. The Crown Office has been "liaising closely with other justice authorities", while Dumfries and Galloway police, which has kept open its files on the bombing, said it was waiting for direction from the Crown Office before asking permission to interview Koussa.
Swire and Black say they have spoken to Koussa, formerly Muammar Gaddafi's head of intelligence, on numerous occasions and describe him as "the scariest man" they have met. He even terrified other Libyan government officials, they said. They said Koussa had stuck rigidly to the official position that Libya was not responsible for the bombing.
Both men believe Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, jailed in 2001 for the bombing, is innocent, but questions remain on whether Libya was actually involved in the attack.
Swire claims the evidence points to Syria, not Libya. "Within the Libyan regime, [Koussa] is in the best position of anyone other than Gaddafi himself to tell us what the regime knows or did," he said. "He would be a peerless source of information."
Black, emeritus professor of Scots law at the University of Edinburgh, was the architect of the unique trial of Megrahi and his co-accused, Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah, at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001.
Koussa signed the papers agreeing to the trial on behalf of the regime in July 1994, Black said, and was also involved in negotiating a multibillion-pound Lockerbie compensation deal with UK and US authorities.
The former spy chief played a key role in Libya's efforts to get Megrahi released from Greenock prison, meeting Scottish government and Foreign Office officials and visiting the bomber in jail.
"On a personal level, I always found [Koussa] extremely scary," Black said. "I never felt fear in the presence of any other Libyan official over the years, including Gaddafi, but Koussa was a frightening guy. It was the way everyone in Libya that I met was terrified of him."
Black said he had never formed a firm view on whether Libya was involved in the bombing, but had long suspected Megrahi had been wrongly convicted. "As far as the Libyans supplying components or logistical support for the bombing, I don't know," he added.
Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Tripoli, said he knew Koussa well when he was head of the Libyan "people's bureau" or UK embassy before he was expelled in 1980 for openly supporting Irish republicans and terrorism.
Miles – a former president of the Society for Libyan Studies – found him a "straightforward and reliable" diplomat to deal with, despite his fierce loyalty to Muammar Gaddafi and his reputation amongst his Libyan friends of being "a terror".
Miles, who was then head of the Foreign Office's north Africa department before becoming Libyan ambassador until diplomatic relations broke off in 1984, said: "I found him a perfectly reasonable person to deal with; he struck me first of all as being a committed revolutionary. His record shows he is or was a devout admirer of Gaddafi." (...)
Miles said it was difficult to assess how useful Koussa could be on the Lockerbie affair. "There are two parts to this question: the first question is that given the situation he's in, is his personality and professional training conducive to him spilling the beans? And I think yes, with some reservations. But the real question is: does he have those beans to spill?"
He added that immediately detaining and threatening to prosecute Koussa would be very damaging to the UK's main interest: destabilising and toppling Gaddafi. "I very much hope that the government puts the questions of possible court action and criminal proceedings as a second priority, behind using this incident to unsettle Gaddafi. If Moussa Koussa is in jail, that's hardly going to encourage more defectors."
Crucial questions about Libya's role in the Lockerbie bombing could finally be answered after the defection of the country's foreign minister, say campaigners.
Professor Robert Black and Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, was killed in the attack, said Moussa Koussa had been a pivotal figure in the Gaddafi regime and his defection was a "fantastic day" for the victims' families.
Scottish prosecution authorities plan to interview Koussa about the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people on 21 December 1988. The Crown Office has been "liaising closely with other justice authorities", while Dumfries and Galloway police, which has kept open its files on the bombing, said it was waiting for direction from the Crown Office before asking permission to interview Koussa.
Swire and Black say they have spoken to Koussa, formerly Muammar Gaddafi's head of intelligence, on numerous occasions and describe him as "the scariest man" they have met. He even terrified other Libyan government officials, they said. They said Koussa had stuck rigidly to the official position that Libya was not responsible for the bombing.
Both men believe Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, jailed in 2001 for the bombing, is innocent, but questions remain on whether Libya was actually involved in the attack.
Swire claims the evidence points to Syria, not Libya. "Within the Libyan regime, [Koussa] is in the best position of anyone other than Gaddafi himself to tell us what the regime knows or did," he said. "He would be a peerless source of information."
Black, emeritus professor of Scots law at the University of Edinburgh, was the architect of the unique trial of Megrahi and his co-accused, Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah, at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001.
Koussa signed the papers agreeing to the trial on behalf of the regime in July 1994, Black said, and was also involved in negotiating a multibillion-pound Lockerbie compensation deal with UK and US authorities.
The former spy chief played a key role in Libya's efforts to get Megrahi released from Greenock prison, meeting Scottish government and Foreign Office officials and visiting the bomber in jail.
"On a personal level, I always found [Koussa] extremely scary," Black said. "I never felt fear in the presence of any other Libyan official over the years, including Gaddafi, but Koussa was a frightening guy. It was the way everyone in Libya that I met was terrified of him."
Black said he had never formed a firm view on whether Libya was involved in the bombing, but had long suspected Megrahi had been wrongly convicted. "As far as the Libyans supplying components or logistical support for the bombing, I don't know," he added.
Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Tripoli, said he knew Koussa well when he was head of the Libyan "people's bureau" or UK embassy before he was expelled in 1980 for openly supporting Irish republicans and terrorism.
Miles – a former president of the Society for Libyan Studies – found him a "straightforward and reliable" diplomat to deal with, despite his fierce loyalty to Muammar Gaddafi and his reputation amongst his Libyan friends of being "a terror".
Miles, who was then head of the Foreign Office's north Africa department before becoming Libyan ambassador until diplomatic relations broke off in 1984, said: "I found him a perfectly reasonable person to deal with; he struck me first of all as being a committed revolutionary. His record shows he is or was a devout admirer of Gaddafi." (...)
Miles said it was difficult to assess how useful Koussa could be on the Lockerbie affair. "There are two parts to this question: the first question is that given the situation he's in, is his personality and professional training conducive to him spilling the beans? And I think yes, with some reservations. But the real question is: does he have those beans to spill?"
He added that immediately detaining and threatening to prosecute Koussa would be very damaging to the UK's main interest: destabilising and toppling Gaddafi. "I very much hope that the government puts the questions of possible court action and criminal proceedings as a second priority, behind using this incident to unsettle Gaddafi. If Moussa Koussa is in jail, that's hardly going to encourage more defectors."
Former Libyan consul in Glasgow expelled
Among the five Libyan diplomats declared persona non grata by the UK Government yesterday and given until 6 April to leave the country with their dependants is Abdurrahman Swessi who was consul in Glasgow during the period of Abdelbaset Megrahi's imprisonment in Scotland. The other four are:
Fareg Alayat
Saad Mhemed
Husein Elghazali
Mahmoud Alsadawi.
Fareg Alayat
Saad Mhemed
Husein Elghazali
Mahmoud Alsadawi.
Defection or diplomatic mission?
Has Moussa Koussa really defected? There are some indications that this may be a diplomatic mission -- negotiating an exit strategy for the Gaddafi regime -- rather than a defection.
1. Moussa is not accompanied by his family, who are apparently still in Libya. If he had been planning defection he would have had no difficulty in getting them out of the country before he flew to London.
2. He was accompanied to Tunisia (but not beyond) for his flight from Djerba to Farnborough by Abdel Ati al-Obeidi who remains a trusted counsellor of Gaddafi (and a trusted intermediary in the eyes of the UK and the USA).
3. If Moussa had defected, he would surely have negotiated immunity from prosecution for any personal involvement in Lockerbie (if Libya was implicated in any capacity, Moussa would inevitably have been personally involved). According to Foreign Secretary William Hague, no such immunity has been granted. This suggests that his visit is already covered by diplomatic immunity.
1. Moussa is not accompanied by his family, who are apparently still in Libya. If he had been planning defection he would have had no difficulty in getting them out of the country before he flew to London.
2. He was accompanied to Tunisia (but not beyond) for his flight from Djerba to Farnborough by Abdel Ati al-Obeidi who remains a trusted counsellor of Gaddafi (and a trusted intermediary in the eyes of the UK and the USA).
3. If Moussa had defected, he would surely have negotiated immunity from prosecution for any personal involvement in Lockerbie (if Libya was implicated in any capacity, Moussa would inevitably have been personally involved). According to Foreign Secretary William Hague, no such immunity has been granted. This suggests that his visit is already covered by diplomatic immunity.
Koussa's Libya defection welcomed by Lockerbie relative
[This is the headline over a report just published on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
The Libyan Foreign Minister's defection was a "great day" for families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing, according to one victim's father.
Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora, said Moussa Koussa was at the heart of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's government and "could tell us everything". (...)
Mr Swire said the relatives of those who died "should be rejoicing".
Mr Koussa arrived in London on Wednesday saying he was no longer willing to represent the Libyan leader's regime internationally.
"Koussa was at the centre of Gaddafi's inner circle," Mr Swire said.
"This is a guy who knows everything.
"I think this is a fantastic day for those who seek the truth about Lockerbie."
Mr Swire, who met Mr Koussa during a visit to Libya in 1998, said he was "extremely frightening - more frightening than Gaddafi himself".
He said: "He was clearly running things.
"If Libya was involved in Lockerbie, he can tell us how they carried out the atrocity and why.
"I would be appalled if by now the Scottish police are not in England interviewing Mr Koussa - it is a great day for us."
The Libyan Foreign Minister's defection was a "great day" for families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing, according to one victim's father.
Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora, said Moussa Koussa was at the heart of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's government and "could tell us everything". (...)
Mr Swire said the relatives of those who died "should be rejoicing".
Mr Koussa arrived in London on Wednesday saying he was no longer willing to represent the Libyan leader's regime internationally.
"Koussa was at the centre of Gaddafi's inner circle," Mr Swire said.
"This is a guy who knows everything.
"I think this is a fantastic day for those who seek the truth about Lockerbie."
Mr Swire, who met Mr Koussa during a visit to Libya in 1998, said he was "extremely frightening - more frightening than Gaddafi himself".
He said: "He was clearly running things.
"If Libya was involved in Lockerbie, he can tell us how they carried out the atrocity and why.
"I would be appalled if by now the Scottish police are not in England interviewing Mr Koussa - it is a great day for us."
Blow for Gathafi as foreign minister defects
[This is the headline over a report published today on the Middle East Online website. It reads in part:]
Libya's Moamer Gathafi suffered another blow Wednesday when his foreign minister flew into Britain telling officials he no longer wanted to represent the Tripoli regime.
Mussa Kussa arrived at Farnborough Airfield, west of London, on Wednesday, a Foreign Office statement said.
"He travelled here under his own free will. He has told us that he is resigning his post," it added.
"Mussa Kussa is one of the most senior figures in Gathafi's government and his role was to represent the regime internationally, something that he is no longer willing to do," the British statement continued.
"We encourage those around Gathafi to abandon him and embrace a better future for Libya that allows political transition and real reform that meets the aspirations of the Libyan people," it concluded. (...)
Washington quickly hailed Kussa's departure as a major blow to the Gathafi regime.
"This is a very significant defection and an indication that people around Gathafi think the writing's on the wall," a senior official in the US administration said.
Kussa is credited as having been a key figure in Libya's efforts to improve its international reputation before to the current crisis.
The 59-year-old was installed as Gathafi's foreign minister in March 2009 after having served as the head of Libya's intelligence agency from 1994.
One of Gathafi's trusted advisers, Kussa is believed to have convinced the leader to dismantle his nuclear weapons programme, opening the way for the lifting of US trade sanctions.
Earlier in his career, in 1980, Kussa served as ambassador to Britain, but was expelled after saying he wanted to eliminate the "enemies" of the Libyan regime in Britain.
[A profile of Moussa Koussa in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph contains the following:]
The former spy chief's resignation also comes at a critical time in the coalition's attempts to dislodge Col Gaddafi, as the rebels are retreating under fresh onslaughts and Whitehall sources suggested they were unlikely to win without arms or training from outside.
So his information and contacts among Col Gaddafi's generals will be all the more valuable.
However, the former head of Libya's external intelligence, was the mastermind accused of planning the Lockerbie bombing and any attempts to rehabilitate him are likely to be an exceedingly hot potato.
Mr Koussa has been a close confidant of Col Gaddafi's for 30 years and helped secure the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
He was expelled from London in 1980 after giving an extraordinary newspaper interview when he was the head of the embassy in which he said two Libyan dissidents living in London would be killed.
Speaking outside the Libyan embassy in St James’s Square, Mr Koussa told The Times: “The revolutionary committees have decided last night to kill two more people in the United Kingdom. I approve of this."
He returned to Libya after being given 48 hours to leave the UK, where he was accused of funding terrorist groups.
Mr Koussa was named by intelligence sources in the mid-1990s as the possible architect of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people, and the blowing up the following year of a French airliner in central Africa in which 170 people died.
Mr Koussa, who is now 61, travelled to Britain to meet British and Scottish government officials on at least two occasions as Mr Megrahi’s health deteriorated.
[A report in today's edition of The Guardian contains the following:]
Britain and the US have been in regular contact with him in recent days, mainly through intelligence sources. Probably more than any other senior official inside the Libyan regime, Kousa is seen as the key figure who persuaded Gaddafi to make a deal with British intelligence agencies to stop developing weapons of mass destruction in return for the ending of its pariah status.
However, his relationship with Britain in the past has been far from convivial. Kousa has previously been seen as one of the controlling forces behind the Lockerbie bombing and it was not clear whether he was seeking political asylum.
In 1980, he was expelled from the UK and, for 15 years, he was head of Libyan foreign intelligence – including in the period of the Lockerbie bombing. He has always denied Libya was involved in the bombing.
[Of the various officials of the Gaddafi regime that I met between 1993 and 2009, Moussa Koussa was the most frightening. It was he who, in January 1994, signed on behalf of the Libyan regime the letter confirming that they approved of the scheme that I had submitted to Megrahi and Fhimah's lawyers and to the Libyan Government regarding a non-jury trial in the Netherlands.]
Libya's Moamer Gathafi suffered another blow Wednesday when his foreign minister flew into Britain telling officials he no longer wanted to represent the Tripoli regime.
Mussa Kussa arrived at Farnborough Airfield, west of London, on Wednesday, a Foreign Office statement said.
"He travelled here under his own free will. He has told us that he is resigning his post," it added.
"Mussa Kussa is one of the most senior figures in Gathafi's government and his role was to represent the regime internationally, something that he is no longer willing to do," the British statement continued.
"We encourage those around Gathafi to abandon him and embrace a better future for Libya that allows political transition and real reform that meets the aspirations of the Libyan people," it concluded. (...)
Washington quickly hailed Kussa's departure as a major blow to the Gathafi regime.
"This is a very significant defection and an indication that people around Gathafi think the writing's on the wall," a senior official in the US administration said.
Kussa is credited as having been a key figure in Libya's efforts to improve its international reputation before to the current crisis.
The 59-year-old was installed as Gathafi's foreign minister in March 2009 after having served as the head of Libya's intelligence agency from 1994.
One of Gathafi's trusted advisers, Kussa is believed to have convinced the leader to dismantle his nuclear weapons programme, opening the way for the lifting of US trade sanctions.
Earlier in his career, in 1980, Kussa served as ambassador to Britain, but was expelled after saying he wanted to eliminate the "enemies" of the Libyan regime in Britain.
[A profile of Moussa Koussa in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph contains the following:]
The former spy chief's resignation also comes at a critical time in the coalition's attempts to dislodge Col Gaddafi, as the rebels are retreating under fresh onslaughts and Whitehall sources suggested they were unlikely to win without arms or training from outside.
So his information and contacts among Col Gaddafi's generals will be all the more valuable.
However, the former head of Libya's external intelligence, was the mastermind accused of planning the Lockerbie bombing and any attempts to rehabilitate him are likely to be an exceedingly hot potato.
Mr Koussa has been a close confidant of Col Gaddafi's for 30 years and helped secure the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
He was expelled from London in 1980 after giving an extraordinary newspaper interview when he was the head of the embassy in which he said two Libyan dissidents living in London would be killed.
Speaking outside the Libyan embassy in St James’s Square, Mr Koussa told The Times: “The revolutionary committees have decided last night to kill two more people in the United Kingdom. I approve of this."
He returned to Libya after being given 48 hours to leave the UK, where he was accused of funding terrorist groups.
Mr Koussa was named by intelligence sources in the mid-1990s as the possible architect of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people, and the blowing up the following year of a French airliner in central Africa in which 170 people died.
Mr Koussa, who is now 61, travelled to Britain to meet British and Scottish government officials on at least two occasions as Mr Megrahi’s health deteriorated.
[A report in today's edition of The Guardian contains the following:]
Britain and the US have been in regular contact with him in recent days, mainly through intelligence sources. Probably more than any other senior official inside the Libyan regime, Kousa is seen as the key figure who persuaded Gaddafi to make a deal with British intelligence agencies to stop developing weapons of mass destruction in return for the ending of its pariah status.
However, his relationship with Britain in the past has been far from convivial. Kousa has previously been seen as one of the controlling forces behind the Lockerbie bombing and it was not clear whether he was seeking political asylum.
In 1980, he was expelled from the UK and, for 15 years, he was head of Libyan foreign intelligence – including in the period of the Lockerbie bombing. He has always denied Libya was involved in the bombing.
[Of the various officials of the Gaddafi regime that I met between 1993 and 2009, Moussa Koussa was the most frightening. It was he who, in January 1994, signed on behalf of the Libyan regime the letter confirming that they approved of the scheme that I had submitted to Megrahi and Fhimah's lawyers and to the Libyan Government regarding a non-jury trial in the Netherlands.]
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Scottish leaders' debate: First Minister Alex Salmond under fire on release of ... Megrahi
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of the blindly Labour-supporting Daily Record on the first televised debate between the Scottish party leaders in the run-up to the Scottish Parliament election in May. It reads in part:]
Scots Labour leader Iain Gray won loud applause during last night's live TV election debate when he tore into the SNP goverment's fateful decision to free the Lockerbie bomber.
He told the audience in Glasgow: "I just think he got the decision wrong."
Gray hit back after Alex Salmond tried to defend the decision, in August 2009, to release terminal cancer sufferer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
It was arguably the biggest moment of Salmond's four years in power.
Last night, a question from an audience member during STV's live leaders' debate catapulted the controversy into the Holyrood election campaign.
And it revealed public anger that Megrahi, given three months to live, was released and continues to enjoy a life of luxury in his homeland nearly two years on. The audience member told Salmond: "Sometimes it's events, not policies, that define a leader and his party.
"Do you think the SNP will ever be forgiven for releasing Britain's biggest ever mass murderer?" Salmond said: "Yes, I do. "People don't necessarily vote for political parties because they agree or disagree with an issue, but parties are judged on whether they did what they believed was right."
Salmond claimed some victims' relatives supported the decision. He added: "Kenny MacAskill did it because he believed it to be right, not for oil or trade or politics."
But Gray instantly hit back - winning the biggest round of applause of the night. He said: "I just think he got the decision wrong and I've made that clear."
The Labour leader said Scottish justice had compassion built in - but it was not automatic.
He added: "One factor is the nature of the crime and it was the worst crime anyone has ever been convicted of in Scotland."
Scots Tory leader Annabel Goldie also slammed the decision to free Megrahi. She said: "It was a bad decision, badly made - and it reflected badly on Scotland."
The clash sparked an otherwise tame debate into life.
[According to a report by political correspondent Jamie Livingstone on the STV News website "The First Minister also successfully down-played his propensity to appear somewhat dismissive or arrogant and escaped largely unscathed over the release of the Lockerbie bomber."
Alan Cochrane's report in the Conservative-supporting Daily Telegraph opined: "The issue of Megrahi’s release was raised by a member of the studio audience but Mr Salmond was never seriously cross-questioned on the issue."
For some light relief, here is a link to the weekend edition of South Africa's best strip cartoon Madam & Eve.]
Scots Labour leader Iain Gray won loud applause during last night's live TV election debate when he tore into the SNP goverment's fateful decision to free the Lockerbie bomber.
He told the audience in Glasgow: "I just think he got the decision wrong."
Gray hit back after Alex Salmond tried to defend the decision, in August 2009, to release terminal cancer sufferer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
It was arguably the biggest moment of Salmond's four years in power.
Last night, a question from an audience member during STV's live leaders' debate catapulted the controversy into the Holyrood election campaign.
And it revealed public anger that Megrahi, given three months to live, was released and continues to enjoy a life of luxury in his homeland nearly two years on. The audience member told Salmond: "Sometimes it's events, not policies, that define a leader and his party.
"Do you think the SNP will ever be forgiven for releasing Britain's biggest ever mass murderer?" Salmond said: "Yes, I do. "People don't necessarily vote for political parties because they agree or disagree with an issue, but parties are judged on whether they did what they believed was right."
Salmond claimed some victims' relatives supported the decision. He added: "Kenny MacAskill did it because he believed it to be right, not for oil or trade or politics."
But Gray instantly hit back - winning the biggest round of applause of the night. He said: "I just think he got the decision wrong and I've made that clear."
The Labour leader said Scottish justice had compassion built in - but it was not automatic.
He added: "One factor is the nature of the crime and it was the worst crime anyone has ever been convicted of in Scotland."
Scots Tory leader Annabel Goldie also slammed the decision to free Megrahi. She said: "It was a bad decision, badly made - and it reflected badly on Scotland."
The clash sparked an otherwise tame debate into life.
[According to a report by political correspondent Jamie Livingstone on the STV News website "The First Minister also successfully down-played his propensity to appear somewhat dismissive or arrogant and escaped largely unscathed over the release of the Lockerbie bomber."
Alan Cochrane's report in the Conservative-supporting Daily Telegraph opined: "The issue of Megrahi’s release was raised by a member of the studio audience but Mr Salmond was never seriously cross-questioned on the issue."
For some light relief, here is a link to the weekend edition of South Africa's best strip cartoon Madam & Eve.]
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
What's Libya got to do with it...?
[This is the headline over a long article by Justice for Megrahi secretary Robert Forrester published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads in part:]
Despite the distress caused to anyone directly connected to the Pan Am 103 incident, it almost seems wrong to draw a spotlight on to the Lockerbie/Zeist case at a time when Libya is being torn apart by civil war. Nevertheless, David Cameron has chosen to do just that recently in seeking to justify his belligerence by saying of Muammar al-Gaddafi: "The people of Lockerbie know what this man is capable of." (David Cameron - 21/3/2011). Justice Secretary Ken Clark is also now playing the Lockerbie card by saying that we have to bring Gaddafi down to prevent him from seeking "another Lockerbie" in revenge for the UK’s support of the rebels.
It is always much healthier if you can draw on some moral high ground to justify your cause in the public eye. We tried it on in Afghanistan with how we were lifting the Afghans out of their feudal political system by waving our magic wand of democracy over them. Now, with Libya, it is Lockerbie and terrorism.
Ever since Libya’s ex justice minister, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, set himself up as leader of Eastern Libya in February with claims that he had proof that Gaddafi was behind the Lockerbie incident, this has provided the opportunity to indulge in a bit of sleight of hand and massaging of public opinion. The Lockerbie crash combines public ignorance, terrorism, fear and righteousness, and, it sells papers into the bargain.
Abdel-Jalil’s claims are simply that, claims. After a month, he has yet to produce one iota of substance.
Is he saying that he was negligent enough to leave the documents back in Tripoli? Once Tripoli falls and no documents are produced, are we then going to hear that Gaddafi must have destroyed them? Perhaps though, documents will be produced, however, we all know what is said about truth and the fog of war. It surely comes as no surprise to anyone that Gaddafi would have been behind an action such as the Lockerbie event if one of his countrymen had carried it out. But, did Abdelbaset al-Megrahi do it?
To say that the case against Mr al-Megrahi has one or two problems would be arch understatement.
There was a break in to Heathrow airside giving access to Pan Am 103’s loading bay area shortly before take off. This incident was reported to the Heathrow authorities at the time but not made public until after the verdict was passed twelve years later.
There is no evidence of any unaccompanied luggage leaving on flight KM180 from Malta’s Luqa airport.
There are question marks over the provenance of documentary evidence provided by Frankfurt Airport (the transit point from Luqa to Heathrow).
Along with other alleged inducements, the Crown’s star witness, Mr Tony Gauci (the proprietor of a Maltese clothes outlet) and his brother, Paul, are accused of having been in receipt of payments of $2,000.000 and $1,000,000 respectively under an American rewards for justice scheme for their testimony (a practice understandably alien to Scots Law, and presumably sufficient to dismiss both Tony and Paul Gauci as witnesses. The US authorities have yet to deny this deal). Tony Gauci’s testimony falls considerably short of being conclusive in terms of his eye witness account, which attempts to match up the identity of the purchaser of clothes from his shop, on account of key discrepancies with regard to the date of the purchase and the height, weight, age and build of the purchaser. Even though he had been prompted by numerous photo spreads containing pictures of Mr al-Megrahi and privy to media photographs of the accused prior to the trial, Mr Gauci could do little better than say that the man in the dock “resembled” the purchaser of the clothes. (...)
The above simply serve to illustrate some of the more prominent worries over the safety of the conviction. To compound this, the judges chose to believe a tale of how a bombing was carried out that defies what any normal person could accept as credible, namely: that Mr al-Megrahi contrived to place an unaccompanied luggage item on to flight KM180 from Malta which was then subsequently transferred at Frankfurt to a feeder flight to Heathrow, again unaccompanied, where it was finally loaded on to Pan Am 103, unaccompanied. Thus defying three security regimes in three separate countries, and the bomb still managed to blow up its target and not either one of the first two flights despite the inevitability of delays etc which would have been par for the course around Christmas time. It is truly hard to believe that 15 lay Scottish jurors could reach anything other than a not guilty verdict in such circumstances. Although impeccably qualified as judges, their Lordships, MacLean, Sutherland and Coulsfield, in arriving at their guilty verdict, displayed an absence of experience when it comes to the role of being a juror. Indeed, to give credence at all to the story of the Luqa-Frankfurt-Heathrow connection, especially as it was presented at Zeist, demonstrates a complete inability to imagine how paramilitaries operate. (...)
Mr al-Megrahi’s first appeal failed, this is true. However, in their judgement, the judges were at pains to point out that they took no account of the sufficiency of evidence since the defence did not require them to do so. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) then referred the case back to the Court of Appeal on six grounds suggesting that no reasonable court would have reached a guilty verdict on the basis of the evidence laid before the Crown by the prosecution. This appeal was then, unnecessarily, dropped by Mr al-Megrahi in his attempt to gain compassionate release.
There has been much speculation regarding the possibility that he may have come under pressure to do so even though the terms of compassionate release do not require an appeal to be dropped to become a beneficiary of it.
The long and the short of it is, therefore, that this conviction has not yet been fully tested in law in the interests of justice.
The best that the Crown, in the form of the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, has been able to offer as a counter to these concerns is a mind-boggling merry-go-round of circular polemic which amounts to little more than: he was convicted, therefore, he did it. So parlous are the arguments offered up by the Crown that one almost feels bound to ask what qualifications are required for the job of Lord Advocate. To reassure us all that the Crown and the police are still taking the Lockerbie/Zeist affair seriously though, even at a point ten years after the conviction, Angiolini also claims that the Dumfries and Galloway police are conducting an on-going review of the investigation. It, in fact, transpires that this is being carried out by one sole officer. In the words of Christine Grahame MSP, this constitutes little better than “file management.” (...)
It is hard to see Gaddafi going anywhere now except to follow Saddam to the gallows. The West will do what it knows best and install someone who is suitably on message until the oil runs out. Who knows what may become of Mr al-Megrahi? A one way ticket to the US’s Guantánamo rest home perhaps?
Whatever transpires, it will make no difference to the case being put before the Scottish parliament by justice campaigners. No amount of dissembling mendacity claimed by politicians and others can ever change the documented historical fact of what took place at Zeist. This conviction simply does not stack up, no matter how good your gas mask.
Despite the distress caused to anyone directly connected to the Pan Am 103 incident, it almost seems wrong to draw a spotlight on to the Lockerbie/Zeist case at a time when Libya is being torn apart by civil war. Nevertheless, David Cameron has chosen to do just that recently in seeking to justify his belligerence by saying of Muammar al-Gaddafi: "The people of Lockerbie know what this man is capable of." (David Cameron - 21/3/2011). Justice Secretary Ken Clark is also now playing the Lockerbie card by saying that we have to bring Gaddafi down to prevent him from seeking "another Lockerbie" in revenge for the UK’s support of the rebels.
It is always much healthier if you can draw on some moral high ground to justify your cause in the public eye. We tried it on in Afghanistan with how we were lifting the Afghans out of their feudal political system by waving our magic wand of democracy over them. Now, with Libya, it is Lockerbie and terrorism.
Ever since Libya’s ex justice minister, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, set himself up as leader of Eastern Libya in February with claims that he had proof that Gaddafi was behind the Lockerbie incident, this has provided the opportunity to indulge in a bit of sleight of hand and massaging of public opinion. The Lockerbie crash combines public ignorance, terrorism, fear and righteousness, and, it sells papers into the bargain.
Abdel-Jalil’s claims are simply that, claims. After a month, he has yet to produce one iota of substance.
Is he saying that he was negligent enough to leave the documents back in Tripoli? Once Tripoli falls and no documents are produced, are we then going to hear that Gaddafi must have destroyed them? Perhaps though, documents will be produced, however, we all know what is said about truth and the fog of war. It surely comes as no surprise to anyone that Gaddafi would have been behind an action such as the Lockerbie event if one of his countrymen had carried it out. But, did Abdelbaset al-Megrahi do it?
To say that the case against Mr al-Megrahi has one or two problems would be arch understatement.
There was a break in to Heathrow airside giving access to Pan Am 103’s loading bay area shortly before take off. This incident was reported to the Heathrow authorities at the time but not made public until after the verdict was passed twelve years later.
There is no evidence of any unaccompanied luggage leaving on flight KM180 from Malta’s Luqa airport.
There are question marks over the provenance of documentary evidence provided by Frankfurt Airport (the transit point from Luqa to Heathrow).
Along with other alleged inducements, the Crown’s star witness, Mr Tony Gauci (the proprietor of a Maltese clothes outlet) and his brother, Paul, are accused of having been in receipt of payments of $2,000.000 and $1,000,000 respectively under an American rewards for justice scheme for their testimony (a practice understandably alien to Scots Law, and presumably sufficient to dismiss both Tony and Paul Gauci as witnesses. The US authorities have yet to deny this deal). Tony Gauci’s testimony falls considerably short of being conclusive in terms of his eye witness account, which attempts to match up the identity of the purchaser of clothes from his shop, on account of key discrepancies with regard to the date of the purchase and the height, weight, age and build of the purchaser. Even though he had been prompted by numerous photo spreads containing pictures of Mr al-Megrahi and privy to media photographs of the accused prior to the trial, Mr Gauci could do little better than say that the man in the dock “resembled” the purchaser of the clothes. (...)
The above simply serve to illustrate some of the more prominent worries over the safety of the conviction. To compound this, the judges chose to believe a tale of how a bombing was carried out that defies what any normal person could accept as credible, namely: that Mr al-Megrahi contrived to place an unaccompanied luggage item on to flight KM180 from Malta which was then subsequently transferred at Frankfurt to a feeder flight to Heathrow, again unaccompanied, where it was finally loaded on to Pan Am 103, unaccompanied. Thus defying three security regimes in three separate countries, and the bomb still managed to blow up its target and not either one of the first two flights despite the inevitability of delays etc which would have been par for the course around Christmas time. It is truly hard to believe that 15 lay Scottish jurors could reach anything other than a not guilty verdict in such circumstances. Although impeccably qualified as judges, their Lordships, MacLean, Sutherland and Coulsfield, in arriving at their guilty verdict, displayed an absence of experience when it comes to the role of being a juror. Indeed, to give credence at all to the story of the Luqa-Frankfurt-Heathrow connection, especially as it was presented at Zeist, demonstrates a complete inability to imagine how paramilitaries operate. (...)
Mr al-Megrahi’s first appeal failed, this is true. However, in their judgement, the judges were at pains to point out that they took no account of the sufficiency of evidence since the defence did not require them to do so. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) then referred the case back to the Court of Appeal on six grounds suggesting that no reasonable court would have reached a guilty verdict on the basis of the evidence laid before the Crown by the prosecution. This appeal was then, unnecessarily, dropped by Mr al-Megrahi in his attempt to gain compassionate release.
There has been much speculation regarding the possibility that he may have come under pressure to do so even though the terms of compassionate release do not require an appeal to be dropped to become a beneficiary of it.
The long and the short of it is, therefore, that this conviction has not yet been fully tested in law in the interests of justice.
The best that the Crown, in the form of the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, has been able to offer as a counter to these concerns is a mind-boggling merry-go-round of circular polemic which amounts to little more than: he was convicted, therefore, he did it. So parlous are the arguments offered up by the Crown that one almost feels bound to ask what qualifications are required for the job of Lord Advocate. To reassure us all that the Crown and the police are still taking the Lockerbie/Zeist affair seriously though, even at a point ten years after the conviction, Angiolini also claims that the Dumfries and Galloway police are conducting an on-going review of the investigation. It, in fact, transpires that this is being carried out by one sole officer. In the words of Christine Grahame MSP, this constitutes little better than “file management.” (...)
It is hard to see Gaddafi going anywhere now except to follow Saddam to the gallows. The West will do what it knows best and install someone who is suitably on message until the oil runs out. Who knows what may become of Mr al-Megrahi? A one way ticket to the US’s Guantánamo rest home perhaps?
Whatever transpires, it will make no difference to the case being put before the Scottish parliament by justice campaigners. No amount of dissembling mendacity claimed by politicians and others can ever change the documented historical fact of what took place at Zeist. This conviction simply does not stack up, no matter how good your gas mask.
Monday, 28 March 2011
Libyan crisis: Kenneth Clarke warns UK at risk of new Lockerbie
[Many UK news media over the past weekend ran stories on the Libya statement by the UK Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor. The original report is to be found in Saturday's edition of The Guardian. It reads in part:]
Kenneth Clarke has ratcheted up government pressure to depose Colonel Gaddafi by warning that the Libyan leader could stage a Lockerbie-style attack in revenge for Britain's role in the enforcement of the UN resolution if he is left in power.
The Lord Chancellor told The Guardian: "We do have one particular interest in the Maghreb [the western region of North Africa], which is Lockerbie.
"The British people have reason to remember the curse of Gaddafi – Gaddafi back in power, the old Gaddafi looking for revenge, we have a real interest in preventing that."
Clarke says in the interview that the UN resolution does not support regime change, adding that he would regard occupation as madness. But his remarks suggest British ministers recognise they now have a direct security interest in Gaddafi's removal in light of Libya's involvement in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing which killed 259 people on Pan Am flight 103 and 11 on the ground in the Scottish town.
The justice secretary is also extremely frank in admitting that the UK government has little idea how long the conflict will take or how it will be resolved.
He says: "I am not in the Foreign Office, fortunately, so I am not too worried by my remarks. But I am still not totally convinced anyone knows where we are going now".
His remarks came as a Guardian ICM poll shows more people oppose British involvement in the military action in Libya than support it: 42% against, compared with 36% in favour. (...)
Clarke, who was an opponent of the Iraq war and a critic of "havering" over Bosnia, said the UN resolution on Libya "represented a significant event in the evolution of the world order".
Speaking as the cabinet's senior lawyer, he said: "What we seem to have almost established in the international law is the humanitarian basis which can, in exceptional cases, justify intervention by the international community."
He admitted victory would be hard to define: "You cannot answer what is the destination, what it is going to be the moment when you can see the mission is accomplished. It is a little uncertain, but that would have been a dreadful reason for doing nothing." He added that no expert or pundit had foreseen the democratic uprising in Libya: "I don't think any of them saw it coming. I don't think any of them knew why it started or what started it."
He said: "We have already achieved a great deal by stopping the imminent invasion of Benghazi in the nick of time. We would have seen a lot of innocent people, some of them inspired by the best motives, being killed and a quite lunatic regime back in power, acting as an inspiration to others who want to imitate him. So we have already achieved something." (...)
Asked if the public would tolerate a long war, Clarke said: "We have strong public support – but, I mean, the invasion of Iraq had strong public support." The public, he said, "will support our participation so long as they are satisfied we are doing it for reasons we said and we are not getting ourselves into the occupation of another complicated tribal country of uncertain politics." (...)
He said: "We are not going in anyone's dreams, [going] in to start occupying the country. We have ruled it out in the resolution, thank heavens. It would be mad to occupy another country while we are in Afghanistan."
[The Madame Arcati blog on Sunday featured a post entitled Remembering Paul Foot and 'Lockerbie's dirty secret', referring to an article in The Guardian on 31 March 2004.
It is now exactly one month since the last visit to this blog from within Libya.]
Kenneth Clarke has ratcheted up government pressure to depose Colonel Gaddafi by warning that the Libyan leader could stage a Lockerbie-style attack in revenge for Britain's role in the enforcement of the UN resolution if he is left in power.
The Lord Chancellor told The Guardian: "We do have one particular interest in the Maghreb [the western region of North Africa], which is Lockerbie.
"The British people have reason to remember the curse of Gaddafi – Gaddafi back in power, the old Gaddafi looking for revenge, we have a real interest in preventing that."
Clarke says in the interview that the UN resolution does not support regime change, adding that he would regard occupation as madness. But his remarks suggest British ministers recognise they now have a direct security interest in Gaddafi's removal in light of Libya's involvement in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing which killed 259 people on Pan Am flight 103 and 11 on the ground in the Scottish town.
The justice secretary is also extremely frank in admitting that the UK government has little idea how long the conflict will take or how it will be resolved.
He says: "I am not in the Foreign Office, fortunately, so I am not too worried by my remarks. But I am still not totally convinced anyone knows where we are going now".
His remarks came as a Guardian ICM poll shows more people oppose British involvement in the military action in Libya than support it: 42% against, compared with 36% in favour. (...)
Clarke, who was an opponent of the Iraq war and a critic of "havering" over Bosnia, said the UN resolution on Libya "represented a significant event in the evolution of the world order".
Speaking as the cabinet's senior lawyer, he said: "What we seem to have almost established in the international law is the humanitarian basis which can, in exceptional cases, justify intervention by the international community."
He admitted victory would be hard to define: "You cannot answer what is the destination, what it is going to be the moment when you can see the mission is accomplished. It is a little uncertain, but that would have been a dreadful reason for doing nothing." He added that no expert or pundit had foreseen the democratic uprising in Libya: "I don't think any of them saw it coming. I don't think any of them knew why it started or what started it."
He said: "We have already achieved a great deal by stopping the imminent invasion of Benghazi in the nick of time. We would have seen a lot of innocent people, some of them inspired by the best motives, being killed and a quite lunatic regime back in power, acting as an inspiration to others who want to imitate him. So we have already achieved something." (...)
Asked if the public would tolerate a long war, Clarke said: "We have strong public support – but, I mean, the invasion of Iraq had strong public support." The public, he said, "will support our participation so long as they are satisfied we are doing it for reasons we said and we are not getting ourselves into the occupation of another complicated tribal country of uncertain politics." (...)
He said: "We are not going in anyone's dreams, [going] in to start occupying the country. We have ruled it out in the resolution, thank heavens. It would be mad to occupy another country while we are in Afghanistan."
[The Madame Arcati blog on Sunday featured a post entitled Remembering Paul Foot and 'Lockerbie's dirty secret', referring to an article in The Guardian on 31 March 2004.
It is now exactly one month since the last visit to this blog from within Libya.]
Friday, 25 March 2011
Qaddafi unites Arabs against him in bid to oust "mad dog"
[This is the headline over an article published today on the Bloomberg Business Week website. It reads in part:]
President Ronald Reagan called Muammar Qaddafi a “mad dog” in 1986 when he ordered air strikes on Tripoli. A quarter century later, it might be the Libyan leader’s fellow Arabs who ultimately broker his downfall.
After opposing the Reagan response to Qaddafi’s terrorism, the 22-member Arab League is backing the bombing campaign led by Britain, France and the US to ground Libya’s air force and halt Qaddafi’s attempt to crush a rebellion. (...)
Before renouncing nuclear weapons in 2002, Qaddafi was a pariah as one of the earliest backers of terror attacks abroad, according to the US and European governments. His regime has been responsible for the death of at least 440 people in four countries, as well as brutality in Libya.
Reagan’s military action followed the April 1986 bombing of a Berlin discotheque that killed two US servicemen and a Turkish woman. Four people, including a Libyan diplomat, were convicted by a German court for participating in the attack. (...)
The 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killed 270 people and the only man convicted of the atrocity is a former Libyan intelligence officer. It was followed a year later by the attack on a French UTA plane over Niger, when 170 people died. Qaddafi in 2004 agreed to pay $170 million in compensation, the French government said. (...)
The final break with the Arab world came March 12 when the Arab League, meeting in an emergency session, asked the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, which has Africa’s largest oil reserves, to thwart attacks by Qaddafi’s forces on civilians.
While Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, said on March 12 one or two members of the Cairo-based group had voiced concerns, he reiterated this week that countries remain “committed” to UN efforts to halt the 68-year-old Qaddafi. (...)
In London, a police officer was killed in 1984 by gunfire from inside the Libyan embassy, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported at the time. The Libyan suspects were allowed to leave the country under diplomatic immunity and the U.K. broke diplomatic relations with Qaddafi.
The turnaround in relations with the West started in 1999, when Qaddafi allowed the extradition of two Libyan suspects in the Lockerbie bombing. He abandoned nuclear weapons development efforts after 2002 and pledged to destroy a chemical weapons stockpile. He also renounced terrorism.
Libya paid $1.5 billion into a compensation fund for terrorism victims to settle claims related to attacks, including the 1988 bombing of the U.S.-bound airliner over Lockerbie, then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice certified in 2008.
The actions led to an easing of sanctions and improved ties with the U.S. and Europe. Western investment to expand Libyan oil production followed, as did Libyan investment in the West ranging from a stake in Italian bank UniCredit SpA to a 1.5 million-pound ($2.4 million) donation to the London School of Economics. (...)
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair visited him in his tent in Tripoli in 2004 and said Qaddafi had found “common cause” with the West in fighting terrorism.
Scottish authorities released Libyan Abdel Basset Ali al- Megrahi, the only person convicted of the jetliner attack over Lockerbie, on compassionate grounds in 2009 because he was said to be dying of cancer. He remains alive, according to Scottish officials responsible for monitoring him.
[With another busy weekend in prospect at Gannaga Lodge, it is unlikely that there will be further posts to this blog before Monday, 28 March.]
President Ronald Reagan called Muammar Qaddafi a “mad dog” in 1986 when he ordered air strikes on Tripoli. A quarter century later, it might be the Libyan leader’s fellow Arabs who ultimately broker his downfall.
After opposing the Reagan response to Qaddafi’s terrorism, the 22-member Arab League is backing the bombing campaign led by Britain, France and the US to ground Libya’s air force and halt Qaddafi’s attempt to crush a rebellion. (...)
Before renouncing nuclear weapons in 2002, Qaddafi was a pariah as one of the earliest backers of terror attacks abroad, according to the US and European governments. His regime has been responsible for the death of at least 440 people in four countries, as well as brutality in Libya.
Reagan’s military action followed the April 1986 bombing of a Berlin discotheque that killed two US servicemen and a Turkish woman. Four people, including a Libyan diplomat, were convicted by a German court for participating in the attack. (...)
The 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killed 270 people and the only man convicted of the atrocity is a former Libyan intelligence officer. It was followed a year later by the attack on a French UTA plane over Niger, when 170 people died. Qaddafi in 2004 agreed to pay $170 million in compensation, the French government said. (...)
The final break with the Arab world came March 12 when the Arab League, meeting in an emergency session, asked the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, which has Africa’s largest oil reserves, to thwart attacks by Qaddafi’s forces on civilians.
While Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, said on March 12 one or two members of the Cairo-based group had voiced concerns, he reiterated this week that countries remain “committed” to UN efforts to halt the 68-year-old Qaddafi. (...)
In London, a police officer was killed in 1984 by gunfire from inside the Libyan embassy, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported at the time. The Libyan suspects were allowed to leave the country under diplomatic immunity and the U.K. broke diplomatic relations with Qaddafi.
The turnaround in relations with the West started in 1999, when Qaddafi allowed the extradition of two Libyan suspects in the Lockerbie bombing. He abandoned nuclear weapons development efforts after 2002 and pledged to destroy a chemical weapons stockpile. He also renounced terrorism.
Libya paid $1.5 billion into a compensation fund for terrorism victims to settle claims related to attacks, including the 1988 bombing of the U.S.-bound airliner over Lockerbie, then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice certified in 2008.
The actions led to an easing of sanctions and improved ties with the U.S. and Europe. Western investment to expand Libyan oil production followed, as did Libyan investment in the West ranging from a stake in Italian bank UniCredit SpA to a 1.5 million-pound ($2.4 million) donation to the London School of Economics. (...)
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair visited him in his tent in Tripoli in 2004 and said Qaddafi had found “common cause” with the West in fighting terrorism.
Scottish authorities released Libyan Abdel Basset Ali al- Megrahi, the only person convicted of the jetliner attack over Lockerbie, on compassionate grounds in 2009 because he was said to be dying of cancer. He remains alive, according to Scottish officials responsible for monitoring him.
[With another busy weekend in prospect at Gannaga Lodge, it is unlikely that there will be further posts to this blog before Monday, 28 March.]
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Shady dealings helped Qaddafi build fortune and regime
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The New York Times. It reads in part:]
In 2009, top aides to Col Muammar el-Qaddafi called together 15 executives from global energy companies operating in Libya’s oil fields and issued an extraordinary demand: Shell out the money for his country’s $1.5 billion bill for its role in the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 and other terrorist attacks.
If the companies did not comply, the Libyan officials warned, there would be “serious consequences” for their oil leases, according to a State Department summary of the meeting.
Many of those businesses balked, saying that covering Libya’s legal settlement with victims’ families for acts of terrorism was unthinkable. But some companies, including several based in the United States, appeared willing to give in to Libya’s coercion and make what amounted to payoffs to keep doing business, according to industry executives, American officials and State Department documents.
The episode and others like it, the officials said, reflect a Libyan culture rife with corruption, kickbacks, strong-arm tactics and political patronage since the United States reopened trade with Colonel Qaddafi’s government in 2004. As American and international oil companies, telecommunications firms and contractors moved into the Libyan market, they discovered that Colonel Qaddafi or his loyalists often sought to extract millions of dollars in “signing bonuses” and “consultancy contracts” — or insisted that the strongman’s sons get a piece of the action through shotgun partnerships.
“Libya is a kleptocracy in which the regime — either the al-Qadhafi family itself or its close political allies — has a direct stake in anything worth buying, selling or owning,” a classified State Department cable said in 2009, using the department’s spelling of Qaddafi.
The wealth that Colonel Qaddafi’s family and his government accumulated with the help of international corporations in the years since the lifting of economic sanctions by the West helped fortify his hold on his country. While the outcome of the military intervention under way by the United States and allied countries is uncertain, Colonel Qaddafi’s resources — including a stash of tens of billions of dollars in cash that American officials believe he is using to pay soldiers, mercenaries and supporters — may help him avert, or at least delay, his removal from power. (...)
In the first few years after trade restrictions were lifted — Colonel Qaddafi had given up his country’s nuclear capabilities and pledged to renounce terrorism — many American companies were hesitant to do business with Libya’s government, officials said. But with an agreement on a settlement over Libya’s role in the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, finally reached in 2008, officials at the United States Commerce Department began to serve as self-described matchmakers for American businesses. (...)
When Qaddafi aides demanded payment for the Lockerbie settlement from oil companies operating in Libya, a State Department cable in February 2009 reported, industry executives had indicated “that smaller operators and service companies might relent and pay.” Several industry officials and someone close to the settlement, all speaking only on condition of anonymity, said the payments went through but declined to identify the businesses.
Other companies also struck costly deals with the government. In 2008, Occidental Petroleum, based in California, paid a $1 billion “signing bonus” to the Libyan government as part of 30-year agreement. A company spokesman said it was not uncommon for firms to pay large bonuses for long-term contracts. (...)
Looking back on the decision in 2004 to resume business dealings, Juan Zarate, a former top White House and Treasury official in the administration of President George W Bush, said that officials had believed then that the benefits of trying to rehabilitate Colonel Qaddafi outweighed the obvious risks. “It was a deal with the devil,” Mr Zarate said.
“The hope was that with normalization, Qaddafi would serve less as the mad dog of the Middle East and more as a partner,” he added. “But I don’t think this is the way anyone would have wanted it to work out.”
In 2009, top aides to Col Muammar el-Qaddafi called together 15 executives from global energy companies operating in Libya’s oil fields and issued an extraordinary demand: Shell out the money for his country’s $1.5 billion bill for its role in the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 and other terrorist attacks.
If the companies did not comply, the Libyan officials warned, there would be “serious consequences” for their oil leases, according to a State Department summary of the meeting.
Many of those businesses balked, saying that covering Libya’s legal settlement with victims’ families for acts of terrorism was unthinkable. But some companies, including several based in the United States, appeared willing to give in to Libya’s coercion and make what amounted to payoffs to keep doing business, according to industry executives, American officials and State Department documents.
The episode and others like it, the officials said, reflect a Libyan culture rife with corruption, kickbacks, strong-arm tactics and political patronage since the United States reopened trade with Colonel Qaddafi’s government in 2004. As American and international oil companies, telecommunications firms and contractors moved into the Libyan market, they discovered that Colonel Qaddafi or his loyalists often sought to extract millions of dollars in “signing bonuses” and “consultancy contracts” — or insisted that the strongman’s sons get a piece of the action through shotgun partnerships.
“Libya is a kleptocracy in which the regime — either the al-Qadhafi family itself or its close political allies — has a direct stake in anything worth buying, selling or owning,” a classified State Department cable said in 2009, using the department’s spelling of Qaddafi.
The wealth that Colonel Qaddafi’s family and his government accumulated with the help of international corporations in the years since the lifting of economic sanctions by the West helped fortify his hold on his country. While the outcome of the military intervention under way by the United States and allied countries is uncertain, Colonel Qaddafi’s resources — including a stash of tens of billions of dollars in cash that American officials believe he is using to pay soldiers, mercenaries and supporters — may help him avert, or at least delay, his removal from power. (...)
In the first few years after trade restrictions were lifted — Colonel Qaddafi had given up his country’s nuclear capabilities and pledged to renounce terrorism — many American companies were hesitant to do business with Libya’s government, officials said. But with an agreement on a settlement over Libya’s role in the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, finally reached in 2008, officials at the United States Commerce Department began to serve as self-described matchmakers for American businesses. (...)
When Qaddafi aides demanded payment for the Lockerbie settlement from oil companies operating in Libya, a State Department cable in February 2009 reported, industry executives had indicated “that smaller operators and service companies might relent and pay.” Several industry officials and someone close to the settlement, all speaking only on condition of anonymity, said the payments went through but declined to identify the businesses.
Other companies also struck costly deals with the government. In 2008, Occidental Petroleum, based in California, paid a $1 billion “signing bonus” to the Libyan government as part of 30-year agreement. A company spokesman said it was not uncommon for firms to pay large bonuses for long-term contracts. (...)
Looking back on the decision in 2004 to resume business dealings, Juan Zarate, a former top White House and Treasury official in the administration of President George W Bush, said that officials had believed then that the benefits of trying to rehabilitate Colonel Qaddafi outweighed the obvious risks. “It was a deal with the devil,” Mr Zarate said.
“The hope was that with normalization, Qaddafi would serve less as the mad dog of the Middle East and more as a partner,” he added. “But I don’t think this is the way anyone would have wanted it to work out.”
Council sure Megrahi still living in suburban Tripoli home
[What follows is from a report in today's edition of The Scotsman.]
The Lockerbie bomber has had "recent" contact with the Scottish council tasked with keeping tabs on his life licence release.
And the council is satisfied he has not moved home in Libya.
Despite reports that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had been spirited away by the Gaddafi regime, a spokesman for East Renfrewshire Council, the council tasked with monitoring the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, said it is "satisfied that he is not in breach of any licence conditions".
Sources close to the monitoring authority say the supervising officer in the case is satisfied that Megrahi is still at the same address in a Tripoli suburb.
The council contacted the bomber amid reports he had been moved to a safe house by the Gaddafi regime as coalition UN forces targeted air defences around the Libyan capital.
Part of Megrahi's life licence conditions state he must alert the council to any change of address and agree it with it in advance. It has a secure videolink to the bomber, and call him as and when it deems necessary.
The spokesman added: "The contact is when we need to speak to him. We have done. That contact was very recent."
[A useful counterweight to some of the more imaginative material being published in the Western media.]
The Lockerbie bomber has had "recent" contact with the Scottish council tasked with keeping tabs on his life licence release.
And the council is satisfied he has not moved home in Libya.
Despite reports that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had been spirited away by the Gaddafi regime, a spokesman for East Renfrewshire Council, the council tasked with monitoring the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, said it is "satisfied that he is not in breach of any licence conditions".
Sources close to the monitoring authority say the supervising officer in the case is satisfied that Megrahi is still at the same address in a Tripoli suburb.
The council contacted the bomber amid reports he had been moved to a safe house by the Gaddafi regime as coalition UN forces targeted air defences around the Libyan capital.
Part of Megrahi's life licence conditions state he must alert the council to any change of address and agree it with it in advance. It has a secure videolink to the bomber, and call him as and when it deems necessary.
The spokesman added: "The contact is when we need to speak to him. We have done. That contact was very recent."
[A useful counterweight to some of the more imaginative material being published in the Western media.]
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
Did Gaddafi really order the Lockerbie bombing?
[This is the headline over a letter from Thomas McLaughlin in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
You report that the unfolding debacle in Libya offers hope of further indictments of those involved in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 (“Conflict brings new hope of convicting others involved in Lockerbie attack”, The Herald, March 21).
The Lord Advocate should not hold her breath. Officers of the Dumfries and Galloway police force should not plan a trip to Libya soon, even if that country survives intact.
The source of these (false) hopes is Mustafa Abdel Jalil, Libya’s former justice minister who has claimed, “the orders were given by Gaddafi himself.” As Mandy Rice-Davis once remarked, “he would say that, wouldn’t he?” Jalil, now the Brother Leader’s sworn enemy and head of a provisional government, has courted Western sympathy, in competition with his former boss, using this claim as his trump card. Muammar Gadaffi’s counter-bid, that al Qaeda were trying to topple him (now seemingly in alliance with Crusaders), was deemed to lack credibility.
But truth, as “Blairaq” veterans know only too well, is the first casualty of war. If anyone has evidence of Libyan complicity then surely Libya’s own former justice minister has? It is, though, now a month since he made the claim. Where is the evidence? Has it yet to be manufactured –like so much else that helped convict Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi?
[A letter from Dr Jim Swire in yesterday's edition of The Herald reads as follows:]
In 1986, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher colluded with US President Ronald Reagan in facilitating the bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi – revenge for an alleged Libyan terrorist bomb in Germany.
Inspection of the Gaddafi family residence of the time, preserved as a ruin ever since, and seen on our screens again these days, makes it obvious that the US bomb which partially destroyed the residence had been intended to assassinate Muammar Gaddafi (“New Gaddafi blitz”, The Herald, March 21).
Instead the blast and shrapnel killed Gaddafi’s adopted daughter Hannah, aged 18 months, asleep in her bedroom. Some 30 Libyan civilians died too that night. Their relatives still grieve as we do.
In 1993, nearly two years after the publication of indictments of two Libyan citizens for their alleged part in causing the Lockerbie disaster, Lady Thatcher wrote, in praise of this action, in The Downing Street Years.
She wrote: “First it [the bombing raid] turned out to be a more decisive blow against Libyan-sponsored terrorism than I could ever have imagined … the much-vaunted Libyan counter attack did not and could not take place. Gaddafi had not been destroyed but he had been humbled. There was a marked decline in Libyan-sponsored terrorism in succeeding years.”
Two years later the Lockerbie tragedy occurred.
In 1991, when the indictments were issued, I first visited Gaddafi to beg him to allow his citizens to appear before a Scottish court. I also asked him to put up a picture of Flora on the wall of Hannah’s bedroom, beside one of Hannah. Beneath we put a message in Arabic and English. It was still there in 2010 when I was last in Tripoli.
It reads: “ The consequence of the use of violence is the death of innocent people.”
Even forbidden as we private citizens still are, to see the secret documents from those days, the sentiments of Flora’s message remain secure. I hope the plaque will not be destroyed in a second attempt at assassination. Libyans should decide their own future, as we ours.
[The uniformly bellicose views of a selection of US relatives of victims of the Lockerbie bombing can be found in an article by Brian Bolduc on the National Review website entitled Qaddafi Must Go: Victims of Pan Am Flight 103 demand the dictator’s ouster.]
You report that the unfolding debacle in Libya offers hope of further indictments of those involved in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 (“Conflict brings new hope of convicting others involved in Lockerbie attack”, The Herald, March 21).
The Lord Advocate should not hold her breath. Officers of the Dumfries and Galloway police force should not plan a trip to Libya soon, even if that country survives intact.
The source of these (false) hopes is Mustafa Abdel Jalil, Libya’s former justice minister who has claimed, “the orders were given by Gaddafi himself.” As Mandy Rice-Davis once remarked, “he would say that, wouldn’t he?” Jalil, now the Brother Leader’s sworn enemy and head of a provisional government, has courted Western sympathy, in competition with his former boss, using this claim as his trump card. Muammar Gadaffi’s counter-bid, that al Qaeda were trying to topple him (now seemingly in alliance with Crusaders), was deemed to lack credibility.
But truth, as “Blairaq” veterans know only too well, is the first casualty of war. If anyone has evidence of Libyan complicity then surely Libya’s own former justice minister has? It is, though, now a month since he made the claim. Where is the evidence? Has it yet to be manufactured –like so much else that helped convict Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi?
[A letter from Dr Jim Swire in yesterday's edition of The Herald reads as follows:]
In 1986, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher colluded with US President Ronald Reagan in facilitating the bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi – revenge for an alleged Libyan terrorist bomb in Germany.
Inspection of the Gaddafi family residence of the time, preserved as a ruin ever since, and seen on our screens again these days, makes it obvious that the US bomb which partially destroyed the residence had been intended to assassinate Muammar Gaddafi (“New Gaddafi blitz”, The Herald, March 21).
Instead the blast and shrapnel killed Gaddafi’s adopted daughter Hannah, aged 18 months, asleep in her bedroom. Some 30 Libyan civilians died too that night. Their relatives still grieve as we do.
In 1993, nearly two years after the publication of indictments of two Libyan citizens for their alleged part in causing the Lockerbie disaster, Lady Thatcher wrote, in praise of this action, in The Downing Street Years.
She wrote: “First it [the bombing raid] turned out to be a more decisive blow against Libyan-sponsored terrorism than I could ever have imagined … the much-vaunted Libyan counter attack did not and could not take place. Gaddafi had not been destroyed but he had been humbled. There was a marked decline in Libyan-sponsored terrorism in succeeding years.”
Two years later the Lockerbie tragedy occurred.
In 1991, when the indictments were issued, I first visited Gaddafi to beg him to allow his citizens to appear before a Scottish court. I also asked him to put up a picture of Flora on the wall of Hannah’s bedroom, beside one of Hannah. Beneath we put a message in Arabic and English. It was still there in 2010 when I was last in Tripoli.
It reads: “ The consequence of the use of violence is the death of innocent people.”
Even forbidden as we private citizens still are, to see the secret documents from those days, the sentiments of Flora’s message remain secure. I hope the plaque will not be destroyed in a second attempt at assassination. Libyans should decide their own future, as we ours.
[The uniformly bellicose views of a selection of US relatives of victims of the Lockerbie bombing can be found in an article by Brian Bolduc on the National Review website entitled Qaddafi Must Go: Victims of Pan Am Flight 103 demand the dictator’s ouster.]
Bid to nail second Lockerbie bomber after double jeopardy law scrapped
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of the Daily Record. It reads in part:]
The man cleared of the Lockerbie bombing could face a second trial for mass murder.
MSPs last night scrapped Scotland's 800-year-old double jeopardy law, which prevents someone standing trial twice for the same offence.
And that has opened the door for a second trial for Libyan Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah.
Legal sources claim there is "new and compelling evidence" linking him to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103. [RB: For the Crown to produce any compelling evidence at all -- new or old -- against either Fhimah or Megrahi would be a novelty.]
And if Colonel Gaddafi's regime collapses, law chiefs will try to bring Fhimah back to Scotland for a retrial.
A top level source told the Record: "Fhimah is very much on the radar but everything depends on what happens in Libya in the coming days and weeks."
Fhimah was unanimously cleared of the mass murder of 270 people after a trial in Holland under Scots law in 2001. Three judges accepted he was in Sweden at the time the bomb was planted. [RB: This statement is arrant nonsense. There was no evidence to this effect and the trial judges made no such finding. The journalist appears to have confused Fhimah with Abu Talb.]
But his co-accused Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was found guilty and jailed for life. Said to be dying from prostate cancer, Megrahi was controversially freed on compassionate grounds in 2009.
And Fhimah was there to hug him on the steps of the plane which brought him home to Libya. Now prosecutors believe their new evidence would see him convicted.
But that will only happen if there is regime change in Tripoli - and any new government agrees Fhimah should face retrial.
The scrapping of the double jeopardy rule follows a similar change to English law in 2003.
The man cleared of the Lockerbie bombing could face a second trial for mass murder.
MSPs last night scrapped Scotland's 800-year-old double jeopardy law, which prevents someone standing trial twice for the same offence.
And that has opened the door for a second trial for Libyan Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah.
Legal sources claim there is "new and compelling evidence" linking him to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103. [RB: For the Crown to produce any compelling evidence at all -- new or old -- against either Fhimah or Megrahi would be a novelty.]
And if Colonel Gaddafi's regime collapses, law chiefs will try to bring Fhimah back to Scotland for a retrial.
A top level source told the Record: "Fhimah is very much on the radar but everything depends on what happens in Libya in the coming days and weeks."
Fhimah was unanimously cleared of the mass murder of 270 people after a trial in Holland under Scots law in 2001. Three judges accepted he was in Sweden at the time the bomb was planted. [RB: This statement is arrant nonsense. There was no evidence to this effect and the trial judges made no such finding. The journalist appears to have confused Fhimah with Abu Talb.]
But his co-accused Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was found guilty and jailed for life. Said to be dying from prostate cancer, Megrahi was controversially freed on compassionate grounds in 2009.
And Fhimah was there to hug him on the steps of the plane which brought him home to Libya. Now prosecutors believe their new evidence would see him convicted.
But that will only happen if there is regime change in Tripoli - and any new government agrees Fhimah should face retrial.
The scrapping of the double jeopardy rule follows a similar change to English law in 2003.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)