[This is the sub-heading over a post published yesterday evening on bensix's Back Towards the Locus blog. It reads as follows:]
The Telegraph is shocked – shocked – that Kramer lookalike, Gaddafi stooge and would-be defector Moussa Koussa, having been allowed to leave the country, isn’t willing to return. Why in God’s name would he? Guilty conscience, maybe? Or did he swear upon his Mother’s grave?
They also seem to think it was some kind of tragic error that he wasn’t kept in Britain. If the government (a) thought that he was complicit in Lockerbie or (b) cared one way or the other do you think they’d let him go? I’m not sure Rudolf Hess was allowed to wander off on holiday to the Seychelles.
Elsewhere, Abdel Jalil, the one-time Justice Minister of the beleaguered Colonel and the man who’s now described as leader of the opposition, has been touring Europe. Now, he made his name by claiming he had proof of Gaddafi’s involvement in the Pan Am bombing. Thus far he’s not disclosed it (or, indeed, what form it takes). You’d think the British authorities would want to speak to him, yet I’ve seen indication that they’ve plans to meet. Y’all forgotten Lockerbie? You know, the atrocity that killed hundreds of people, many of them our citizens? (You know, something that you actually based this conflict on?)
If Libyans were behind the bombing – not impossible – this blithe indifference is revolting. It suggests that the authorities are willing to exploit the act but not to seek the truth of it or hunt down those responsible. If they weren’t then this is also true – with the added bonus that we’re being lied to on a rather grander scale. And, though I hate to say it – well, hate to say it yet again – we’ve seen no decent evidence that they were.
[For the first time since 28 February, this blog has today been accessed from within Libya.]
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
Reaction to Moussa Koussa Qatar asylum claims
[A report published today on The Telegraph website, following on from yesterday's report on Al Arabiya where Abdul Rahman Shalgam claimed that Moussa Koussa was likely to seek asylum in Qatar, contains the following:]
The prospect of Mr Koussa failing to return to Britain from Qatar caused anger among relatives of Lockerbie bombing victims, who believe he may have valuable information about the 1988 atrocity. (...)
While he was in Britain, Mr Koussa, a former Libyan intelligence official, was questioned by Scottish police about the Lockerbie attack, which was ordered by Col Gaddafi.
Relatives of Lockerbie victims and some MPs say Mr Koussa should face prosecution for his role in Libyan terrorist attacks.
Abdulrahman Shalgam, another former Gaddafi regime minister, said that fear of such legal action will drive Mr Koussa to remain outside the UK. (...)
British officials believe that Mr Koussa could still choose to return to Britain, where some of his children and grandchildren are based. But they admit that the UK has no way of compelling him to do so. (...)
Relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims reacted with dismay and disbelief yesterday to reports that Mr Koussa was unlikely to return to London.
Rosemary Wolfe, from South Carolina, whose stepdaughter Miriam died on Pan Am Flight 103, said Britain and the US had “lost their moral footing” in the world by failing to prosecute the former Libyan minister.
“This is absolutely outrageous,” she said. “Our respective countries seem to be erasing all trace of what Gaddafi did. There were no efforts to detain Koussa or prosecute him.”
She added that American relatives had a conference call with Barack Obama’s National Security Council recently at which they said Koussa should not be allowed to leave the UK and should face trial for his role in a range of atrocities.
Mrs Wolfe said: “The Americans must have known they were going to let him go and yet we made no effort to stop it. We were looking the other way and so were the Scots. First we release his frozen assets, and then he is free to go. It’s frightening.”
Susan Cohen, from New Jersey, whose only child Theodora, 20, died, said the families must be told what information he had provided to the UK Government and to Scottish police continuing to investigate the Lockerbie bombing.
“I have never doubted Koussa’s involvement in Lockerbie. He should have been kept in Britain,” she said.
The prospect of Mr Koussa failing to return to Britain from Qatar caused anger among relatives of Lockerbie bombing victims, who believe he may have valuable information about the 1988 atrocity. (...)
While he was in Britain, Mr Koussa, a former Libyan intelligence official, was questioned by Scottish police about the Lockerbie attack, which was ordered by Col Gaddafi.
Relatives of Lockerbie victims and some MPs say Mr Koussa should face prosecution for his role in Libyan terrorist attacks.
Abdulrahman Shalgam, another former Gaddafi regime minister, said that fear of such legal action will drive Mr Koussa to remain outside the UK. (...)
British officials believe that Mr Koussa could still choose to return to Britain, where some of his children and grandchildren are based. But they admit that the UK has no way of compelling him to do so. (...)
Relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims reacted with dismay and disbelief yesterday to reports that Mr Koussa was unlikely to return to London.
Rosemary Wolfe, from South Carolina, whose stepdaughter Miriam died on Pan Am Flight 103, said Britain and the US had “lost their moral footing” in the world by failing to prosecute the former Libyan minister.
“This is absolutely outrageous,” she said. “Our respective countries seem to be erasing all trace of what Gaddafi did. There were no efforts to detain Koussa or prosecute him.”
She added that American relatives had a conference call with Barack Obama’s National Security Council recently at which they said Koussa should not be allowed to leave the UK and should face trial for his role in a range of atrocities.
Mrs Wolfe said: “The Americans must have known they were going to let him go and yet we made no effort to stop it. We were looking the other way and so were the Scots. First we release his frozen assets, and then he is free to go. It’s frightening.”
Susan Cohen, from New Jersey, whose only child Theodora, 20, died, said the families must be told what information he had provided to the UK Government and to Scottish police continuing to investigate the Lockerbie bombing.
“I have never doubted Koussa’s involvement in Lockerbie. He should have been kept in Britain,” she said.
Muammar Gaddafi, a man who can fight NATO single-handed
[This is the headline over an article just published on The Voice of Russia website. It reads in part:]
After a month of NATO’s bombing of Libya, the situation has come to a complete deadlock.
Several things are becoming more and more obvious.
First, despite the demolition of about one third of Muammar Gaddafi’s military might and the complete immobilization of his air force, the rebels not only have not gained any substantial ground, but are trying desperately to keep some of the major cities under their control, like Misurata and Ajdabiya.
Second, despite the supply of arms and ammunition to the rebel forces by some Arab countries, the rebels themselves seem to be reluctant to really fight. Posing for TV cameras and shouting out loud that “Tomorrow we will be in Tripoli” is one thing, steady and consistent warfare is completely another.
Third, it has become clear that neither the rebels nor any possible defectors from Gaddafi’s own inner circle can produce a figure capable of becoming the acknowledged national leader. The rebels seem to be happy that Benghazi is relatively safe for the time being, and may well agree to a separation of the country into two. As for defectors, at the very beginning of the NATO operation there was a wave of high-profile defections, but since the former intelligence chief and foreign minister Moussa Koussa defected in March, no other high ranking official has broken ranks with Muammar Gaddafi. More so, Moussa Koussa does not look like an acceptable figure in the eyes of the West due to his involvement as the former intelligence chief in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
Fourth, the UN Resolution 1973 clearly forbids any ground operation by foreign troops in Libya. And until now, both Barack Obama and (less so) the West European leaders of NATO countries have shown their agreement to these terms of the resolution. (...)
Fifth, and probably most important, is the fact that the majority of Libyans still support their leader. Yes, Gaddafi is a dictator who committed lots of crimes and atrocities against his own population, and was clearly involved in the Lockerbie bombing. But that does not eliminate the fact that he still attracts mass rallies with people ready to die for him and to protect him with their own bodies from NATO bombs.
All this makes it virtually impossible to attain the main goal of the NATO operation – that is toppling Gaddafi, if events continue evolving the way they are evolving now.
Therefore, the West is desperately looking for a way out. As The New York Times reported recently, the US and its allies are looking for a country (preferably, in Africa) that could accommodate Muammar Gaddafi in case of his voluntary resignation. The task is not a simple one. After (or, rather, if) Gaddafi steps down, he will be inevitably charged for his involvement in Lockerbie as well as for atrocities against the Libyan population. [RB: As regards Lockerbie, is this really so? Click here.] Therefore, the country which could give him refuge should not be a signatory to international treaties obliging it to extradite people charged with crimes against humanity by international judicial bodies. (...)
So, the deadlock is likely to remain. Gaddafi is not going to step down, and NATO seems unable to achieve its aims without such a step.
It is interesting to see how one man can almost single-handedly oppose the mightiest military and political machine in today’s world – that is NATO.
[A report just published on the BBC News website contains the following:]
British military officers will be sent to Libya to advise rebels fighting Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's forces, the UK government has said.
Foreign Secretary William Hague said the group would be deployed to the opposition stronghold of Benghazi.
The BBC understands that 10 UK officers will provide logistics and intelligence training, part of a joint British and French operation.
Mr Hague stressed that the officers would not be involved in any fighting.
When the UN Security Council passed its resolution on Libya in March, foreign military action on the ground was specifically ruled out.
[A Press Association news agency report contains the following:]
Europe is ready to send an armed force to Libya to ensure delivery of humanitarian aid.
The proposal by the European Union to deploy the armed force to escort humanitarian aid drew an immediate warning from Muammar Gaddafi's regime that this would be tantamount to a military operation. France's foreign minister also said he was hostile to such a deployment.
The new tactics seem to have been spurred by the continued deadlock after two months of fighting between Gaddafi's army and rebel forces. There has also been growing international concern over the fate of the besieged rebel city of Misrata, where Nato has been unable to halt heavy shelling by Gaddafi's forces with airstrikes alone. (...)
The EU could deploy an armed force to Libya within days to ensure the delivery of humanitarian supplies, said a spokesman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.
The EU has no standing army, and the personnel and equipment would have be donated by member countries.
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said he was "totally hostile to the deployment of troops on the ground."
[The involvement of the USA in the Vietnam war started with "military advisers". Harold Wilson was astute enough to keep the UK out of that debacle. Would that David Cameron had half his nous!
Sir Menzies Campbell QC MP is quoted in a report in The Telegraph making the same point, without acknowledgment, of course:]
The British announcement drew warnings from MPs that Britain’s mission in Libya has now changed significantly from the campaign of humanitarian airstrikes approved by the House of Commons last month.
Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader, warned that Britain risks becoming embroiled in a military quagmire in Libya.
He said: “It must not be seen as a first instalment of further military deployment. Vietnam began with an American president sending military advisers. We must proceed with caution.”
[An editorial in Wednesday's edition of The Scotsman contains the following:]
Sir Menzies Campbell, in expressing his misgivings over the latest development, has cited the example of US involvement in Vietnam. That analogy may be rather more disturbing on examination than he intended. At least the Americans had some idea of the regime they were seeking to defend. In the Libyan conflict we do not know as much as we should about the nature of the opposition to Col Gaddafi, the forces that comprise it, what its political programme might be and what assurance it has given, if any, to the establishment of an open democratic state were it to gain power.
Given the continuing threat to civilians in Libya, there should be no doubt over Britain's commitment to provide the maximum humanitarian assistance, medical aid and to supply, as the French are doing, offshore logistical support. However, UN resolution 1973 authorised countries to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form. The deployment of military advisers, albeit with assurances that their role will be strictly humanitarian, stretches this to the limit. It should not pave the way to an involvement over and above that allowable under the UN resolution and the sanction that parliament has given.
After a month of NATO’s bombing of Libya, the situation has come to a complete deadlock.
Several things are becoming more and more obvious.
First, despite the demolition of about one third of Muammar Gaddafi’s military might and the complete immobilization of his air force, the rebels not only have not gained any substantial ground, but are trying desperately to keep some of the major cities under their control, like Misurata and Ajdabiya.
Second, despite the supply of arms and ammunition to the rebel forces by some Arab countries, the rebels themselves seem to be reluctant to really fight. Posing for TV cameras and shouting out loud that “Tomorrow we will be in Tripoli” is one thing, steady and consistent warfare is completely another.
Third, it has become clear that neither the rebels nor any possible defectors from Gaddafi’s own inner circle can produce a figure capable of becoming the acknowledged national leader. The rebels seem to be happy that Benghazi is relatively safe for the time being, and may well agree to a separation of the country into two. As for defectors, at the very beginning of the NATO operation there was a wave of high-profile defections, but since the former intelligence chief and foreign minister Moussa Koussa defected in March, no other high ranking official has broken ranks with Muammar Gaddafi. More so, Moussa Koussa does not look like an acceptable figure in the eyes of the West due to his involvement as the former intelligence chief in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
Fourth, the UN Resolution 1973 clearly forbids any ground operation by foreign troops in Libya. And until now, both Barack Obama and (less so) the West European leaders of NATO countries have shown their agreement to these terms of the resolution. (...)
Fifth, and probably most important, is the fact that the majority of Libyans still support their leader. Yes, Gaddafi is a dictator who committed lots of crimes and atrocities against his own population, and was clearly involved in the Lockerbie bombing. But that does not eliminate the fact that he still attracts mass rallies with people ready to die for him and to protect him with their own bodies from NATO bombs.
All this makes it virtually impossible to attain the main goal of the NATO operation – that is toppling Gaddafi, if events continue evolving the way they are evolving now.
Therefore, the West is desperately looking for a way out. As The New York Times reported recently, the US and its allies are looking for a country (preferably, in Africa) that could accommodate Muammar Gaddafi in case of his voluntary resignation. The task is not a simple one. After (or, rather, if) Gaddafi steps down, he will be inevitably charged for his involvement in Lockerbie as well as for atrocities against the Libyan population. [RB: As regards Lockerbie, is this really so? Click here.] Therefore, the country which could give him refuge should not be a signatory to international treaties obliging it to extradite people charged with crimes against humanity by international judicial bodies. (...)
So, the deadlock is likely to remain. Gaddafi is not going to step down, and NATO seems unable to achieve its aims without such a step.
It is interesting to see how one man can almost single-handedly oppose the mightiest military and political machine in today’s world – that is NATO.
[A report just published on the BBC News website contains the following:]
British military officers will be sent to Libya to advise rebels fighting Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's forces, the UK government has said.
Foreign Secretary William Hague said the group would be deployed to the opposition stronghold of Benghazi.
The BBC understands that 10 UK officers will provide logistics and intelligence training, part of a joint British and French operation.
Mr Hague stressed that the officers would not be involved in any fighting.
When the UN Security Council passed its resolution on Libya in March, foreign military action on the ground was specifically ruled out.
[A Press Association news agency report contains the following:]
Europe is ready to send an armed force to Libya to ensure delivery of humanitarian aid.
The proposal by the European Union to deploy the armed force to escort humanitarian aid drew an immediate warning from Muammar Gaddafi's regime that this would be tantamount to a military operation. France's foreign minister also said he was hostile to such a deployment.
The new tactics seem to have been spurred by the continued deadlock after two months of fighting between Gaddafi's army and rebel forces. There has also been growing international concern over the fate of the besieged rebel city of Misrata, where Nato has been unable to halt heavy shelling by Gaddafi's forces with airstrikes alone. (...)
The EU could deploy an armed force to Libya within days to ensure the delivery of humanitarian supplies, said a spokesman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.
The EU has no standing army, and the personnel and equipment would have be donated by member countries.
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said he was "totally hostile to the deployment of troops on the ground."
[The involvement of the USA in the Vietnam war started with "military advisers". Harold Wilson was astute enough to keep the UK out of that debacle. Would that David Cameron had half his nous!
Sir Menzies Campbell QC MP is quoted in a report in The Telegraph making the same point, without acknowledgment, of course:]
The British announcement drew warnings from MPs that Britain’s mission in Libya has now changed significantly from the campaign of humanitarian airstrikes approved by the House of Commons last month.
Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader, warned that Britain risks becoming embroiled in a military quagmire in Libya.
He said: “It must not be seen as a first instalment of further military deployment. Vietnam began with an American president sending military advisers. We must proceed with caution.”
[An editorial in Wednesday's edition of The Scotsman contains the following:]
Sir Menzies Campbell, in expressing his misgivings over the latest development, has cited the example of US involvement in Vietnam. That analogy may be rather more disturbing on examination than he intended. At least the Americans had some idea of the regime they were seeking to defend. In the Libyan conflict we do not know as much as we should about the nature of the opposition to Col Gaddafi, the forces that comprise it, what its political programme might be and what assurance it has given, if any, to the establishment of an open democratic state were it to gain power.
Given the continuing threat to civilians in Libya, there should be no doubt over Britain's commitment to provide the maximum humanitarian assistance, medical aid and to supply, as the French are doing, offshore logistical support. However, UN resolution 1973 authorised countries to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form. The deployment of military advisers, albeit with assurances that their role will be strictly humanitarian, stretches this to the limit. It should not pave the way to an involvement over and above that allowable under the UN resolution and the sanction that parliament has given.
Gaddafi will be allowed to go quietly if it stops the bloodshed
[This is the headline over an article by Alasdair Palmer (based on an article published on 16 April in The Telegraph) published today in the Irish Independent newspaper. It reads as follows:]
'If he had become a professor or a social planner, he would have done very well." Christopher Vanderpool was speaking of Moussa Koussa, whom he taught when the Libyan was a sociology student at Michigan State University in the 1970s.
Instead of becoming a professor, he decided to work for Muammar Gaddafi. He ran Libya's intelligence service for 15 years. He wasn't in charge in 1988, when its agents planted the bomb that killed 271 people at Lockerbie, but he may well have had a hand in organising that dreadful outrage.
It is obviously impossible to head Gaddafi's utterly ruthless intelligence service without having some dreadful crimes on your hands.
Koussa fled to Britain a couple of weeks ago, having decided that Gaddafi had no future. His defection placed the British government in a dilemma. As a faithful servant of Gaddafi, he ought to be held accountable. On the other hand, he played a key role in getting Gaddafi to scrap his nuclear weapons programme -- and now, crucially, he might help to dislodge his former master.
The government, therefore, decided to see what it could get out of him, and to leave him to come and go as he pleased. He has gone, flying off to Qatar -- and he may not return. Many of those who lost relatives in the Lockerbie explosion are, understandably, extremely angry. They say they have been betrayed.
But there is a justification, although not one that will have any force for the relatives. It is that Koussa's ability to help dislodge Gaddafi means the need to ensure he is punished has to give way to the greater good of toppling Libya's tyrant.
The same logic explains why the countries currently bombing Libya are trying to find a way to let Gaddafi leave the country quietly. Gaddafi has committed a lot more crimes than Koussa, and if anyone deserves condign punishment, it is he.
But if trial followed by imprisonment is his only alternative, Gaddafi will carry out his threat to "fight to the last drop of blood" -- and that can only mean catastrophe for Libya. Which is why we will let him get away with everything if only he abandons Libya now. Because the alternative isn't justice -- it's just more bloodshed.
'If he had become a professor or a social planner, he would have done very well." Christopher Vanderpool was speaking of Moussa Koussa, whom he taught when the Libyan was a sociology student at Michigan State University in the 1970s.
Instead of becoming a professor, he decided to work for Muammar Gaddafi. He ran Libya's intelligence service for 15 years. He wasn't in charge in 1988, when its agents planted the bomb that killed 271 people at Lockerbie, but he may well have had a hand in organising that dreadful outrage.
It is obviously impossible to head Gaddafi's utterly ruthless intelligence service without having some dreadful crimes on your hands.
Koussa fled to Britain a couple of weeks ago, having decided that Gaddafi had no future. His defection placed the British government in a dilemma. As a faithful servant of Gaddafi, he ought to be held accountable. On the other hand, he played a key role in getting Gaddafi to scrap his nuclear weapons programme -- and now, crucially, he might help to dislodge his former master.
The government, therefore, decided to see what it could get out of him, and to leave him to come and go as he pleased. He has gone, flying off to Qatar -- and he may not return. Many of those who lost relatives in the Lockerbie explosion are, understandably, extremely angry. They say they have been betrayed.
But there is a justification, although not one that will have any force for the relatives. It is that Koussa's ability to help dislodge Gaddafi means the need to ensure he is punished has to give way to the greater good of toppling Libya's tyrant.
The same logic explains why the countries currently bombing Libya are trying to find a way to let Gaddafi leave the country quietly. Gaddafi has committed a lot more crimes than Koussa, and if anyone deserves condign punishment, it is he.
But if trial followed by imprisonment is his only alternative, Gaddafi will carry out his threat to "fight to the last drop of blood" -- and that can only mean catastrophe for Libya. Which is why we will let him get away with everything if only he abandons Libya now. Because the alternative isn't justice -- it's just more bloodshed.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Zuma gave Gaddafi a call
[This is the headline over a report published today on the South African News 24 website. It reads in part:]
President Jacob Zuma phoned Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi at the weekend, his spokesperson said on Monday, after the collapse of a truce he had brokered with a team of African leaders.
Zuma's spokesperson Zizi Kodwa told AFP that the two leaders spoke after Zuma returned from a Brics emerging markets summit in China, which also includes Russia, India and Brazil.
"The conversation was between the two leaders," Kodwa said. "I can't disclose the conversation between the two leaders."
After the summit on Thursday, the five nations spoke out against using force in Libya and across the Arab world, with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev saying force was not authorised by the United Nations.
Zuma visited Tripoli on April 10 as part of a high-ranking African Union delegation to broker a truce between Gaddafi and rebels, but a peace plan fell through when the rebels insisted the strongman step down.
South Africa voted for the UN resolution authorising the no-fly zone over Libya, while the other four Brics countries abstained.
Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane said South Africa's vote had not emerged as a sore point during the summit in China.
President Jacob Zuma phoned Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi at the weekend, his spokesperson said on Monday, after the collapse of a truce he had brokered with a team of African leaders.
Zuma's spokesperson Zizi Kodwa told AFP that the two leaders spoke after Zuma returned from a Brics emerging markets summit in China, which also includes Russia, India and Brazil.
"The conversation was between the two leaders," Kodwa said. "I can't disclose the conversation between the two leaders."
After the summit on Thursday, the five nations spoke out against using force in Libya and across the Arab world, with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev saying force was not authorised by the United Nations.
Zuma visited Tripoli on April 10 as part of a high-ranking African Union delegation to broker a truce between Gaddafi and rebels, but a peace plan fell through when the rebels insisted the strongman step down.
South Africa voted for the UN resolution authorising the no-fly zone over Libya, while the other four Brics countries abstained.
Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane said South Africa's vote had not emerged as a sore point during the summit in China.
Where is Libya’s Moussa Koussa?
[This is the headline over a report published today on the Al Arabiya News website. It reads in part:]
Former Libyan Foreign Minister Abdul Rahman Shalgam has said that his successor Moussa Koussa, who resigned last month in protest against the brutalities committed by Muammar Qaddafi’s regime, would not be returning to London, and was likely to seek asylum in Qatar.
Mr Shalgam, who was Libya’s foreign minister from 2000 till 2009, told Al Arabiya that civil society representatives in London had been vehemently objecting to hosting dissident Mr Koussa, who stayed in office from March 2009 till March 2011. He said that they objected to “his involvement in several crimes condemned by the international community.”
“Koussa took part in the Lockerbie bombing, funding the Irish Republican Army, and liquidating several opponents to the Libyan regime,” Mr Shalgam told Al Arabiya.
On March 28, 2011, Koussa left Libya for Tunisia and from there flew to the United Kingdom where he issued a statement. That statement said that he no longer wanted to be a representative of the Libyan government in light of brutal attacks on civilians by Mr Qaddafi’s forces.
Mr Koussa subsequently left London for the Qatari capital Doha to attend a conference on the future of Libya and to meet with members of the National Transitional Council.
“He will most likely stay in Doha and will not go back to London,” Mr Shalgam said of Mr Koussa.
The British government of Prime Minister David Cameron was faced with harsh criticism both for hosting Mr Koussa and for allowing him to leave. While civil society slammed granting asylum to someone accused of crimes against humanity, especially that it took place on British soil, relatives of Lockerbie victims consider allowing Mr Koussa to depart without taking the necessary measures against him a kind of “treason” on the part of the government.
Mr Shalgam described Mr Koussa as the “black box” of the Libyan regime, especially that he spent around 16 years as head of Libyan intelligence.
“The fact that he knows that much about the intricacies of the Libyan regime makes him very valuable for the interim council and necessitates staying in touch with him and making use of the information he possesses.”
When asked if Mr Koussa’s decision to defect from Colonel Qaddafi’s ranks meant he would join the revolutionaries, Mr Shalgam replied that Koussa has not so far asked for this.
“However, his dissidence in itself is a patriotic action,” Mr Shalgam said.
[Of the officials of the Gaddafi regime that I met over the years from 1993 to 2009 in connection with Lockerbie, Moussa Koussa was the scariest and Shalgam was the slipperiest.
James Kirkup of The Telegraph has now picked up this story, without acknowledgment, of course.]
Former Libyan Foreign Minister Abdul Rahman Shalgam has said that his successor Moussa Koussa, who resigned last month in protest against the brutalities committed by Muammar Qaddafi’s regime, would not be returning to London, and was likely to seek asylum in Qatar.
Mr Shalgam, who was Libya’s foreign minister from 2000 till 2009, told Al Arabiya that civil society representatives in London had been vehemently objecting to hosting dissident Mr Koussa, who stayed in office from March 2009 till March 2011. He said that they objected to “his involvement in several crimes condemned by the international community.”
“Koussa took part in the Lockerbie bombing, funding the Irish Republican Army, and liquidating several opponents to the Libyan regime,” Mr Shalgam told Al Arabiya.
On March 28, 2011, Koussa left Libya for Tunisia and from there flew to the United Kingdom where he issued a statement. That statement said that he no longer wanted to be a representative of the Libyan government in light of brutal attacks on civilians by Mr Qaddafi’s forces.
Mr Koussa subsequently left London for the Qatari capital Doha to attend a conference on the future of Libya and to meet with members of the National Transitional Council.
“He will most likely stay in Doha and will not go back to London,” Mr Shalgam said of Mr Koussa.
The British government of Prime Minister David Cameron was faced with harsh criticism both for hosting Mr Koussa and for allowing him to leave. While civil society slammed granting asylum to someone accused of crimes against humanity, especially that it took place on British soil, relatives of Lockerbie victims consider allowing Mr Koussa to depart without taking the necessary measures against him a kind of “treason” on the part of the government.
Mr Shalgam described Mr Koussa as the “black box” of the Libyan regime, especially that he spent around 16 years as head of Libyan intelligence.
“The fact that he knows that much about the intricacies of the Libyan regime makes him very valuable for the interim council and necessitates staying in touch with him and making use of the information he possesses.”
When asked if Mr Koussa’s decision to defect from Colonel Qaddafi’s ranks meant he would join the revolutionaries, Mr Shalgam replied that Koussa has not so far asked for this.
“However, his dissidence in itself is a patriotic action,” Mr Shalgam said.
[Of the officials of the Gaddafi regime that I met over the years from 1993 to 2009 in connection with Lockerbie, Moussa Koussa was the scariest and Shalgam was the slipperiest.
James Kirkup of The Telegraph has now picked up this story, without acknowledgment, of course.]
Sunday, 17 April 2011
US and allies seek a refuge for Qaddafi
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of The New York Times. It reads in part:]
The Obama administration has begun seeking a country, most likely in Africa, that might be willing to provide shelter to Col Muammar el-Qaddafi if he were forced out of Libya, even as a new wave of intelligence reports suggest that no rebel leader has emerged as a credible successor to the Libyan dictator.
The intense search for a country to accept Colonel Qaddafi has been conducted quietly by the United States and its allies, even though the Libyan leader has shown defiance in recent days, declaring that he has no intention of yielding to demands that he leave his country, and intensifying his bombardment of the rebel city of Misurata.
The effort is complicated by the likelihood that he would be indicted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988, and atrocities inside Libya.
One possibility, according to three administration officials, is to find a country that is not a signatory to the treaty that requires countries to turn over anyone under indictment for trial by the court, perhaps giving Colonel Qaddafi an incentive to abandon his stronghold in Tripoli.
The move by the United States to find a haven for Colonel Qaddafi may help explain how the White House is trying to enforce President Obama’s declaration that the Libyan leader must leave the country but without violating Mr Obama’s refusal to put troops on the ground.
The United Nations Security Council has authorized military strikes to protect the Libyan population, but not to oust the leadership. But Mr Obama and the leaders of Britain and France, among others, have declared that to be their goals, apart from the military campaign. (...)
About half of the countries in Africa have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute, which requires nations to abide by commands from the international court. (The United States has also not ratified the statute, because of concerns about the potential indictment of its soldiers or intelligence agents.) Italy’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini, suggested late last month that several African countries could offer Colonel Qaddafi a haven, but he did not identify them.
Even though Colonel Qaddafi has had close business dealings with the leaders of countries like Chad, Mali and Zimbabwe, and there have been pro-Qaddafi rallies elsewhere recently across the continent, it was unclear which, if any, nations were emerging as likely candidates to take in Colonel Qaddafi. The African Union has been quietly sounding out potential hosts, but those negotiations have been closely guarded.
[The following is an excerpt from a post on the Wronging Rights blog:]
An article in today's New York Times suggests that efforts to find an exit for Colonel Gaddafi are "complicated by the likelihood that he would be indicted by the International Criminal Court in the Hague for the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988, and atrocities inside Libya."
This is pretty epically incorrect.
Gaddafi may well face charges at the ICC for his regime's violent response to the protests that sparked the current civil war, but he will most certainly not be charged for the bombing of Pan Am 103. The ICC has jurisdiction only over events that occurred after the entry into force of the treaty establishing the court (the Rome Statute), which took place on July 1, 2002. The 1988 Lockerbie bombing is decidedly not subject to the court's jurisdiction.
Any atrocities committed by Gaddafi in Libya between July 1, 2002 and the current crisis are also unlikely to be the subject of an ICC warrant. Libya is not a signatory of the Rome Statute and has therefore not accepted the ICC's jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory. Consequently, the only way for regime crimes to be tried at the ICC is if the Security Council refers them to the court. Security Council resolution 1970 did just that, but it explicitly limited the scope of the referral to "the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011."
The Obama administration has begun seeking a country, most likely in Africa, that might be willing to provide shelter to Col Muammar el-Qaddafi if he were forced out of Libya, even as a new wave of intelligence reports suggest that no rebel leader has emerged as a credible successor to the Libyan dictator.
The intense search for a country to accept Colonel Qaddafi has been conducted quietly by the United States and its allies, even though the Libyan leader has shown defiance in recent days, declaring that he has no intention of yielding to demands that he leave his country, and intensifying his bombardment of the rebel city of Misurata.
The effort is complicated by the likelihood that he would be indicted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988, and atrocities inside Libya.
One possibility, according to three administration officials, is to find a country that is not a signatory to the treaty that requires countries to turn over anyone under indictment for trial by the court, perhaps giving Colonel Qaddafi an incentive to abandon his stronghold in Tripoli.
The move by the United States to find a haven for Colonel Qaddafi may help explain how the White House is trying to enforce President Obama’s declaration that the Libyan leader must leave the country but without violating Mr Obama’s refusal to put troops on the ground.
The United Nations Security Council has authorized military strikes to protect the Libyan population, but not to oust the leadership. But Mr Obama and the leaders of Britain and France, among others, have declared that to be their goals, apart from the military campaign. (...)
About half of the countries in Africa have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute, which requires nations to abide by commands from the international court. (The United States has also not ratified the statute, because of concerns about the potential indictment of its soldiers or intelligence agents.) Italy’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini, suggested late last month that several African countries could offer Colonel Qaddafi a haven, but he did not identify them.
Even though Colonel Qaddafi has had close business dealings with the leaders of countries like Chad, Mali and Zimbabwe, and there have been pro-Qaddafi rallies elsewhere recently across the continent, it was unclear which, if any, nations were emerging as likely candidates to take in Colonel Qaddafi. The African Union has been quietly sounding out potential hosts, but those negotiations have been closely guarded.
[The following is an excerpt from a post on the Wronging Rights blog:]
An article in today's New York Times suggests that efforts to find an exit for Colonel Gaddafi are "complicated by the likelihood that he would be indicted by the International Criminal Court in the Hague for the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988, and atrocities inside Libya."
This is pretty epically incorrect.
Gaddafi may well face charges at the ICC for his regime's violent response to the protests that sparked the current civil war, but he will most certainly not be charged for the bombing of Pan Am 103. The ICC has jurisdiction only over events that occurred after the entry into force of the treaty establishing the court (the Rome Statute), which took place on July 1, 2002. The 1988 Lockerbie bombing is decidedly not subject to the court's jurisdiction.
Any atrocities committed by Gaddafi in Libya between July 1, 2002 and the current crisis are also unlikely to be the subject of an ICC warrant. Libya is not a signatory of the Rome Statute and has therefore not accepted the ICC's jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory. Consequently, the only way for regime crimes to be tried at the ICC is if the Security Council refers them to the court. Security Council resolution 1970 did just that, but it explicitly limited the scope of the referral to "the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011."
Christine Grahame the candidate
[In the course of a profile of marginal constituencies in the forthcoming Scottish Parliament election, an article in today's edition of the Sunday Herald contains the following:]
But even if [incumbent Liberal Democrat MSP Jeremy Purvis] did not have to contend with these factors, he would still have a bare-knuckle fight on his hands. For the past two elections he has been stalked by Christine Grahame, who through the list system has represented the SNP at Holyrood but who would dearly like to make the constituency her own. Eight years ago Purvis held her at bay with a majority of 538 which in 2007 he increased to 598.
Who knows how things will pan out. Few doubt that the SNP are favourites. Talking to Purvis, he is happy to defend his record while philosophical about the hand fate has dealt him. Little love is lost between him and Grahame. “This is the third time that she’s tried to beat me,” he says. “I’m just worried that if I beat her a third time I’ll have to keep her.” (...)
In this eight-year war of attrition, Grahame, over a cup of Earl Grey in the nearby Eastgate theatre, says she is convinced she now has the upper hand. Lest this be interpreted as arrogance or complacency, she stresses that between now and polling day anything can happen and probably will. Did not Neil Kinnock topple over into the sea? Wasn’t Gordon Brown fatally scuppered because he didn’t have the wit to unclip a microphone?
Grahame recalls that in 2007 some 1400 votes were spoiled. Had they counted she might well have won. Or not, as the case may be. A former teacher and lawyer, who owns two cats and is an “aficionado” of gardening, she rejoices in being dubbed by Alex Salmond “the most non-PC member of the team”. With no desire to be a front-bencher she intends to maintain her maverick, republican persona, as vocal on the subject of wind farms – a sore and divisive issue hereabouts – as she is on al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, whose innocence she advocates.
“I don’t think he’s the guilty man,” she says. “There was insufficient evidence. As my mother used to say he’s not a clean potato. But you wouldn’t frame a clean potato.”
Mention of Megrahi is a reminder of the complexity of elections. Who knows what makes floating voters bob one way or another. It may be a local issue or it may be that they are swayed by the national mood.
But even if [incumbent Liberal Democrat MSP Jeremy Purvis] did not have to contend with these factors, he would still have a bare-knuckle fight on his hands. For the past two elections he has been stalked by Christine Grahame, who through the list system has represented the SNP at Holyrood but who would dearly like to make the constituency her own. Eight years ago Purvis held her at bay with a majority of 538 which in 2007 he increased to 598.
Who knows how things will pan out. Few doubt that the SNP are favourites. Talking to Purvis, he is happy to defend his record while philosophical about the hand fate has dealt him. Little love is lost between him and Grahame. “This is the third time that she’s tried to beat me,” he says. “I’m just worried that if I beat her a third time I’ll have to keep her.” (...)
In this eight-year war of attrition, Grahame, over a cup of Earl Grey in the nearby Eastgate theatre, says she is convinced she now has the upper hand. Lest this be interpreted as arrogance or complacency, she stresses that between now and polling day anything can happen and probably will. Did not Neil Kinnock topple over into the sea? Wasn’t Gordon Brown fatally scuppered because he didn’t have the wit to unclip a microphone?
Grahame recalls that in 2007 some 1400 votes were spoiled. Had they counted she might well have won. Or not, as the case may be. A former teacher and lawyer, who owns two cats and is an “aficionado” of gardening, she rejoices in being dubbed by Alex Salmond “the most non-PC member of the team”. With no desire to be a front-bencher she intends to maintain her maverick, republican persona, as vocal on the subject of wind farms – a sore and divisive issue hereabouts – as she is on al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, whose innocence she advocates.
“I don’t think he’s the guilty man,” she says. “There was insufficient evidence. As my mother used to say he’s not a clean potato. But you wouldn’t frame a clean potato.”
Mention of Megrahi is a reminder of the complexity of elections. Who knows what makes floating voters bob one way or another. It may be a local issue or it may be that they are swayed by the national mood.
Saturday, 16 April 2011
US official meets with Gadhafi's rogue Foreign Minister
[This is the headline over a post on a blog on the US ABC News website. It reads as follows:]
Wednesday in Doha, Qatar, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns met with former Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, the highest-level defector from the Gadhafi regime.
Theirs was the first meeting between a US official and Koussa since his defection, though he had been in regular contact with US officials before fleeing to London late last month.
A senior US official told reporters traveling with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Berlin that the meeting took place on Wednesday on the sidelines of a meeting of the Libya Contact Group.
The Libyan opposition reportedly did not meet with Koussa in Doha, though another senior official told reporters that Koussa met with representatives from several other countries but made no public remarks at the conference.
[Funny how this has not been mentioned by those in the United States who have been so vocal about the UK Government's handling of the Moussa Koussa "defection".]
Wednesday in Doha, Qatar, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns met with former Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, the highest-level defector from the Gadhafi regime.
Theirs was the first meeting between a US official and Koussa since his defection, though he had been in regular contact with US officials before fleeing to London late last month.
A senior US official told reporters traveling with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Berlin that the meeting took place on Wednesday on the sidelines of a meeting of the Libya Contact Group.
The Libyan opposition reportedly did not meet with Koussa in Doha, though another senior official told reporters that Koussa met with representatives from several other countries but made no public remarks at the conference.
[Funny how this has not been mentioned by those in the United States who have been so vocal about the UK Government's handling of the Moussa Koussa "defection".]
Friday, 15 April 2011
Lockerbie and Libya: hide & seek
[This is the heading over another article from Ian Bell on his Prospero blog. It reads as follows:]
Alex Salmond says that Moussa Koussa, formerly Gaddafi’s head of intelligence, is merely a “potential witness” in the (still live) Lockerbie investigation, but not a suspect. Dear me, no.
As the First Minister explains it, had Moussa Koussa been a suspect, he would have been arrested. Since he has not been arrested...
This is almost as good, if you are in the mood, as William Hague’s assurance that at no time was the non-suspect offered immunity from prosecution after his defection. After all, if there was never any real intention to prosecute, why bother to talk about immunity?
Better still is the decision, at Britain’s prodding, to remove the non-immune non-suspect from the so-called EU watch list. This means he will henceforth be free to travel as his pleases, and that his assets will no longer be frozen.
Since Moussa Koussa is not suspected of anything, we can therefore conclude that assets lodged in Europe or the US were in no sense stolen from the Libyan people. Since he is free as a bird, it must also follow (forgetting Lockerbie) that he had no hand in arming the IRA, or in endorsing threats against the lives of exiled Libyans, or in the commission of a single crime during decades in Gaddafi’s service.
Brilliant. The Colonel is promised the International Criminal Court for numberless heinous acts, but his most notable henchman, a man with various bloodcurdling nicknames, did nothing at all.
For his reward, he gets to lay hands on enough money to enjoy his retirement in the pleasant climes of his choice, no questions – none whatsoever – asked.
Those climes will not include Britain, if reports (the Telegraph and others) are to be believed. As a British “official” has explained, since Moussa Koussa was never detained – no suspicion, no immunity, ergo no crimes – “It’s up to him”. There goes Salmond’s “potential witness”, delighted to have been of service.
Think of it this way. Let’s say a Mr X turns up in London. “Oh, yes,” he admits. “Member of al Qaeda I was, man and boy. Quite important I was, too, though I do say so myself. Some said I was bin Laden’s right-hand man. Not that I killed anyone, you understand, not personally. Now, are you sure there’s nothing you’d like to ask me?”
Meanwhile, our old friend Mustafa Abdul Jalil is back in business with a “sworn statement” – worth all the paper it was written on – to (oddly) the English Bar’s Human Rights Committee. Once again he offers to prove that, as to Lockerbie, Gaddafi did it, with Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi as his one and only instrument.
No proof as yet – yet again – however. Instead, the assertion, hardly a secret in any case, that the Colonel recompensed al-Megrahi with quantities of money. In Jalil’s previous version, as I recall, this was “a slush fund”, offered up not for lawyers and such, but under the threat that the lone agent would spill the beans.
If I follow Magnus Linklater in The Times, the unwitting folk from the Bar of England and Wales did not ask Libya’s former justice minister to reconcile his claims with problems – six of them – encountered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review (SCCRC) Commission. Strange how that slips everyone’s mind.
But then, if the First Minister of Scotland hasn’t wondered why Moussa Koussa is not being detained for a view on the discrepancy, and if Hague is happy for the non-suspect to keep his memories of events and files to himself, the rest of us can only guess what the SCCRC was on about.
That seems to be the general idea.
[I wonder why it is that Ian Bell so often gets to the heart of an issue (not just Lockerbie and Megrahi) when other commentators are floundering or simply parroting the received wisdom or whatever it is that the establishment wants us to believe.]
Alex Salmond says that Moussa Koussa, formerly Gaddafi’s head of intelligence, is merely a “potential witness” in the (still live) Lockerbie investigation, but not a suspect. Dear me, no.
As the First Minister explains it, had Moussa Koussa been a suspect, he would have been arrested. Since he has not been arrested...
This is almost as good, if you are in the mood, as William Hague’s assurance that at no time was the non-suspect offered immunity from prosecution after his defection. After all, if there was never any real intention to prosecute, why bother to talk about immunity?
Better still is the decision, at Britain’s prodding, to remove the non-immune non-suspect from the so-called EU watch list. This means he will henceforth be free to travel as his pleases, and that his assets will no longer be frozen.
Since Moussa Koussa is not suspected of anything, we can therefore conclude that assets lodged in Europe or the US were in no sense stolen from the Libyan people. Since he is free as a bird, it must also follow (forgetting Lockerbie) that he had no hand in arming the IRA, or in endorsing threats against the lives of exiled Libyans, or in the commission of a single crime during decades in Gaddafi’s service.
Brilliant. The Colonel is promised the International Criminal Court for numberless heinous acts, but his most notable henchman, a man with various bloodcurdling nicknames, did nothing at all.
For his reward, he gets to lay hands on enough money to enjoy his retirement in the pleasant climes of his choice, no questions – none whatsoever – asked.
Those climes will not include Britain, if reports (the Telegraph and others) are to be believed. As a British “official” has explained, since Moussa Koussa was never detained – no suspicion, no immunity, ergo no crimes – “It’s up to him”. There goes Salmond’s “potential witness”, delighted to have been of service.
Think of it this way. Let’s say a Mr X turns up in London. “Oh, yes,” he admits. “Member of al Qaeda I was, man and boy. Quite important I was, too, though I do say so myself. Some said I was bin Laden’s right-hand man. Not that I killed anyone, you understand, not personally. Now, are you sure there’s nothing you’d like to ask me?”
Meanwhile, our old friend Mustafa Abdul Jalil is back in business with a “sworn statement” – worth all the paper it was written on – to (oddly) the English Bar’s Human Rights Committee. Once again he offers to prove that, as to Lockerbie, Gaddafi did it, with Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi as his one and only instrument.
No proof as yet – yet again – however. Instead, the assertion, hardly a secret in any case, that the Colonel recompensed al-Megrahi with quantities of money. In Jalil’s previous version, as I recall, this was “a slush fund”, offered up not for lawyers and such, but under the threat that the lone agent would spill the beans.
If I follow Magnus Linklater in The Times, the unwitting folk from the Bar of England and Wales did not ask Libya’s former justice minister to reconcile his claims with problems – six of them – encountered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review (SCCRC) Commission. Strange how that slips everyone’s mind.
But then, if the First Minister of Scotland hasn’t wondered why Moussa Koussa is not being detained for a view on the discrepancy, and if Hague is happy for the non-suspect to keep his memories of events and files to himself, the rest of us can only guess what the SCCRC was on about.
That seems to be the general idea.
[I wonder why it is that Ian Bell so often gets to the heart of an issue (not just Lockerbie and Megrahi) when other commentators are floundering or simply parroting the received wisdom or whatever it is that the establishment wants us to believe.]
Defector hires lawyers after quiz on Lockerbie
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of the London Evening Standard. It reads in part:]
Libyan defector Moussa Koussa has hired lawyers after police interviewed him over the Lockerbie bombing.
MPs say that the former foreign minister should face justice in Britain if it emerged he had any involvement in the atrocity.
Foreign Secretary William Hague has said Mr Koussa has not been given immunity as part of any exile deal.
The lawyers, London-based Goodman Derrick, declined to say whether they had been hired to represent Mr Koussa on possible criminal or immigration issues.
He is still believed to be in Qatar where he went for an international summit on Libya's future but diplomats expect him to return within days. Last night the EU lifted travel restrictions and an asset freeze upon him, creating fears he may try to stay abroad.
The move was described as "astonishing" by campaigners who believe he should face charges for his alleged involvement in the Lockerbie bombing and other atrocities committed by Libya.
Tory MP Robert Halfon, whose family fled Libya when Gaddafi took power, said: "The only place Mr Koussa should be travelling is to the Hague to face prosecution."
Libyan defector Moussa Koussa has hired lawyers after police interviewed him over the Lockerbie bombing.
MPs say that the former foreign minister should face justice in Britain if it emerged he had any involvement in the atrocity.
Foreign Secretary William Hague has said Mr Koussa has not been given immunity as part of any exile deal.
The lawyers, London-based Goodman Derrick, declined to say whether they had been hired to represent Mr Koussa on possible criminal or immigration issues.
He is still believed to be in Qatar where he went for an international summit on Libya's future but diplomats expect him to return within days. Last night the EU lifted travel restrictions and an asset freeze upon him, creating fears he may try to stay abroad.
The move was described as "astonishing" by campaigners who believe he should face charges for his alleged involvement in the Lockerbie bombing and other atrocities committed by Libya.
Tory MP Robert Halfon, whose family fled Libya when Gaddafi took power, said: "The only place Mr Koussa should be travelling is to the Hague to face prosecution."
No Lockerbie apology, says Salmond
[This is the headline over a report issued by the UK Press Association news agency. It reads in part:]
Alex Salmond rejected a challenge from former Conservative leader Michael Howard to apologise for freeing the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, saying he would "take no lectures" from Westminster politicians.
Speaking on the BBC's Question Time programme on Thursday night, First Minister Mr Salmond said the decision to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was taken only "on the basis of Scots law".
He was released from jail in August 2009 on compassionate grounds after the Scottish Government was told he had only three months to live.
Mr Salmond also told the audience that "prominent" UK politicians had advocated to the Scottish Government that Megrahi should be released "on the grounds of trade, business and oil".
Former home secretary Mr Howard had earlier said the decision to allow Megrahi to return to Libya was "very mistaken" and called on Mr Salmond and Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to apologise.
But Mr Salmond criticised the UK's policy towards Libya and its head of state Colonel Gaddafi.
He said: "Over the past few years two British prime ministers have been seen hugging him in desert tents, and Britain has been selling arms to Libya.
"And incidentally, Michael, some of your prominent colleagues advocated to the Scottish Government that Mr al-Megrahi should be released not on the grounds of law, but on grounds of trade business and oil.
"I represent an administration, whether you agree or disagree with our decisions, which has taken its decision on the basis of Scots law. I'm not going to take any lectures from Westminster politicians who have been up to their eyes in arms deals and oil and trade and a variety of other dirty affairs."
[Further details can be found in this report on the BBC News website and in this report on the STV News website. The programme itself can now be viewed here on the BBC iPlayer.]
Alex Salmond rejected a challenge from former Conservative leader Michael Howard to apologise for freeing the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, saying he would "take no lectures" from Westminster politicians.
Speaking on the BBC's Question Time programme on Thursday night, First Minister Mr Salmond said the decision to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was taken only "on the basis of Scots law".
He was released from jail in August 2009 on compassionate grounds after the Scottish Government was told he had only three months to live.
Mr Salmond also told the audience that "prominent" UK politicians had advocated to the Scottish Government that Megrahi should be released "on the grounds of trade, business and oil".
Former home secretary Mr Howard had earlier said the decision to allow Megrahi to return to Libya was "very mistaken" and called on Mr Salmond and Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to apologise.
But Mr Salmond criticised the UK's policy towards Libya and its head of state Colonel Gaddafi.
He said: "Over the past few years two British prime ministers have been seen hugging him in desert tents, and Britain has been selling arms to Libya.
"And incidentally, Michael, some of your prominent colleagues advocated to the Scottish Government that Mr al-Megrahi should be released not on the grounds of law, but on grounds of trade business and oil.
"I represent an administration, whether you agree or disagree with our decisions, which has taken its decision on the basis of Scots law. I'm not going to take any lectures from Westminster politicians who have been up to their eyes in arms deals and oil and trade and a variety of other dirty affairs."
[Further details can be found in this report on the BBC News website and in this report on the STV News website. The programme itself can now be viewed here on the BBC iPlayer.]
Moussa Koussa gets UK visa and access to his oil millions
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of the Daily Express. It reads in part:]
Colonel Gaddafi’s terror chief Moussa Koussa was yesterday granted an asylum seeker’s visa to stay in the UK – and full access to the millions he has stashed away in secret bank accounts.
MPs and Lockerbie families condemned the move to allow Libya’s “envoy of death” the right to come and go as he pleases for six months after a request to the Home Office by Foreign Secretary William Hague.
And the decision, ordered by the EU, to lift sanctions on the spy chief’s frozen assets – thought to contain millions from Libya’s booming oil sales – was branded as “astonishing”.
The move is understood to have been proposed by Mr Hague when he met European counterparts on Tuesday in an effort to encourage others to quit Gaddafi’s regime. A Treasury source said: “It sends a powerful signal to other potential defectors that, if they are currently on a list, they could be taken off that list if they do things differently.” But Tory MP Robert Halfon, whose family fled Libya when Gaddafi seized power, said: “I am astonished that the EU has decided to give immunity from sanctions to an alleged war criminal.
“The only place Mr Koussa should be travelling is to the Hague to face prosecution at the international court for war criminals.
“Many British people will be hugely concerned that these privileges are being granted to this man.”
Defending Koussa’s visa, a senior Whitehall source insisted there was “no deal, no immunity”. He added: “Koussa may be a nasty piece of work, but he could be key to Gaddafi’s removal. He needs temporary security here so he will work with us.” The Home Office has given Koussa a “Discretionary Leave to Remain” visa offered to asylum seekers pursuing their case to obtain a legitimate refugee status.
[Compare this with the following excerpt from a report headlined "Musa Kusa in UK snub" in today's edition of The Sun:]
Mad Dog Gaddafi's henchman Musa Kusa is refusing to return to Britain, it was claimed last night.
The tyrant's former spymaster has been handed back his passport and cash.
He was allowed to travel freely to Qatar on Wednesday and no longer has his assets frozen. And last night EU sanctions on him were formally lifted.
But Kusa - who defected from Gaddafi's regime last month - is refusing to quit Qatar in a bid to avoid prosecution over the Lockerbie bombing, say sources.
Kusa, 62, flew to the Arab state for international talks about Libya. Broadcaster Al Arabiya reported that Kusa fears the wrath of the families of the 270 Lockerbie victims who perished in the 1988 outrage.
American Susan Cohen, 72 - whose daughter Theo was on board the doomed flight - said: "I am not surprised. Kusa is an evil, evil man who effectively deserves to be hanged. He should not have been allowed to leave Britain."
The Foreign Office said Kusa is "a free individual who can travel to and from the UK", adding: "He has voluntarily agreed to assist all inquiries."
Colonel Gaddafi’s terror chief Moussa Koussa was yesterday granted an asylum seeker’s visa to stay in the UK – and full access to the millions he has stashed away in secret bank accounts.
MPs and Lockerbie families condemned the move to allow Libya’s “envoy of death” the right to come and go as he pleases for six months after a request to the Home Office by Foreign Secretary William Hague.
And the decision, ordered by the EU, to lift sanctions on the spy chief’s frozen assets – thought to contain millions from Libya’s booming oil sales – was branded as “astonishing”.
The move is understood to have been proposed by Mr Hague when he met European counterparts on Tuesday in an effort to encourage others to quit Gaddafi’s regime. A Treasury source said: “It sends a powerful signal to other potential defectors that, if they are currently on a list, they could be taken off that list if they do things differently.” But Tory MP Robert Halfon, whose family fled Libya when Gaddafi seized power, said: “I am astonished that the EU has decided to give immunity from sanctions to an alleged war criminal.
“The only place Mr Koussa should be travelling is to the Hague to face prosecution at the international court for war criminals.
“Many British people will be hugely concerned that these privileges are being granted to this man.”
Defending Koussa’s visa, a senior Whitehall source insisted there was “no deal, no immunity”. He added: “Koussa may be a nasty piece of work, but he could be key to Gaddafi’s removal. He needs temporary security here so he will work with us.” The Home Office has given Koussa a “Discretionary Leave to Remain” visa offered to asylum seekers pursuing their case to obtain a legitimate refugee status.
[Compare this with the following excerpt from a report headlined "Musa Kusa in UK snub" in today's edition of The Sun:]
Mad Dog Gaddafi's henchman Musa Kusa is refusing to return to Britain, it was claimed last night.
The tyrant's former spymaster has been handed back his passport and cash.
He was allowed to travel freely to Qatar on Wednesday and no longer has his assets frozen. And last night EU sanctions on him were formally lifted.
But Kusa - who defected from Gaddafi's regime last month - is refusing to quit Qatar in a bid to avoid prosecution over the Lockerbie bombing, say sources.
Kusa, 62, flew to the Arab state for international talks about Libya. Broadcaster Al Arabiya reported that Kusa fears the wrath of the families of the 270 Lockerbie victims who perished in the 1988 outrage.
American Susan Cohen, 72 - whose daughter Theo was on board the doomed flight - said: "I am not surprised. Kusa is an evil, evil man who effectively deserves to be hanged. He should not have been allowed to leave Britain."
The Foreign Office said Kusa is "a free individual who can travel to and from the UK", adding: "He has voluntarily agreed to assist all inquiries."
Thursday, 14 April 2011
Masking justice with “mercy”
[This is the title of an article by barrister David Wolchover in the current issue of Criminal Law & Justice Weekly. Over nine pages it painstakingly dissects the evidence relating to the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. The following is just one short section of the article:]
Although the trial court found that the Samsonite bag had been carried from Luqa on KM180 they did not find that al-Megrahi had been instrumental in getting it on board. Nor did they find that he brought bomb components to Malta on December 20, and they rejected the Crown’s contention that he had access to explosives in Malta. But they found that he was involved as some sort of accessory on the basis of a package of assumptions: (i) the MST-13 timer was a type which had been supplied, though apparently not exclusively, to the Libyan military/JSO; (ii) al-Megrahi was a member of the JSO; (iii) he bought the clothes in the suitcase from Mary’s House on July 7; (iv) using a false passport for unexplained purposes he made a flying visit to Malta on December 20, returning to Tripoli next day at virtually the same time as KM180 flew out; (v) although there was no evidence as to how the bag could have been placed on board KM180 at Luqa, the Frankfurt evidence was consistent with the possibility that it was.
Having regard to al-Megrahi’s membership of the JSO and the supply of MST-13 timers to Libya, they were able to find that the bag had been put on board KM180 on December 21 because al-Megrahi (a) was the purchaser of the clothes on December 7, (b) was in Malta on December 21, using a false passport with no explanation and (c) was, as they found, therefore “connected,” in some unspecified way with the planting of the bomb. How could they be sure he was the purchaser of the clothes on the basis of mere resemblance to the purchaser and his brief presence in Sliema on December 7? Oh, because the bomb had been flown out of Luqa on December 21, when he was at the airport (using a false passport) and he was therefore “connected” with planting it. But, wait. How could they be sure it had started on its way from Luqa on the 21st? Ah, because he was found to have bought the clothes.
The argument was completely circular. The trial Judges professed to apply the principle of circumstantial evidence, an exercise which normally involves weaving together a number of disparate strands of evidence, reasonably well established or even undisputed though in themselves capable of proving very little, to wrap the accused in a net so tight as to permit no escape from a judgment of guilt. But the actual principle the court applied was petitio principii: assuming what is to be proved as a component of the would-be proof. Thus, a fundamental corruption of basic logic intellectually bankrupted the whole exercise.
The circle is dependent on the soundness of the finding that al-Megrahi was the purchaser. If that finding is wholly unsustainable the circle is broken and the other components prove nothing. The case against al-Megrahi depends therefore on the question whether there is a substantial case for contending that he was the purchaser. There is not.
Although the trial court found that the Samsonite bag had been carried from Luqa on KM180 they did not find that al-Megrahi had been instrumental in getting it on board. Nor did they find that he brought bomb components to Malta on December 20, and they rejected the Crown’s contention that he had access to explosives in Malta. But they found that he was involved as some sort of accessory on the basis of a package of assumptions: (i) the MST-13 timer was a type which had been supplied, though apparently not exclusively, to the Libyan military/JSO; (ii) al-Megrahi was a member of the JSO; (iii) he bought the clothes in the suitcase from Mary’s House on July 7; (iv) using a false passport for unexplained purposes he made a flying visit to Malta on December 20, returning to Tripoli next day at virtually the same time as KM180 flew out; (v) although there was no evidence as to how the bag could have been placed on board KM180 at Luqa, the Frankfurt evidence was consistent with the possibility that it was.
Having regard to al-Megrahi’s membership of the JSO and the supply of MST-13 timers to Libya, they were able to find that the bag had been put on board KM180 on December 21 because al-Megrahi (a) was the purchaser of the clothes on December 7, (b) was in Malta on December 21, using a false passport with no explanation and (c) was, as they found, therefore “connected,” in some unspecified way with the planting of the bomb. How could they be sure he was the purchaser of the clothes on the basis of mere resemblance to the purchaser and his brief presence in Sliema on December 7? Oh, because the bomb had been flown out of Luqa on December 21, when he was at the airport (using a false passport) and he was therefore “connected” with planting it. But, wait. How could they be sure it had started on its way from Luqa on the 21st? Ah, because he was found to have bought the clothes.
The argument was completely circular. The trial Judges professed to apply the principle of circumstantial evidence, an exercise which normally involves weaving together a number of disparate strands of evidence, reasonably well established or even undisputed though in themselves capable of proving very little, to wrap the accused in a net so tight as to permit no escape from a judgment of guilt. But the actual principle the court applied was petitio principii: assuming what is to be proved as a component of the would-be proof. Thus, a fundamental corruption of basic logic intellectually bankrupted the whole exercise.
The circle is dependent on the soundness of the finding that al-Megrahi was the purchaser. If that finding is wholly unsustainable the circle is broken and the other components prove nothing. The case against al-Megrahi depends therefore on the question whether there is a substantial case for contending that he was the purchaser. There is not.
JFM questions sincerity of Crown's Megrahi investigation
[This is the headline over an article published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
The secretary of the Justice for Megrahi Committee, who currently have a petition before the Justice Committee calling for an inquiry into the Pan Am 103 event, has derided the Crown Office's attempts to advance the investigation by interviewing Libyan intelligence chief Moussa Koussa as a sham.
Robert Forrester, writing exclusively for The Firm argues that the whole exercise has been undertaken in the knowledge by the Crown that the Libyan regime were not responsible for the Lockerbie event.
"It is extremely unlikely that anything was learned in the interview that wasn’t already known, namely: that Libya didn’t do it," he says.
"Nevertheless, representatives of the Crown and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary were put up in a hotel in London for a week before eventually meeting Mr Koussa. Having concluded their interview they refused to divulge its content since to do so might compromise their on-going investigation. One must bear in mind here that, despite Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini’s persistent abuse of the word ‘team’ to describe the number of officers working on the on-going Lockerbie case, until the arrival of Mr Koussa, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary had allocated an entire ‘team’ to the job consisting of just one officer."
Forrester argues that Koussa appears to have travelled to the UK as a negotiator with diplomatic protection in place before the trip was made.
"This appears to be confirmed as he has now departed the UK for a conference in Qatar completely unhindered. The UK authorities say that he is welcome to return when ever he wishes," Forrrester says.
"Where then does this leave the talk of interviewing him on the subject of Lockerbie by the Crown and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary? It is all looking very embarrassing.
"The Crown will maintain that to talk publicly about the interview could damage the ‘investigation’. The long and the short of it is that if they had had any road to Damascus experience in London, they’d have been singing it from the roof tops."
Forrester adds that the Crown Office had expended a great deal of effort into "obfuscation and the blocking of any moves to have Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction independently investigated", leading Forrester, Dr Jim Swire, Robert Black QC, Iain Mckie and others to form the Justice for Megrahi committee.
"[It] was founded around the back end of 2008 precisely because it was felt that it was no longer sufficient to depend solely on applying judicial pressure in the hope of addressing this problem, particularly given the way in which the Crown had planned to hear Mr al-Megrahi’s second appeal. In short, it was time to become more political."
Forrester's remarks can be read in full, here.
The secretary of the Justice for Megrahi Committee, who currently have a petition before the Justice Committee calling for an inquiry into the Pan Am 103 event, has derided the Crown Office's attempts to advance the investigation by interviewing Libyan intelligence chief Moussa Koussa as a sham.
Robert Forrester, writing exclusively for The Firm argues that the whole exercise has been undertaken in the knowledge by the Crown that the Libyan regime were not responsible for the Lockerbie event.
"It is extremely unlikely that anything was learned in the interview that wasn’t already known, namely: that Libya didn’t do it," he says.
"Nevertheless, representatives of the Crown and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary were put up in a hotel in London for a week before eventually meeting Mr Koussa. Having concluded their interview they refused to divulge its content since to do so might compromise their on-going investigation. One must bear in mind here that, despite Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini’s persistent abuse of the word ‘team’ to describe the number of officers working on the on-going Lockerbie case, until the arrival of Mr Koussa, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary had allocated an entire ‘team’ to the job consisting of just one officer."
Forrester argues that Koussa appears to have travelled to the UK as a negotiator with diplomatic protection in place before the trip was made.
"This appears to be confirmed as he has now departed the UK for a conference in Qatar completely unhindered. The UK authorities say that he is welcome to return when ever he wishes," Forrrester says.
"Where then does this leave the talk of interviewing him on the subject of Lockerbie by the Crown and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary? It is all looking very embarrassing.
"The Crown will maintain that to talk publicly about the interview could damage the ‘investigation’. The long and the short of it is that if they had had any road to Damascus experience in London, they’d have been singing it from the roof tops."
Forrester adds that the Crown Office had expended a great deal of effort into "obfuscation and the blocking of any moves to have Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction independently investigated", leading Forrester, Dr Jim Swire, Robert Black QC, Iain Mckie and others to form the Justice for Megrahi committee.
"[It] was founded around the back end of 2008 precisely because it was felt that it was no longer sufficient to depend solely on applying judicial pressure in the hope of addressing this problem, particularly given the way in which the Crown had planned to hear Mr al-Megrahi’s second appeal. In short, it was time to become more political."
Forrester's remarks can be read in full, here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)