[Been wondering what Moussa Koussa is up to these days? The Guardian thinks it knows. The following are excerpts from an article on the paper's website headlined Koussa among defectors 'helping Nato bomb secret Gaddafi sites':]
A network of Libyan defectors, including the former regime stalwart Moussa Koussa, are helping Nato to destroy Muammar Gaddafi's military sites, including bunker complexes from which much of the war has been run, according to senior officials in Libya.
Nato planners have stepped up their operations over the capital, Tripoli, and the western mountains in recent days, despite a strike on the eastern city of Brega early on Friday that killed up to 11 people, many of them Islamic clerics. (...)
Despite almost nightly air strikes, and increasing numbers of daylight attacks on the outskirts of Tripoli, the capital remains under regime control. The city is free of checkpoints and any opposition elements are maintaining a low profile. Discontent – for now – seems directed at France, Britain and Italy, whom residents blame for a critical fuel shortage.
But there is growing anger towards former regime loyalists, first among them Koussa, who defected to Britain in early April after more than 30 years as Gaddafi's most trusted henchman.
The former foreign minister and intelligence chief is understood to have passed on "invaluable" details of the dictator's police state, including the precise location of the regime's most sensitive sites.
"He was the 'black box' of the regime," said an unnamed official who worked with Koussa. "I was with him the day before he left and nobody knew that he was going to do that. Why did he do it? I'd say he must have been emotionally weak. Things must have got to him."
After spending a month in Britain, Koussa is now in Qatar, from where he is believed to be helping Nato map targets.
Sunday, 15 May 2011
SNP plans law change over Lockerbie files
[This is the heading over a report published today on the Independent on Sunday website. It reads in part:]
New laws to allow the publication of Lockerbie files are to be brought in by the SNP. (...)
The SNP wants to change the law to allow the publication of papers from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which said there were six grounds where it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
That paved the way for Megrahi's second appeal against his conviction, which he dropped shortly before he was released on compassionate grounds in August 2009, after he was given three months to live.
Currently the release of the SCCRC papers can be blocked by one or more of the parties who gave evidence to the review.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said the SNP now plans to bring forward new legislation.
First Minister Alex Salmond said in February that he would change the law if the SNP won a second term.
Mr MacAskill told the Scottish Sunday Express: "This is something the new SNP Government will do in early course. We have always been as transparent as possible.
"And following the announcement last December that the SCCRC was unable to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case due to current legislation we now intend to bring forward primary legislation to overcome those problems presented by the consent provisions."
Labour MSP Richard Baker said: "We need to know what Kenny MacAskill's reason for this change in the law is.
"He has always maintained that Megrahi was properly convicted by a Scottish court and that he had no reason to doubt his guilt.
"Now he appears to be casting doubt on his own assertion and if that is the case then Mr MacAskill needs to explain whether that influenced his decision to grant compassionate release.
"The documents that need to be released are the medical evidence that Mr Salmond relied on before he released Megrahi and the minutes of the meeting between himself and Jack Straw where the First Minister reportedly asked for a deal on the Prisoner Transfer Agreement.
"He doesn't need to wait or change the law to get these documents in the public domain."
He said that medical evidence on the condition of offenders is heard in court every day in Scotland and Megrahi's case should be no different.
[Every time Richard Baker MSP opens his mouth about Lockerbie and, it has to be said, many other justice-related subjects, one's views on the abysmal calibre of most Scottish Labour MSPs are resoundingly confirmed. Prisoners (and ex-prisoners) share the same rights in respect of medical confidentiality as any other inhabitant of Scotland. For Kenny MacAskill to release the medical reports relating to Abdelbaset Megrahi would, quite simply, be illegal. If Mr Baker does not know this, he should not be Labour's Justice spokesman in the Scottish Parliament. When reports on an accused (or convicted) person's medical condition are referred to in court, these reports are not released to the general public, but are for the use solely of those professionally engaged in the proceedings.
I note that Kenny MacAskill again refers to the law being changed by primary legislation. As has been pointed out more than once on this blog, primary legislation is unnecessary. The necessary change could be made, quickly and efficiently, in secondary legislation by statutory instrument.
A similar article appears on the website of the Scottish Sunday Express. It is reproduced on the Newsnet Scotland website, which I encourage readers to access because of the responses that follow the article. More welcome pressure, from primarily SNP supporters, for an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction.
This story has now (Monday) been picked up on The Scotsman website. It also features on the website of the staunchly pro-Labour Daily Record.]
New laws to allow the publication of Lockerbie files are to be brought in by the SNP. (...)
The SNP wants to change the law to allow the publication of papers from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which said there were six grounds where it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
That paved the way for Megrahi's second appeal against his conviction, which he dropped shortly before he was released on compassionate grounds in August 2009, after he was given three months to live.
Currently the release of the SCCRC papers can be blocked by one or more of the parties who gave evidence to the review.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said the SNP now plans to bring forward new legislation.
First Minister Alex Salmond said in February that he would change the law if the SNP won a second term.
Mr MacAskill told the Scottish Sunday Express: "This is something the new SNP Government will do in early course. We have always been as transparent as possible.
"And following the announcement last December that the SCCRC was unable to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case due to current legislation we now intend to bring forward primary legislation to overcome those problems presented by the consent provisions."
Labour MSP Richard Baker said: "We need to know what Kenny MacAskill's reason for this change in the law is.
"He has always maintained that Megrahi was properly convicted by a Scottish court and that he had no reason to doubt his guilt.
"Now he appears to be casting doubt on his own assertion and if that is the case then Mr MacAskill needs to explain whether that influenced his decision to grant compassionate release.
"The documents that need to be released are the medical evidence that Mr Salmond relied on before he released Megrahi and the minutes of the meeting between himself and Jack Straw where the First Minister reportedly asked for a deal on the Prisoner Transfer Agreement.
"He doesn't need to wait or change the law to get these documents in the public domain."
He said that medical evidence on the condition of offenders is heard in court every day in Scotland and Megrahi's case should be no different.
[Every time Richard Baker MSP opens his mouth about Lockerbie and, it has to be said, many other justice-related subjects, one's views on the abysmal calibre of most Scottish Labour MSPs are resoundingly confirmed. Prisoners (and ex-prisoners) share the same rights in respect of medical confidentiality as any other inhabitant of Scotland. For Kenny MacAskill to release the medical reports relating to Abdelbaset Megrahi would, quite simply, be illegal. If Mr Baker does not know this, he should not be Labour's Justice spokesman in the Scottish Parliament. When reports on an accused (or convicted) person's medical condition are referred to in court, these reports are not released to the general public, but are for the use solely of those professionally engaged in the proceedings.
I note that Kenny MacAskill again refers to the law being changed by primary legislation. As has been pointed out more than once on this blog, primary legislation is unnecessary. The necessary change could be made, quickly and efficiently, in secondary legislation by statutory instrument.
A similar article appears on the website of the Scottish Sunday Express. It is reproduced on the Newsnet Scotland website, which I encourage readers to access because of the responses that follow the article. More welcome pressure, from primarily SNP supporters, for an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction.
This story has now (Monday) been picked up on The Scotsman website. It also features on the website of the staunchly pro-Labour Daily Record.]
The two disappearing posts
Blogger/Blogspot service has now been restored. But the two posts that I made on Thursday 12 May (and related readers' comments) have not been restored.
Here is what I said in posts to the Friends of Justice for Megrahi Facebook page:
1. Julian Assange says more WikiLeaks Lockerbie documents are to be published in The Scotsman newspaper, maybe even from the period of the investigation into the disaster. See http://www.frontlineclub.com/blogs/RyanGallagher/2011/05/a-qa-with-julian-assange-part-ii-on-lockerbie-copycat-leaks-sites-and-protecting-whistleblowers.html
2. The US would "encourage" any new Libyan government to help a new investigation of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 says a senior State Department official. But would the result of any such new investigation be pre-determined? See US: New Libya regime should aid Lockerbie probe.
Here is what I said in posts to the Friends of Justice for Megrahi Facebook page:
1. Julian Assange says more WikiLeaks Lockerbie documents are to be published in The Scotsman newspaper, maybe even from the period of the investigation into the disaster. See http://www.frontlineclub.com/blogs/RyanGallagher/2011/05/a-qa-with-julian-assange-part-ii-on-lockerbie-copycat-leaks-sites-and-protecting-whistleblowers.html
2. The US would "encourage" any new Libyan government to help a new investigation of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 says a senior State Department official. But would the result of any such new investigation be pre-determined? See US: New Libya regime should aid Lockerbie probe.
Friday, 13 May 2011
Disappearing blog posts
Two posts that I made yesterday to this blog have mysteriously disappeared. References to them can be found here on the Friends of Justice for Megrahi Facebook page. I hope that this is nothing more than a temporary technical glitch.
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Christine Grahame fails in bid to become Presiding Officer
[The following is from a report published this afternoon on the BBC News website:]
SNP backbencher Tricia Marwick has been elected as the new presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament, in the wake of her party's election win.
The Mid Fife and Glenrothes MSP won the five-year job in a ballot of Holyrood's 129 members.
Ms Marwick pledged to do her "very, very best" in the role.
Out-going presiding officer Alex Fergusson said the election of a member of the likely party of government to the post presented "fresh challenges".
Labour criticised the appointment, saying it gave "cause for concern".
Ms Marwick, 57, saw off a challenge from party colleague Christine Grahame and former Labour minister Hugh Henry.
The elections were held as Holyrood sat for the first time since the SNP's landslide win at the polls, last week.
[This blog was today accessed from within Libya.]
SNP backbencher Tricia Marwick has been elected as the new presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament, in the wake of her party's election win.
The Mid Fife and Glenrothes MSP won the five-year job in a ballot of Holyrood's 129 members.
Ms Marwick pledged to do her "very, very best" in the role.
Out-going presiding officer Alex Fergusson said the election of a member of the likely party of government to the post presented "fresh challenges".
Labour criticised the appointment, saying it gave "cause for concern".
Ms Marwick, 57, saw off a challenge from party colleague Christine Grahame and former Labour minister Hugh Henry.
The elections were held as Holyrood sat for the first time since the SNP's landslide win at the polls, last week.
[This blog was today accessed from within Libya.]
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
"Lockerbie: Unfinished Business" at Dumfries, Aberdeen and Langholm
David Benson will be giving a performance of his award-winning play Lockerbie: Unfinished Business at the Dumfries and Galloway Arts Festival at 7.30pm on 26 May at the Theatre Royal, Shakespeare Street, Dumfries. There will be further performances in Aberdeen on 27 May and in Langholm on 28 May.
Pan Am 103 campaigner Grahame declares candidacy for Presiding Officer role
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
Newly returned MSP and strident campaigner for justice in the Pan Am 103 debacle, Christine Grahame, has declared her candidacy for the role of Presiding Officer at Holyrood.
She would be the first woman to occupy the chair following predecessors David Steel, George Reid and incumbent Alex Fergusson.
“I am known in Parliament as an independent-minded backbencher and that is the same way I would approach the task of presiding officer," she said in a statement.
"I have the experience to do the job, having been an MSP since 1999 and having chaired three committees in that time.
“Parliament needs to be a forum for robust, lively and interesting exchanges, and, if elected as presiding officer, I would ensure that backbenchers have more of a say and also look at ways of making debates more interesting and relevant.”
Grahame has enjoyed the tacit support of First Minister Alex Salmond and has campaigned to seek justice and a Parliamentary inquiry into the case of the Lockerbie convict Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. [RB: the campaign is for an independent inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, not a parliamentary inquiry.]
The Presiding Officer will be selected when Parliament reconvenes tomorrow. No other candidates have formally come forward at the time of publication.
[This news creates mixed feelings in me. I think Christine would be an excellent Presiding Officer. But the neutrality required of the holder of that position would largely disqualify her from campaigning actively for a review of the Megrahi conviction. This would be a great loss to those of us who regard the removal of this blemish on the Scottish criminal justice system as crucial for the restoration of domestic and international confidence in the administration of justice in Scotland.]
Newly returned MSP and strident campaigner for justice in the Pan Am 103 debacle, Christine Grahame, has declared her candidacy for the role of Presiding Officer at Holyrood.
She would be the first woman to occupy the chair following predecessors David Steel, George Reid and incumbent Alex Fergusson.
“I am known in Parliament as an independent-minded backbencher and that is the same way I would approach the task of presiding officer," she said in a statement.
"I have the experience to do the job, having been an MSP since 1999 and having chaired three committees in that time.
“Parliament needs to be a forum for robust, lively and interesting exchanges, and, if elected as presiding officer, I would ensure that backbenchers have more of a say and also look at ways of making debates more interesting and relevant.”
Grahame has enjoyed the tacit support of First Minister Alex Salmond and has campaigned to seek justice and a Parliamentary inquiry into the case of the Lockerbie convict Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. [RB: the campaign is for an independent inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, not a parliamentary inquiry.]
The Presiding Officer will be selected when Parliament reconvenes tomorrow. No other candidates have formally come forward at the time of publication.
[This news creates mixed feelings in me. I think Christine would be an excellent Presiding Officer. But the neutrality required of the holder of that position would largely disqualify her from campaigning actively for a review of the Megrahi conviction. This would be a great loss to those of us who regard the removal of this blemish on the Scottish criminal justice system as crucial for the restoration of domestic and international confidence in the administration of justice in Scotland.]
An Aljazeera correspondent on the SNP triumph
[The following is an excerpt from a report on the Aljazeera English-language website:]
Within five years, the people of Scotland will be asked to decide if they want to remain part of the union or create an independent state.
This is due to a remarkable win for the nationalists in elections to Scotland's devolved parliament which sits in Edinburgh.
The Scottish National Party [SNP] had governed as a minority administration but this time around it has taken 69 of the 129 seats up for grabs.
When the parliament was established in 1999 a complex electoral system was drawn up – a mixture of first-past-the-post and proportional representation – to ensure no party, particularly the nationalists, would ever win an overall majority.
But the founding fathers failed to see a complete collapse of the left of the centre Labour Party in its traditional industrial heartlands around Glasgow and Fife, the loss of every single Labour seat in the north east around Aberdeen and the huge collapse of the Liberal Democratic Party.
The SNP was told it would suffer because as the party in government in Scotland it approved the controversial release of the convicted Lockerbie Bomber, Abdel Basset Al Megrahi. It didn't. It simply wasn't an election issue.
Labour claimed the Liberal Democrat vote collapsed because of their links with the Conservatives in the UK government and disaffected voters went straight to the SNP. There might be some truth in that, but it does not detract from this astonishing result.
The leader of the nationalists, Alex Salmond, is by common consent the only 'big beast' in Scottish politics, by far and away the most impressive, informed, in touch politician.
He has in the past put forth the idea of Scotland having a parliament, everyone rejected this but they were wrong. That the SNP would never run Scotland, but they did with a minority administration in the last parliament. And that his party could never secure a majority. And it has.
Now he says those who predict Scotland will never be independent must be worried.
[The following is from a report in yesterday's Glasgow Evening Times:]
After he is confirmed as First Minister next week Mr Salmond will pick his cabinet for the second term and is expected to keep his team largely unchanged.
He fought the election on the SNP’s "record, team and vision" so would be a surprise to ring the changes.
One change is a new post of minister for cities which will be under the control of Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, who is likely to remain as Health Secretary.
Finance Secretary John Swinney appears to be another untouchable after showing immense diplomatic and political skill in dealing with difficult times in local government.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill had a stormier four years than other Cabinet Secretaries carrying the anger from the US and elsewhere over his decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al Megrahi.
There will also have to be a new Lord Advocate after Elish Angiolini’s decision to step down.
Within five years, the people of Scotland will be asked to decide if they want to remain part of the union or create an independent state.
This is due to a remarkable win for the nationalists in elections to Scotland's devolved parliament which sits in Edinburgh.
The Scottish National Party [SNP] had governed as a minority administration but this time around it has taken 69 of the 129 seats up for grabs.
When the parliament was established in 1999 a complex electoral system was drawn up – a mixture of first-past-the-post and proportional representation – to ensure no party, particularly the nationalists, would ever win an overall majority.
But the founding fathers failed to see a complete collapse of the left of the centre Labour Party in its traditional industrial heartlands around Glasgow and Fife, the loss of every single Labour seat in the north east around Aberdeen and the huge collapse of the Liberal Democratic Party.
The SNP was told it would suffer because as the party in government in Scotland it approved the controversial release of the convicted Lockerbie Bomber, Abdel Basset Al Megrahi. It didn't. It simply wasn't an election issue.
Labour claimed the Liberal Democrat vote collapsed because of their links with the Conservatives in the UK government and disaffected voters went straight to the SNP. There might be some truth in that, but it does not detract from this astonishing result.
The leader of the nationalists, Alex Salmond, is by common consent the only 'big beast' in Scottish politics, by far and away the most impressive, informed, in touch politician.
He has in the past put forth the idea of Scotland having a parliament, everyone rejected this but they were wrong. That the SNP would never run Scotland, but they did with a minority administration in the last parliament. And that his party could never secure a majority. And it has.
Now he says those who predict Scotland will never be independent must be worried.
[The following is from a report in yesterday's Glasgow Evening Times:]
After he is confirmed as First Minister next week Mr Salmond will pick his cabinet for the second term and is expected to keep his team largely unchanged.
He fought the election on the SNP’s "record, team and vision" so would be a surprise to ring the changes.
One change is a new post of minister for cities which will be under the control of Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, who is likely to remain as Health Secretary.
Finance Secretary John Swinney appears to be another untouchable after showing immense diplomatic and political skill in dealing with difficult times in local government.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill had a stormier four years than other Cabinet Secretaries carrying the anger from the US and elsewhere over his decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al Megrahi.
There will also have to be a new Lord Advocate after Elish Angiolini’s decision to step down.
Monday, 9 May 2011
Judge at first Megrahi appeal retires
[The following is an excerpt from a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. The judge in question, Lord Osborne, asked many penetrating questions during the course of the appeal and had the Crown struggling to provide answers. Regrettably, the restricted compass within which Megrahi's then legal team chose to present the appeal meant that the court could not give effect to the weighty concerns raised by Lord Osborne and his colleague Lord Kirkwood.]
His 21 years' service far exceeds most of the sentences he ever passed as a trial judge in the High Court, while in the last ten years he had become a fixture in the appeal divisions of the Court of Session and the High Court. He might never have attained the title of Lord President or Lord Justice Clerk, the country's most senior judicial positions, but he was often relied on to preside over an appeal court.
Lord Osborne was part of many historic rulings, with none more important, perhaps, than the decision to reject the first appeal by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi at the Scottish court in the Netherlands.
His style on the bench was very individualistic. Many judges sit, poker-faced, absorbing the arguments and making the odd note as they wrestle, mentally, with the point at issue. Lord Osborne was one to debate, question, challenge and test the arguments of counsel on both sides, and would slump back with a face of tortured contortion as he tried to work out which way, in his opinion, the law lay.
And it was always in his opinion. He was never one to go with the flow for the sake of it. He showed he could be of fiercely independent mind (...)
Lord Osborne was part of many historic rulings, with none more important, perhaps, than the decision to reject the first appeal by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi at the Scottish court in the Netherlands.
His style on the bench was very individualistic. Many judges sit, poker-faced, absorbing the arguments and making the odd note as they wrestle, mentally, with the point at issue. Lord Osborne was one to debate, question, challenge and test the arguments of counsel on both sides, and would slump back with a face of tortured contortion as he tried to work out which way, in his opinion, the law lay.
And it was always in his opinion. He was never one to go with the flow for the sake of it. He showed he could be of fiercely independent mind (...)
Friday, 6 May 2011
Windhoek musings
The Scottish electorate has responded resoundingly to Labour Scottish parliamentary leader Iain Gray's contention that Alex Salmond's handling of the banking crisis and release of the "Lockerbie bomber" exposed “fundamental flaws” in the SNP leader’s character and judgement. I am particularly pleased at the redoutable Christine Grahame's victory in the Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale seat.
What must now be hoped for is that Alex Salmond and the new SNP majority government, at long last, demonstrate sound judgment over the shameful Megrahi conviction and immediately institute an independent inquiry. The first indication will be who is appointed to the office of Lord Advocate to replace the disastrous Elish Angiolini QC. If her successor is another Crown Office minion rather than an independent advocate or solicitor, the prospects will remain bleak.
Incidentally, Windhoek is not merely the capital of Namibia, it is the brand name of the county's best beer (brewed in accordance with the Bavarian Reinheitsgebot). Today I had to wade up to my knees through a seasonal river to sample a few pints of it. But it was well worth the effort.
What must now be hoped for is that Alex Salmond and the new SNP majority government, at long last, demonstrate sound judgment over the shameful Megrahi conviction and immediately institute an independent inquiry. The first indication will be who is appointed to the office of Lord Advocate to replace the disastrous Elish Angiolini QC. If her successor is another Crown Office minion rather than an independent advocate or solicitor, the prospects will remain bleak.
Incidentally, Windhoek is not merely the capital of Namibia, it is the brand name of the county's best beer (brewed in accordance with the Bavarian Reinheitsgebot). Today I had to wade up to my knees through a seasonal river to sample a few pints of it. But it was well worth the effort.
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Iain Gray accuses Alex Salmond of lacking judgement
[This is the headline over a recent report on The Telegraph website. The following is an extract:]
Iain Gray has delivered his most personal attack yet on Alex Salmond by arguing his handling of the banking crisis and release of the Lockerbie bomber exposed “fundamental flaws” in the SNP leader’s character and judgement.
The Labour leader said the other defining moment was when Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was released in August 2009 on the basis he had less than three months to live. However, the terrorist remains alive in Libya more than 20 months later.
“I think people should be wary of any politician who claims ‘moral authority’,” Mr Gray continued.
“The last time the SNP appealed to ‘moral authority’ was when they released the Lockerbie bomber. They were wrong about that and most Scots agree that was the wrong decision. That’s another example of poor judgement.”
[The following is a snippet from Peter Cherbi's blog A Diary of Injustice in Scotland:]
How about the Lockerbie case and the long running controversy over the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi’s conviction and release. Despite all the calls for independent inquiries, calls for, & half hearted attempts at the release of documents to answer the many inconsistencies in the case, nothing has changed other than the fact Mr Megrahi was released back to Libya on compassionate grounds by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, so conveniently avoiding any further progress in Mr Megrahi’s appeal at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh, where the gritted teeth of the judges (one looked like he had bruxism) was much more obvious to most who saw the spectacle rather than any hope the court would turn its attention to matters at hand and quash a verdict which many around the world question. Last time I checked, this farce happened under an SNP administration.
[Any further posts on this blog between now and 10 May will be from internet cafes in the capital of Namibia, Windhoek.]
Iain Gray has delivered his most personal attack yet on Alex Salmond by arguing his handling of the banking crisis and release of the Lockerbie bomber exposed “fundamental flaws” in the SNP leader’s character and judgement.
The Labour leader said the other defining moment was when Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was released in August 2009 on the basis he had less than three months to live. However, the terrorist remains alive in Libya more than 20 months later.
“I think people should be wary of any politician who claims ‘moral authority’,” Mr Gray continued.
“The last time the SNP appealed to ‘moral authority’ was when they released the Lockerbie bomber. They were wrong about that and most Scots agree that was the wrong decision. That’s another example of poor judgement.”
[The following is a snippet from Peter Cherbi's blog A Diary of Injustice in Scotland:]
How about the Lockerbie case and the long running controversy over the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi’s conviction and release. Despite all the calls for independent inquiries, calls for, & half hearted attempts at the release of documents to answer the many inconsistencies in the case, nothing has changed other than the fact Mr Megrahi was released back to Libya on compassionate grounds by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, so conveniently avoiding any further progress in Mr Megrahi’s appeal at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh, where the gritted teeth of the judges (one looked like he had bruxism) was much more obvious to most who saw the spectacle rather than any hope the court would turn its attention to matters at hand and quash a verdict which many around the world question. Last time I checked, this farce happened under an SNP administration.
[Any further posts on this blog between now and 10 May will be from internet cafes in the capital of Namibia, Windhoek.]
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Libyan leaders may face UN arrest warrants for war crimes
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Guardian. It reads in part:]
Senior Libyan officials face international arrest warrants for crimes against humanity, the United Nations security council will be told today.
Luis Moreno-Ocampo, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, is to brief the council about crimes committed by Muammar Gaddafi's forces since the Libyan uprising began in mid-February.
Western diplomats say the move is intended to ratchet up international pressure on Tripoli. Ocampo revealed that up to five warrants are likely to be issued in the next few weeks with the approval of the ICC's pre-trial chamber.
No names have been disclosed. But Al-Arabiya TV reported that the warrants could include Gaddafi himself and his son, the discredited reformist Saif al-Islam, who has strong UK links. It said others being targeted include Libya's former foreign minister, Moussa Koussa, who defected to the UK, and Abu Zeyd Omar Dorda, director general of the Libyan External Security Organisation.
[Both Moussa Koussa and Omar Dorda were heavily involved in the international manoeuvrings that led to the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist. At the time, Dorda was Libyan Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York and it was through him and the then UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs Hans Corell that problems arising from the terms of the August 1998 UK/US proposal for the Scottish Court in the Netherlands were ironed out. After the trial took place, Dorda played little part in Lockerbie affairs and, in particular, as far as I could see, had no role in the events leading up to Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation.
A report on the BBC News website can be read here.]
Senior Libyan officials face international arrest warrants for crimes against humanity, the United Nations security council will be told today.
Luis Moreno-Ocampo, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, is to brief the council about crimes committed by Muammar Gaddafi's forces since the Libyan uprising began in mid-February.
Western diplomats say the move is intended to ratchet up international pressure on Tripoli. Ocampo revealed that up to five warrants are likely to be issued in the next few weeks with the approval of the ICC's pre-trial chamber.
No names have been disclosed. But Al-Arabiya TV reported that the warrants could include Gaddafi himself and his son, the discredited reformist Saif al-Islam, who has strong UK links. It said others being targeted include Libya's former foreign minister, Moussa Koussa, who defected to the UK, and Abu Zeyd Omar Dorda, director general of the Libyan External Security Organisation.
[Both Moussa Koussa and Omar Dorda were heavily involved in the international manoeuvrings that led to the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist. At the time, Dorda was Libyan Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York and it was through him and the then UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs Hans Corell that problems arising from the terms of the August 1998 UK/US proposal for the Scottish Court in the Netherlands were ironed out. After the trial took place, Dorda played little part in Lockerbie affairs and, in particular, as far as I could see, had no role in the events leading up to Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation.
A report on the BBC News website can be read here.]
When will they ever learn ...?
[What follows is from an editorial headed "Obama starts to emerge" in today's edition of The New York Sun:]
One of the encouraging aspects of the events of the past few days is the emergence of a new and more confident President Obama. This wasn’t always the prospect in the first two years of his presidency, in which he seemed indecisive and reluctant. (...)
Mr Obama is starting to emerge as the kind of war leader we had in mind — cool under fire, able to keep a poker face while golf and entertaining the press between high stakes briefings in the situation room, and sagacious in battle, as he surely was with his decision to send in the SEALs into the lair of Osama Bin Laden. His capacity for secrecy and unilateralism speaks well of him, and it happens that we agree also with his decision to dispose of bin Laden’s corpse at sea. And not to worry about it afterwards. (...)
We still have all our policy differences with Mr. Obama — on the economy, monetary and fiscal matters, on social issues, and in the realm of culture. But our own hope is that the events of these past few days will incent Mr Obama in dealing with communist Korea and Iran and no doubt other places where diplomacy has failed. Even as NATO warplanes are flying Libya, we continue to favor sending a team to Libya to fetch Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, and bring him to an American jail [to] serve his time for his role in the downing of Pan American Flight 103. It is our hope that the triumph we’ve saw in the last few days will as it humbles us all nonetheless embolden Mr Obama as a war leader, with his own growing appreciation for the possibilities of military and covert means in a twilight struggle in which our cause is just. If that happens it could be more important than the death that was brought to bin Laden.
One of the encouraging aspects of the events of the past few days is the emergence of a new and more confident President Obama. This wasn’t always the prospect in the first two years of his presidency, in which he seemed indecisive and reluctant. (...)
Mr Obama is starting to emerge as the kind of war leader we had in mind — cool under fire, able to keep a poker face while golf and entertaining the press between high stakes briefings in the situation room, and sagacious in battle, as he surely was with his decision to send in the SEALs into the lair of Osama Bin Laden. His capacity for secrecy and unilateralism speaks well of him, and it happens that we agree also with his decision to dispose of bin Laden’s corpse at sea. And not to worry about it afterwards. (...)
We still have all our policy differences with Mr. Obama — on the economy, monetary and fiscal matters, on social issues, and in the realm of culture. But our own hope is that the events of these past few days will incent Mr Obama in dealing with communist Korea and Iran and no doubt other places where diplomacy has failed. Even as NATO warplanes are flying Libya, we continue to favor sending a team to Libya to fetch Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, and bring him to an American jail [to] serve his time for his role in the downing of Pan American Flight 103. It is our hope that the triumph we’ve saw in the last few days will as it humbles us all nonetheless embolden Mr Obama as a war leader, with his own growing appreciation for the possibilities of military and covert means in a twilight struggle in which our cause is just. If that happens it could be more important than the death that was brought to bin Laden.
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
"Humanitarian intervention" in Libya
[The following are extracts from a long article by William Blum published yesterday on the Killing Hope website:]
Iraq: Let us not forget what "humanitarian intervention" looks like.
Libya: Let us not be confused as to why Libya alone has been singled out for "humanitarian intervention". (...)
In 2006, the UN special investigator on torture declared that reports from Iraq indicated that torture "is totally out of hand. The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein." Another UN report of the same time disclosed a rise in "honor killings" of women.
"It is a common refrain among war-weary Iraqis that things were better before the US-led invasion in 2003," reported the Washington Post on May 5, 2007. (...)
And this from two months ago [Washington Post, March 4, 2011]:
"Protesters, human rights workers and security officials say the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has responded to Iraq's demonstrations in much the same way as many of its more authoritarian neighbors: with force. Witnesses in Baghdad and as far north as Kirkuk described watching last week as security forces in black uniforms, tracksuits and T-shirts roared up in trucks and Humvees, attacked protesters, rounded up others from cafes and homes and hauled them off, blindfolded, to army detention centers. Entire neighborhoods ... were blockaded to prevent residents from joining the demonstrations. Journalists were beaten."
So ... can we expect the United States and its fellow thugs in NATO to intervene militarily in Iraq as they're doing in Libya? To protect the protesters in Iraq as they tell us they're doing in Libya? To effect regime change in Iraq as they're conspiring, but not admitting, in Libya?
Similarly Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria ... all have been bursting with protest and vicious government crackdown in recent months, even to a degree in Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive societies in the world. Not one of these governments has been assaulted by the United States, the UK, or France as Libya has been assaulted; not one of these countries' opposition is receiving military, financial, legal and moral support from the Western powers as the Libyan rebels are — despite the Libyan rebels' brutal behavior, racist murders, and the clear jihadist ties of some of them. (...)
So why is only Libya the target for US/NATO missiles? Is there some principled or moral reason? Are the Libyans the worst abusers of their people in the region? In actuality, Libya offers its citizens a higher standard of living. (The 2010 UN Human Development Index, a composite measure of health, education and income ranked Libya first in Africa.) None of the other countries has a more secular government than Libya. (In contrast some of the Libyan rebels are in the habit of chanting that phrase we all know only too well: "Allah Akbar".) None of the others has a human-rights record better than that of Libya, however imperfect that may be — in Egypt a government fact-finding mission has announced that during the recent uprising at least 846 protesters were killed as police forces shot them in the head and chest with live ammunition. Six similar horror stories have been reported in Syria, Yemen and other countries of the region during this period. (...)
Of all the accusations made against Gaddafi perhaps the most meaningless is the oft-repeated "He's killing his own people." It's true, but that's what happens in civil wars. Abraham Lincoln also killed his own people.
Muammar Gaddafi has been an Officially Designated Enemy of the US longer than any living world leader except Fidel Castro. The animosity began in 1970, one year after Gaddafi took power in a coup, when he closed down a US air force base. (...)
It was claimed as well that Libya was behind, or at least somehow linked to, an attempt to blow up the US Embassy in Cairo, various plane hijackings, a bomb explosion on an American airliner over Greece, the blowing up of a French airliner over Africa, blowing up a synagogue in Istanbul, and blowing up a disco in Berlin which killed some American soldiers.
In 1990, when the United States needed a country to (falsely) blame for the bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, Libya was the easy choice.
Gaddafi's principal crime in the eyes of US President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) was not that he supported terrorist groups, but that he supported the wrong terrorist groups; i.e., Gaddafi was not supporting the same terrorists that Washington was, such as the Nicaraguan Contras, UNITA in Angola, Cuban exiles in Miami, the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala, and the US military in Grenada. The one band of terrorists the two men supported in common was the Moujahedeen in Afghanistan. (...)
When widespread protests broke out in Tunisia and Egypt, could Washington have resisted instigating the same in the country sandwiched between those two? The CIA has been very busy supplying the rebels with arms, bombing support, money, and personnel.
It may well happen that the Western allies will succeed in forcing Gaddafi out of power. Then the world will look on innocently as the new Libyan government gives Washington what it has long sought: a host-country site for Africom, the US Africa Command, one of six regional commands the Pentagon has divided the world into. Many African countries approached to be the host have declined, at times in relatively strong terms. Africom at present is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. According to a State Department official: "We've got a big image problem down there. ... Public opinion is really against getting into bed with the US. They just don't trust the US." Another thing scarcely any African country would tolerate is an American military base. There's only one such base in Africa, in Djibouti. Watch for one in Libya sometime after the dust has settled. It'll be situated close to the American oil wells. Or perhaps the people of Libya will be given a choice — an American base or a NATO base.
And remember — in the context of recent history concerning Iraq, North Korea, and Iran — if Libya had nuclear weapons the United States would not be attacking it.
Or the United States could realize that Gaddafi is no radical threat simply because of his love for Condoleezza Rice. Here is the Libyan leader in a March 27, 2007 interview on al-Jazeera TV: "Leezza, Leezza, Leezza ... I love her very much. I admire her, and I'm proud of her, because she's a black woman of African origin."
[A version of the same article now also appears on the Consortium News website under the title 'Liberating' Iraq, Now Libya.]
Iraq: Let us not forget what "humanitarian intervention" looks like.
Libya: Let us not be confused as to why Libya alone has been singled out for "humanitarian intervention". (...)
In 2006, the UN special investigator on torture declared that reports from Iraq indicated that torture "is totally out of hand. The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein." Another UN report of the same time disclosed a rise in "honor killings" of women.
"It is a common refrain among war-weary Iraqis that things were better before the US-led invasion in 2003," reported the Washington Post on May 5, 2007. (...)
And this from two months ago [Washington Post, March 4, 2011]:
"Protesters, human rights workers and security officials say the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has responded to Iraq's demonstrations in much the same way as many of its more authoritarian neighbors: with force. Witnesses in Baghdad and as far north as Kirkuk described watching last week as security forces in black uniforms, tracksuits and T-shirts roared up in trucks and Humvees, attacked protesters, rounded up others from cafes and homes and hauled them off, blindfolded, to army detention centers. Entire neighborhoods ... were blockaded to prevent residents from joining the demonstrations. Journalists were beaten."
So ... can we expect the United States and its fellow thugs in NATO to intervene militarily in Iraq as they're doing in Libya? To protect the protesters in Iraq as they tell us they're doing in Libya? To effect regime change in Iraq as they're conspiring, but not admitting, in Libya?
Similarly Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria ... all have been bursting with protest and vicious government crackdown in recent months, even to a degree in Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive societies in the world. Not one of these governments has been assaulted by the United States, the UK, or France as Libya has been assaulted; not one of these countries' opposition is receiving military, financial, legal and moral support from the Western powers as the Libyan rebels are — despite the Libyan rebels' brutal behavior, racist murders, and the clear jihadist ties of some of them. (...)
So why is only Libya the target for US/NATO missiles? Is there some principled or moral reason? Are the Libyans the worst abusers of their people in the region? In actuality, Libya offers its citizens a higher standard of living. (The 2010 UN Human Development Index, a composite measure of health, education and income ranked Libya first in Africa.) None of the other countries has a more secular government than Libya. (In contrast some of the Libyan rebels are in the habit of chanting that phrase we all know only too well: "Allah Akbar".) None of the others has a human-rights record better than that of Libya, however imperfect that may be — in Egypt a government fact-finding mission has announced that during the recent uprising at least 846 protesters were killed as police forces shot them in the head and chest with live ammunition. Six similar horror stories have been reported in Syria, Yemen and other countries of the region during this period. (...)
Of all the accusations made against Gaddafi perhaps the most meaningless is the oft-repeated "He's killing his own people." It's true, but that's what happens in civil wars. Abraham Lincoln also killed his own people.
Muammar Gaddafi has been an Officially Designated Enemy of the US longer than any living world leader except Fidel Castro. The animosity began in 1970, one year after Gaddafi took power in a coup, when he closed down a US air force base. (...)
It was claimed as well that Libya was behind, or at least somehow linked to, an attempt to blow up the US Embassy in Cairo, various plane hijackings, a bomb explosion on an American airliner over Greece, the blowing up of a French airliner over Africa, blowing up a synagogue in Istanbul, and blowing up a disco in Berlin which killed some American soldiers.
In 1990, when the United States needed a country to (falsely) blame for the bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, Libya was the easy choice.
Gaddafi's principal crime in the eyes of US President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) was not that he supported terrorist groups, but that he supported the wrong terrorist groups; i.e., Gaddafi was not supporting the same terrorists that Washington was, such as the Nicaraguan Contras, UNITA in Angola, Cuban exiles in Miami, the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala, and the US military in Grenada. The one band of terrorists the two men supported in common was the Moujahedeen in Afghanistan. (...)
When widespread protests broke out in Tunisia and Egypt, could Washington have resisted instigating the same in the country sandwiched between those two? The CIA has been very busy supplying the rebels with arms, bombing support, money, and personnel.
It may well happen that the Western allies will succeed in forcing Gaddafi out of power. Then the world will look on innocently as the new Libyan government gives Washington what it has long sought: a host-country site for Africom, the US Africa Command, one of six regional commands the Pentagon has divided the world into. Many African countries approached to be the host have declined, at times in relatively strong terms. Africom at present is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. According to a State Department official: "We've got a big image problem down there. ... Public opinion is really against getting into bed with the US. They just don't trust the US." Another thing scarcely any African country would tolerate is an American military base. There's only one such base in Africa, in Djibouti. Watch for one in Libya sometime after the dust has settled. It'll be situated close to the American oil wells. Or perhaps the people of Libya will be given a choice — an American base or a NATO base.
And remember — in the context of recent history concerning Iraq, North Korea, and Iran — if Libya had nuclear weapons the United States would not be attacking it.
Or the United States could realize that Gaddafi is no radical threat simply because of his love for Condoleezza Rice. Here is the Libyan leader in a March 27, 2007 interview on al-Jazeera TV: "Leezza, Leezza, Leezza ... I love her very much. I admire her, and I'm proud of her, because she's a black woman of African origin."
[A version of the same article now also appears on the Consortium News website under the title 'Liberating' Iraq, Now Libya.]
Iain Anderson in conversation with Kenneth Roy and Robert Black QC
I have just discovered that a recording of the discussion session involving Kenneth Roy and myself and chaired by Iain Anderson at the Celtic Connections festival in Glasgow on 25 January 2011 is available online. It can be accessed here.
Incidentally, it was eleven years ago today that the trial of Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah opened at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.
Incidentally, it was eleven years ago today that the trial of Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah opened at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)