[This is the headline over an article by Robert Fisk published today on The Independent website. It reads in part:]
At first, it was the horrible Syrians. Since the former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri wanted the remainder of Syria's military rabble – around 20,000 men, although the news agencies claimed 44,000 – out of Lebanon, it must have been the Syrians who did it. Syria's "friends" in Lebanon – security agents who should have been able to keep Hariri alive if they had wanted to – were arrested. (...)
Memories. When Pan Am crashed on Lockerbie, we were all told it was the Iranians, supported by the Syrians, but then the press were encouraged to blame the Libyans and so we had the saga of a certain Mr Megrahi who may – or may not – tell us more when the Libyan rebels and the SAS ring his door bell in a year or two's time.
What had changed, of course, was that we needed the Syrian army to defend Saudi Arabia from Iraq after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. So the Syrians became the good guys and the Libyans became the bad guys and everything went fine until Gaddafi kissed Blair and Blair kissed Gaddafi and Gaddafi decided to kill all his Senoussi enemies. Well, at least we can still blame Gaddafi for Lockerbie.
Friday, 1 July 2011
Lockerbie Case in Holyrood II...
This is the heading over an item published today on the influential (and amusing and learned) Lallands Peat Worrier blog. I hope that the blogger will revert to the topic once the Official Report of the Public Petitions Committee's deliberations becomes available on 4 July.
For the next six days I shall be on a trip to Graaff-Reinet, Port Elizabeth and Uniondale, on a quest for relief from the current Antarctic temperatures of Middelpos. Although I shall have my trusty laptop and dongle with me, it is unlikely that I shall be able to make many posts to this blog.
Key US Senate panel votes to authorize Libya role
[This is the headline over an Agence France Presse news agency report published on Tuesday. It reads in part:]
A key Senate panel voted Tuesday to authorize the US military role in the NATO-led campaign against Libyan strongman Moamer Kadhafi's forces but forbid the deployment of ground troops.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee backed a resolution green-lighting the US role for one year by a 14-5 margin after rejecting an attempt by Republican Senator Richard Lugar to end direct US combat strikes on Libyan targets.
The panel's actions came amid a bitter political dispute over whether President Barack Obama should have secured congressional permission to take part in the three-month-old campaign.
Democratic Senator John Kerry told AFP he hoped the full Senate could take up the measure this week. (...)
The panel also approved an amendment urging the president to press any successor government to Kadhafi's regime to cooperate in a new investigation into the Lockerbie bombing.
[Any new investigation would, of course, be welcome. But to be meaningful it would require to extend much further than the role, if any, that Libya may have played. I very much doubt if such a broad-based investigation would be welcomed by either the US or UK governments.]
A key Senate panel voted Tuesday to authorize the US military role in the NATO-led campaign against Libyan strongman Moamer Kadhafi's forces but forbid the deployment of ground troops.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee backed a resolution green-lighting the US role for one year by a 14-5 margin after rejecting an attempt by Republican Senator Richard Lugar to end direct US combat strikes on Libyan targets.
The panel's actions came amid a bitter political dispute over whether President Barack Obama should have secured congressional permission to take part in the three-month-old campaign.
Democratic Senator John Kerry told AFP he hoped the full Senate could take up the measure this week. (...)
The panel also approved an amendment urging the president to press any successor government to Kadhafi's regime to cooperate in a new investigation into the Lockerbie bombing.
[Any new investigation would, of course, be welcome. But to be meaningful it would require to extend much further than the role, if any, that Libya may have played. I very much doubt if such a broad-based investigation would be welcomed by either the US or UK governments.]
Thursday, 30 June 2011
The NYT’s Favor and Fear
[This is the headline over an article by Robert Parry published today on the Consortium News website. It reads in part:]
The New York Times, like most US newspapers, prides itself on its “objectivity.” The Times even boasts about printing news “without fear or favor.” But the reality is quite different, with the Times agreeing – especially last decade – to withhold newsworthy information that the Bush-43 administration considered too sensitive. (...)
The Lockerbie Bombing
Yet, to this day, The New York Times and other major US news outlets continue to tilt their coverage of foreign policy and national security issues to fit within the general framework laid out by Official Washington. Rarely do mainstream journalists deviate too far.
It has been common, for instance, for the Times and other media outlets to state as flat fact that Libyan agents, presumably on orders from Col. Muammar Gaddafi, blew Pan Am 103 out of the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 270 people.
However, anyone who has followed that case knows that the 2001 conviction of Libyan operative Ali al-Megrahi by a special Scottish court was highly dubious, more a political compromise than an act of justice. Another Libyan was found not guilty, and one of the Scottish judges told Dartmouth government professor Dirk Vandewalle about “enormous pressure put on the court to get a conviction.” [RB: The High Court information officer, Elizabeth Cutting, has denied that this ever happened.]
In 2007, after the testimony of a key witness against Megrahi was discredited, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission agreed to reconsider the conviction as a grave miscarriage of justice. However, that review was proceeding slowly in 2009 when Scottish authorities released Megrahi on humanitarian grounds, after he was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer.
Megrahi dropped his appeal in order to gain the early release, but that doesn’t mean he was guilty. He has continued to assert his innocence and an objective press corps would reflect the doubts regarding his curious conviction. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Three Deadly War Myths.”]
After all, the Lockerbie case is not simply a historical mystery. It is one of the central reasons why the United States and its NATO allies are insisting that Gaddafi must be removed from power prior to any negotiated settlement of Libya’s ongoing civil war.
In pressing this need to oust Gaddafi first, President Barack Obama made a reference to the Lockerbie bombing at his Wednesday news conference, a presumed “fact” that may have set the White House correspondents to nodding their heads but may well not be true.
Which brings us to a key problem regarding American journalists siding with U.S. officials in presenting information to the American people: Is it really “good for the country”?
By now, history should have taught us that it is often better for the American people to know what their government is doing than to be left in the dark where they can be led around by clever propagandists, aided and abetted by a complicit news media.
Indeed, when the Times and other US news outlets act in that way, they may be causing more harm than the propaganda organs of a repressive regime would, since the “news” from those government mouthpieces is discounted by those who read and see it.
The New York Times, like most US newspapers, prides itself on its “objectivity.” The Times even boasts about printing news “without fear or favor.” But the reality is quite different, with the Times agreeing – especially last decade – to withhold newsworthy information that the Bush-43 administration considered too sensitive. (...)
The Lockerbie Bombing
Yet, to this day, The New York Times and other major US news outlets continue to tilt their coverage of foreign policy and national security issues to fit within the general framework laid out by Official Washington. Rarely do mainstream journalists deviate too far.
It has been common, for instance, for the Times and other media outlets to state as flat fact that Libyan agents, presumably on orders from Col. Muammar Gaddafi, blew Pan Am 103 out of the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 270 people.
However, anyone who has followed that case knows that the 2001 conviction of Libyan operative Ali al-Megrahi by a special Scottish court was highly dubious, more a political compromise than an act of justice. Another Libyan was found not guilty, and one of the Scottish judges told Dartmouth government professor Dirk Vandewalle about “enormous pressure put on the court to get a conviction.” [RB: The High Court information officer, Elizabeth Cutting, has denied that this ever happened.]
In 2007, after the testimony of a key witness against Megrahi was discredited, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission agreed to reconsider the conviction as a grave miscarriage of justice. However, that review was proceeding slowly in 2009 when Scottish authorities released Megrahi on humanitarian grounds, after he was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer.
Megrahi dropped his appeal in order to gain the early release, but that doesn’t mean he was guilty. He has continued to assert his innocence and an objective press corps would reflect the doubts regarding his curious conviction. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Three Deadly War Myths.”]
After all, the Lockerbie case is not simply a historical mystery. It is one of the central reasons why the United States and its NATO allies are insisting that Gaddafi must be removed from power prior to any negotiated settlement of Libya’s ongoing civil war.
In pressing this need to oust Gaddafi first, President Barack Obama made a reference to the Lockerbie bombing at his Wednesday news conference, a presumed “fact” that may have set the White House correspondents to nodding their heads but may well not be true.
Which brings us to a key problem regarding American journalists siding with U.S. officials in presenting information to the American people: Is it really “good for the country”?
By now, history should have taught us that it is often better for the American people to know what their government is doing than to be left in the dark where they can be led around by clever propagandists, aided and abetted by a complicit news media.
Indeed, when the Times and other US news outlets act in that way, they may be causing more harm than the propaganda organs of a repressive regime would, since the “news” from those government mouthpieces is discounted by those who read and see it.
Act on petition to Holyrood calling for inquiry into Megrahi conviction
[This is the heading over a letter from Colin Chilton in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
It is imperative that the Justice Committee at Holyrood not only considers but acts upon the petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi ("Lockerbie relatives hail MSPs' decisions" The Herald, June 29).
This was arguably the biggest trial in Scottish legal history, not only due to the magnitude of the charges against the defendants but also considering its unique setting at Camp Zeist. Surely in such a case as big as this it is vital to ensure that justice was served? If a full inquiry can be conducted, whether it is done domestically or internationally through the United Nations, then it will go a long way to not only finding out the real truth about what happened in terms of the bombing but also whether Megrahi's conviction was safe and proven beyond all reason doubt.
The credibility of the evidence from the star witness Tony Gauci can certainly be called into question. Not only was his original description of Megrahi inaccurate, he couldn't identify him in the courtroom without prompting. Imagine that had happened in a Scottish courtroom in a less high profile case? Would his credibility as a witness be enhanced or be taken seriously?
This is a question of justice not only for the families of the bombing, but also for a dying man, possibly wrongly convicted of a heinous crime he may not have committed. It is vital that the whole truth about the Lockerbie case is told, although I hold out little hope of that, given the implications it would have.
It is imperative that the Justice Committee at Holyrood not only considers but acts upon the petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi ("Lockerbie relatives hail MSPs' decisions" The Herald, June 29).
This was arguably the biggest trial in Scottish legal history, not only due to the magnitude of the charges against the defendants but also considering its unique setting at Camp Zeist. Surely in such a case as big as this it is vital to ensure that justice was served? If a full inquiry can be conducted, whether it is done domestically or internationally through the United Nations, then it will go a long way to not only finding out the real truth about what happened in terms of the bombing but also whether Megrahi's conviction was safe and proven beyond all reason doubt.
The credibility of the evidence from the star witness Tony Gauci can certainly be called into question. Not only was his original description of Megrahi inaccurate, he couldn't identify him in the courtroom without prompting. Imagine that had happened in a Scottish courtroom in a less high profile case? Would his credibility as a witness be enhanced or be taken seriously?
This is a question of justice not only for the families of the bombing, but also for a dying man, possibly wrongly convicted of a heinous crime he may not have committed. It is vital that the whole truth about the Lockerbie case is told, although I hold out little hope of that, given the implications it would have.
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Lockerbie relatives hail MSPs’ decision
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Campaigners for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing have hailed the decision by Holyrood’s Petitions Committee to keep the issue alive.
It will now be passed to the Justice Committee, whose convener Christine Grahame is known to harbour doubts about the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi 11 years ago for his part in the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people.
Dr Jim Swire of the Justice for Megrahi campaign, who lost his daughter in the explosion, said after the Petitions Committee meeting: “This was a good day for us because the committee showed great enthusiasm for this. They commented on the persistence of those of us who have been pushing for this.”
Petitions Committee member, SNP MSP Bill Walker, said: “I am desperate that the truth of this whole matter should come out. The truth must come out and we must do everything in our power to help it come out.
“This should go to the Justice Committee. This terrible thing happened a long time ago now and we must get to the truth sooner rather than later.”
The petition, which was lodged by the group last year, calls on Holyrood to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 conviction.
[A vestigial report in The Scotsman can be read here.]
Campaigners for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing have hailed the decision by Holyrood’s Petitions Committee to keep the issue alive.
It will now be passed to the Justice Committee, whose convener Christine Grahame is known to harbour doubts about the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi 11 years ago for his part in the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people.
Dr Jim Swire of the Justice for Megrahi campaign, who lost his daughter in the explosion, said after the Petitions Committee meeting: “This was a good day for us because the committee showed great enthusiasm for this. They commented on the persistence of those of us who have been pushing for this.”
Petitions Committee member, SNP MSP Bill Walker, said: “I am desperate that the truth of this whole matter should come out. The truth must come out and we must do everything in our power to help it come out.
“This should go to the Justice Committee. This terrible thing happened a long time ago now and we must get to the truth sooner rather than later.”
The petition, which was lodged by the group last year, calls on Holyrood to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 conviction.
[A vestigial report in The Scotsman can be read here.]
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
MSPs call for independent inquiry into Lockerbie
[This is the headline over a report just published on the STV News website. It reads as follows:]
Petition will be referred to Justice Committee as MSP demands 'truth must come out'.
MSPs have said further talks should take place on calls to hold an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing conviction.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted ten years ago of the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103. The attack resulted in 270 deaths.
The Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee agreed to refer a petition calling for an inquiry, lodged by pressure group Justice for Megrahi, to Holyrood's Justice Committee for further consideration.
Committee member SNP MSP Bill Walker said it was important that "the truth" surrounding the issue is revealed.
He added: "I am desperate that the truth of this whole matter should come out. The truth must come out and we must do everything in our power to help it come out.
"This should go to the Justice Committee.
"This terrible thing happened a long time ago now and we must get to the truth sooner rather than later."
The petition, which was lodged by the group last year, calls on Holyrood to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 conviction.
Justice Committee convener Christine Grahame sat on the Public Petitions Committee in the last session.
During previous discussions on this issue, she said: "There are so many conspiracy theories around now that I think it's time that we had a clean, clear look at the role of Scottish justice in this.
"The issue is not whether Libya, or any other country, was guilty. The issue is, was Mr al-Megrahi rightly convicted, and we have not heard the answer to that yet."
The Scottish Government has already refused the petition's call for an inquiry into the conviction.
[A similar report has now appeared on the BBC News website. A report in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here.
This is a stunning victory for the Justice for Megrahi campaign and for all of those who have supported its petition, particularly since the committee clerk seemed in his agenda note to be gently hinting that the petition be kicked into touch.]
Petition will be referred to Justice Committee as MSP demands 'truth must come out'.
MSPs have said further talks should take place on calls to hold an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing conviction.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted ten years ago of the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103. The attack resulted in 270 deaths.
The Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee agreed to refer a petition calling for an inquiry, lodged by pressure group Justice for Megrahi, to Holyrood's Justice Committee for further consideration.
Committee member SNP MSP Bill Walker said it was important that "the truth" surrounding the issue is revealed.
He added: "I am desperate that the truth of this whole matter should come out. The truth must come out and we must do everything in our power to help it come out.
"This should go to the Justice Committee.
"This terrible thing happened a long time ago now and we must get to the truth sooner rather than later."
The petition, which was lodged by the group last year, calls on Holyrood to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 conviction.
Justice Committee convener Christine Grahame sat on the Public Petitions Committee in the last session.
During previous discussions on this issue, she said: "There are so many conspiracy theories around now that I think it's time that we had a clean, clear look at the role of Scottish justice in this.
"The issue is not whether Libya, or any other country, was guilty. The issue is, was Mr al-Megrahi rightly convicted, and we have not heard the answer to that yet."
The Scottish Government has already refused the petition's call for an inquiry into the conviction.
[A similar report has now appeared on the BBC News website. A report in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here.
This is a stunning victory for the Justice for Megrahi campaign and for all of those who have supported its petition, particularly since the committee clerk seemed in his agenda note to be gently hinting that the petition be kicked into touch.]
Consideration of petition PE1370
[What follows is the text of the petitioners' submission to the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee in advance of today's resumed consideration of the Justice for Megrahi petition.]
On 15th February 2011, the ‘Justice for Megrahi Committee’ (JFM) delivered their latest submission to the Public Petitions Committee (PPC) in relation to the above petition. At their meeting of 1st of March 2011, the PPC voted to maintain the status of petition 1370 as open and carry it over to the new PPC in its ‘Legacy Paper’ inviting the new committee to give further consideration to the petition.
Over the past four months, there have been important developments in relation to the Lockerbie enquiry and matters related to the conviction, appeals and compassionate release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. We believe that these matters are relevant to the consideration of our petition and the related submission of 15th February 2011 and we wish to update the Petitions Committee members on them.
Civil War in Libya
Since mid February, 2011, Libya has degenerated into civil war. The rebel forces are currently represented by a body known as the ‘Transitional National Council’. Many commentators have suggested that this conflict could lead to the secrets of Lockerbie being revealed. Claims and counterclaims have proliferated.
Since becoming Chairman of the ‘Transitional National Council’, the former Libyan Justice Minister, Mr Abdel Jalil, has made numerous claims that he is in possession of proof that Colonel Gaddafi and Libya were behind the downing of Pan Am 103. He has, however, been unable to substantiate his claims.
The visit to London of the former Libyan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Moussa Koussa (formerly also former head of the Libyan Intelligence Agency), on the 30th of March 2011 has also failed to deliver any additional insight into who was responsible for Lockerbie.
During his stay, he had discussions with representatives of the UK Government and others, including the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary. He departed the UK for Qatar on the 15th of April and the Scottish delegation have so far refused to divulge any information regarding their meeting on the grounds that to do so may compromise the on-going police investigation of the Lockerbie case. ‘JFM’ finds it quite extraordinary that the interviewers refused to offer even a general comment which might suggest that Mr Koussa had at least supplied information which could substantiate and justify the Crown case for Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction or open the way for further enquiry. Effectively, parliament and the people are being denied the opportunity to assess whether any information received from Mr Koussa supports or otherwise the Crown’s position over Lockerbie. Yet again, a curtain of secrecy is drawn over matters related to revealing the truth about Lockerbie and the subsequent events.
On the 6th April the Guardian reported:
‘Libya's rebel administration has said that it signed an apology for the Gaddafi regime's role in IRA attacks and the Lockerbie bombing under pressure from the British government, and that the document is the result of "misunderstanding"’.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/libya-rebels-lockerbie-apology.
It is alleged that following talks with a lawyer whom they believed represented the British Government, the ‘Transitional National Council’ signed a document offering an unequivocal apology from Libya for international crimes carried out by the Gaddafi regime, including
Lockerbie and deaths resultant from IRA activities where Libyan supplied Semtex was employed.
It is now alleged that the document might have been signed under duress and in the hope of alleviating their dire circumstances. If the claim that the lawyer has been operating at the behest of the UK government on this fishing expedition is true, it shows the lengths that the UK authorities will go to hide the truth.
Scottish Government Undertaking
According to recent media reports, the new SNP government intends to honour the commitment given by Alex Salmond before the election to seek a change in the law to allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to publish papers relating to their decision that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred in the conviction of Mr Megrahi. Currently the release of the SCCRC papers can be blocked by one or more of the parties who gave evidence to the review.
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/News/1009738.aspx
The Lord Advocate and Crown Office has remained implacably opposed to such release and, as we pointed out in our submission of 15th February, we totally refute the Lord Advocate’s argument for failing to disclose any matters related to Mr Megrahi’s appeal.
In our petition, we argue for the release of these papers and we believe it is important that Parliament monitors this government undertaking carefully.
Election of a Majority SNP Government
For the first time in the history of the Scottish Parliament one political party enjoys an absolute majority. The next 5 years therefore are uncharted waters and many commentators have warned about the need to ensure that this SNP majority government is subject to effective scrutiny and held to account.
‘For the first time in the parliament’s history, a single party is now in control of the Government, the legislature and its committees, and has supplied the Presiding Officer.’…...Most obviously, Holyrood is a unicameral parliament: there is no second chamber to fine tune legislation and force MSPs to think again. In theory, the committees should compensate for this, scrutinising and revising laws, as well as delivering unwelcome home truths to Ministers. But while committees aspire to cross-party ideals, they often split on partisan lines, as the health committee did last year when it rejected a minimum price for alcohol. The SNP majority means every committee can railroad through legislation if it chooses, and there is no risk of a comeback, no matter how infuriated the opposition might get.’
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/politics/monarch-of-the-glens-1.1101477
While the ‘JFM’ committee believes that to date it has been well served by the Public Petitions Committee, this unprecedented centralisation of power concerns us greatly. Given the opposition to any further inquiry by the Lord Advocate, Crown Office and other establishment organisations, we fear Lockerbie will be further sidelined. The Petitions and Justice Committees have the power to prevent this happening and hold our government to account. Should the PPC allow our petition to fall, it will mean that the continuing disputes over the biggest terrorist outrage ever perpetrated on Scottish soil will no longer be subject to open and accountable scrutiny in any corner of the Scottish Parliament.
Salmond criticism of the Supreme Court
We feel that the current heated debate taking place about the place of the Supreme Court in dealing with Scottish Human Rights issues is extremely relevant to our petition. While not wishing to take sides in the dispute, we would observe that it is human rights issues like Lockerbie that are at the very heart of the dispute.
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Alex-Salmond-launches-scathing-attack.6785206.jp
What is of concern to us, and we would suggest to the people of Scotland, is that justice is served no matter the court. The Scottish Government is claiming that the human rights of the Scottish people are best served by Scottish courts sitting in Scotland.
We would argue that for nearly 23 years Scottish Courts and the Scottish Government have failed to deliver the truth about Lockerbie despite these claims of supremacy in human rights matters. We are at a loss to equate the current government’s refusal to hold a judicial inquiry into Lockerbie with this principle that Scotland and Scotland alone is capable of delivering justice to all of its people.
Media coverage
Media interest in Lockerbie and associated events has remained high across the world with the fall out from the Civil War in Libya being high on the agenda.
Of particular significance is a film, ‘The Pan Am Bomber’, commissioned by ‘Al Jazeera English’ which is being broadcast throughout June and July and can now be found on ‘You Tube’. This film casts even more doubt on the Megrahi conviction and makes a powerful case for an immediate inquiry.
We would recommend that committee members view this film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oVVmt1W-6U
Conclusion and recommendations
Much has occurred in the interim between the last Public Petition’s Committee meeting, which voted to carry petition 1370 forward in its ‘Legacy Paper’, and today. As ever, most of this information is shrouded in controversy and as a result the truth about Lockerbie becomes even more elusive.
Effectively year in and year out new information, rumour and supposition is released about the Lockerbie tragedy and the Megrahi conviction. Year after year the UK and US governments continue their conspiracy of silence. The whole affair has become a running sore and, despite having the power to do so, the Scottish Government continues to refuse to hold a public inquiry into the worst case of mass murder ever perpetrated on Scottish soil, a disaster which taints the Scottish Justice System across the world.
The fact remains that while we might not be able to force the UK and American governments to the table, the Scottish Government has the power to launch a public inquiry that will ensure that we as a country have done everything in our power to reveal the truth about Lockerbie. Our conscience will at last be clear.
That public inquiry would be able to examine many important witnesses including representatives of the Crown Office, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, the SCCRC and the police. It will have the power to review the SCCRC papers and many other documents currently held in secret by the Crown Office, Government and police. It will be able to probe matters related to the Lockerbie investigation, all legal proceedings relating to Mr al-Megrahi’s 2001 conviction and his subsequent release, and any new information that has been obtained over the years.
We urge the committee to keep this petition live by carrying out further enquiry itself or referring it to the Justice Committee. Surely it cannot be right that the search for the truth about the worst terrorist outrage ever to be perpetrated on Scottish soil should not continue to be the subject of enquiry in our own Scottish parliament.
In closing, we would refer Petition’s Committee members to a recent article In the ‘The Firm’ magazine where editor Steven Raeburn interviews Gareth Pierce the lawyer who was instrumental in having the wrongful conviction of the ‘Birmingham Six’ and ‘Guildford Four’ overturned on appeal. This article (see link below*) offers a powerful review of the controversy surrounding Lockerbie and we believe will help members understand just why a public inquiry is urgently needed.
*Steven Raeburn, editor of The Firm, interviews Gareth Peirce.
http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/932/The_Quiet_Storm.html
On 15th February 2011, the ‘Justice for Megrahi Committee’ (JFM) delivered their latest submission to the Public Petitions Committee (PPC) in relation to the above petition. At their meeting of 1st of March 2011, the PPC voted to maintain the status of petition 1370 as open and carry it over to the new PPC in its ‘Legacy Paper’ inviting the new committee to give further consideration to the petition.
Over the past four months, there have been important developments in relation to the Lockerbie enquiry and matters related to the conviction, appeals and compassionate release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. We believe that these matters are relevant to the consideration of our petition and the related submission of 15th February 2011 and we wish to update the Petitions Committee members on them.
Civil War in Libya
Since mid February, 2011, Libya has degenerated into civil war. The rebel forces are currently represented by a body known as the ‘Transitional National Council’. Many commentators have suggested that this conflict could lead to the secrets of Lockerbie being revealed. Claims and counterclaims have proliferated.
Since becoming Chairman of the ‘Transitional National Council’, the former Libyan Justice Minister, Mr Abdel Jalil, has made numerous claims that he is in possession of proof that Colonel Gaddafi and Libya were behind the downing of Pan Am 103. He has, however, been unable to substantiate his claims.
The visit to London of the former Libyan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Moussa Koussa (formerly also former head of the Libyan Intelligence Agency), on the 30th of March 2011 has also failed to deliver any additional insight into who was responsible for Lockerbie.
During his stay, he had discussions with representatives of the UK Government and others, including the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary. He departed the UK for Qatar on the 15th of April and the Scottish delegation have so far refused to divulge any information regarding their meeting on the grounds that to do so may compromise the on-going police investigation of the Lockerbie case. ‘JFM’ finds it quite extraordinary that the interviewers refused to offer even a general comment which might suggest that Mr Koussa had at least supplied information which could substantiate and justify the Crown case for Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction or open the way for further enquiry. Effectively, parliament and the people are being denied the opportunity to assess whether any information received from Mr Koussa supports or otherwise the Crown’s position over Lockerbie. Yet again, a curtain of secrecy is drawn over matters related to revealing the truth about Lockerbie and the subsequent events.
On the 6th April the Guardian reported:
‘Libya's rebel administration has said that it signed an apology for the Gaddafi regime's role in IRA attacks and the Lockerbie bombing under pressure from the British government, and that the document is the result of "misunderstanding"’.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/libya-rebels-lockerbie-apology.
It is alleged that following talks with a lawyer whom they believed represented the British Government, the ‘Transitional National Council’ signed a document offering an unequivocal apology from Libya for international crimes carried out by the Gaddafi regime, including
Lockerbie and deaths resultant from IRA activities where Libyan supplied Semtex was employed.
It is now alleged that the document might have been signed under duress and in the hope of alleviating their dire circumstances. If the claim that the lawyer has been operating at the behest of the UK government on this fishing expedition is true, it shows the lengths that the UK authorities will go to hide the truth.
Scottish Government Undertaking
According to recent media reports, the new SNP government intends to honour the commitment given by Alex Salmond before the election to seek a change in the law to allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to publish papers relating to their decision that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred in the conviction of Mr Megrahi. Currently the release of the SCCRC papers can be blocked by one or more of the parties who gave evidence to the review.
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/News/1009738.aspx
The Lord Advocate and Crown Office has remained implacably opposed to such release and, as we pointed out in our submission of 15th February, we totally refute the Lord Advocate’s argument for failing to disclose any matters related to Mr Megrahi’s appeal.
In our petition, we argue for the release of these papers and we believe it is important that Parliament monitors this government undertaking carefully.
Election of a Majority SNP Government
For the first time in the history of the Scottish Parliament one political party enjoys an absolute majority. The next 5 years therefore are uncharted waters and many commentators have warned about the need to ensure that this SNP majority government is subject to effective scrutiny and held to account.
‘For the first time in the parliament’s history, a single party is now in control of the Government, the legislature and its committees, and has supplied the Presiding Officer.’…...Most obviously, Holyrood is a unicameral parliament: there is no second chamber to fine tune legislation and force MSPs to think again. In theory, the committees should compensate for this, scrutinising and revising laws, as well as delivering unwelcome home truths to Ministers. But while committees aspire to cross-party ideals, they often split on partisan lines, as the health committee did last year when it rejected a minimum price for alcohol. The SNP majority means every committee can railroad through legislation if it chooses, and there is no risk of a comeback, no matter how infuriated the opposition might get.’
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/politics/monarch-of-the-glens-1.1101477
While the ‘JFM’ committee believes that to date it has been well served by the Public Petitions Committee, this unprecedented centralisation of power concerns us greatly. Given the opposition to any further inquiry by the Lord Advocate, Crown Office and other establishment organisations, we fear Lockerbie will be further sidelined. The Petitions and Justice Committees have the power to prevent this happening and hold our government to account. Should the PPC allow our petition to fall, it will mean that the continuing disputes over the biggest terrorist outrage ever perpetrated on Scottish soil will no longer be subject to open and accountable scrutiny in any corner of the Scottish Parliament.
Salmond criticism of the Supreme Court
We feel that the current heated debate taking place about the place of the Supreme Court in dealing with Scottish Human Rights issues is extremely relevant to our petition. While not wishing to take sides in the dispute, we would observe that it is human rights issues like Lockerbie that are at the very heart of the dispute.
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Alex-Salmond-launches-scathing-attack.6785206.jp
What is of concern to us, and we would suggest to the people of Scotland, is that justice is served no matter the court. The Scottish Government is claiming that the human rights of the Scottish people are best served by Scottish courts sitting in Scotland.
We would argue that for nearly 23 years Scottish Courts and the Scottish Government have failed to deliver the truth about Lockerbie despite these claims of supremacy in human rights matters. We are at a loss to equate the current government’s refusal to hold a judicial inquiry into Lockerbie with this principle that Scotland and Scotland alone is capable of delivering justice to all of its people.
Media coverage
Media interest in Lockerbie and associated events has remained high across the world with the fall out from the Civil War in Libya being high on the agenda.
Of particular significance is a film, ‘The Pan Am Bomber’, commissioned by ‘Al Jazeera English’ which is being broadcast throughout June and July and can now be found on ‘You Tube’. This film casts even more doubt on the Megrahi conviction and makes a powerful case for an immediate inquiry.
We would recommend that committee members view this film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oVVmt1W-6U
Conclusion and recommendations
Much has occurred in the interim between the last Public Petition’s Committee meeting, which voted to carry petition 1370 forward in its ‘Legacy Paper’, and today. As ever, most of this information is shrouded in controversy and as a result the truth about Lockerbie becomes even more elusive.
Effectively year in and year out new information, rumour and supposition is released about the Lockerbie tragedy and the Megrahi conviction. Year after year the UK and US governments continue their conspiracy of silence. The whole affair has become a running sore and, despite having the power to do so, the Scottish Government continues to refuse to hold a public inquiry into the worst case of mass murder ever perpetrated on Scottish soil, a disaster which taints the Scottish Justice System across the world.
The fact remains that while we might not be able to force the UK and American governments to the table, the Scottish Government has the power to launch a public inquiry that will ensure that we as a country have done everything in our power to reveal the truth about Lockerbie. Our conscience will at last be clear.
That public inquiry would be able to examine many important witnesses including representatives of the Crown Office, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, the SCCRC and the police. It will have the power to review the SCCRC papers and many other documents currently held in secret by the Crown Office, Government and police. It will be able to probe matters related to the Lockerbie investigation, all legal proceedings relating to Mr al-Megrahi’s 2001 conviction and his subsequent release, and any new information that has been obtained over the years.
We urge the committee to keep this petition live by carrying out further enquiry itself or referring it to the Justice Committee. Surely it cannot be right that the search for the truth about the worst terrorist outrage ever to be perpetrated on Scottish soil should not continue to be the subject of enquiry in our own Scottish parliament.
In closing, we would refer Petition’s Committee members to a recent article In the ‘The Firm’ magazine where editor Steven Raeburn interviews Gareth Pierce the lawyer who was instrumental in having the wrongful conviction of the ‘Birmingham Six’ and ‘Guildford Four’ overturned on appeal. This article (see link below*) offers a powerful review of the controversy surrounding Lockerbie and we believe will help members understand just why a public inquiry is urgently needed.
*Steven Raeburn, editor of The Firm, interviews Gareth Peirce.
http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/932/The_Quiet_Storm.html
More on Moussa
[The following are excerpts from a report in today's edition of The Telegraph:]
Moussa Koussa could help rebels in Libya from his five-star subsidised hotel in Qatar, Downing Street has suggested.
News of Mr Koussa's whereabouts came as the International Criminal Court yesterday issued arrest warrants for Col Muammar Gaddafi, his son Saif al–Islam and the intelligence chief Abdullah al–Senussi.
David Cameron's official spokesman said the Government wanted to see Mr Koussa help rebels in Libya from his base in Doha.
He said: "It is not for us to give a commentary on what Moussa Koussa is doing. We want to see him play his part in opposing the Libyan regime." (...)
The spokesman added: "We have also been clear that he will not be given any immunity from prosecution in this country."
Mr Koussa had "already been interviewed by Dumfries and Galloway police" over the Lockerbie bombing, he said.
In Parliament, a Conservative MP said he would be asking what level of financial support, if any, Britain had given Mr Koussa since he came to the UK after defecting from Col Gaddafi's regime.
Robert Halfon, MP for Harlow, said: "Allegedly this man has blood on his hands, and I hope very much that the British taxpayers are not subsidising him in any way."
Mr Koussa defected to Britain at the end of March but left for Qatar shortly afterwards to take part in a "Gulf contact group" meeting of countries hoping to resolve the Libya crisis.
He was expected to return to Britain, where he is facing calls for his prosecution over accusations ranging from the Lockerbie bombing to supplying arms to the IRA, but is currently showing no signs of doing so.
Moussa Koussa could help rebels in Libya from his five-star subsidised hotel in Qatar, Downing Street has suggested.
News of Mr Koussa's whereabouts came as the International Criminal Court yesterday issued arrest warrants for Col Muammar Gaddafi, his son Saif al–Islam and the intelligence chief Abdullah al–Senussi.
David Cameron's official spokesman said the Government wanted to see Mr Koussa help rebels in Libya from his base in Doha.
He said: "It is not for us to give a commentary on what Moussa Koussa is doing. We want to see him play his part in opposing the Libyan regime." (...)
The spokesman added: "We have also been clear that he will not be given any immunity from prosecution in this country."
Mr Koussa had "already been interviewed by Dumfries and Galloway police" over the Lockerbie bombing, he said.
In Parliament, a Conservative MP said he would be asking what level of financial support, if any, Britain had given Mr Koussa since he came to the UK after defecting from Col Gaddafi's regime.
Robert Halfon, MP for Harlow, said: "Allegedly this man has blood on his hands, and I hope very much that the British taxpayers are not subsidising him in any way."
Mr Koussa defected to Britain at the end of March but left for Qatar shortly afterwards to take part in a "Gulf contact group" meeting of countries hoping to resolve the Libya crisis.
He was expected to return to Britain, where he is facing calls for his prosecution over accusations ranging from the Lockerbie bombing to supplying arms to the IRA, but is currently showing no signs of doing so.
Monday, 27 June 2011
Moussa Koussa found in Qatar
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of The Telegraph. It reads in part:]
The pianist a few feet away played “I Just Called to Say I love You". Men in traditional Qatari white kandouras – gowns – and headdresses sat scattered around the nearby café.
Yet, the man’s distinctive features were until recently one of the best-known faces of the regime of Col Muammar Gaddafi.
Moussa Koussa, the Libyan foreign minister who defected to Britain at the end of March, left for Qatar shortly afterwards to take part in a “Gulf contact group” meeting of countries with an interest in resolving the Libya crisis.
He was expected to return to Britain shortly afterwards, where he was facing calls for his prosecution over accusations ranging from the Lockerbie bombing to supplying arms to the IRA.
Ten weeks later, there is little sign of that at the Four Seasons, causing growing anger among Libyan exiles and others who want him to be put on trial at the International Criminal Court.
“I remain firmly of the view that he should face the ICC,” said Robert Halfon, the Conservative MP for Harlow whose family are of Libyan-Italian-Jewish ancestry and fled after suffering during pogroms. “You can’t have people like that being given protection without any recourse to justice.”
Mr Koussa was one of Col Gaddafi’s longest serving aides. He first came to attention in Britain as ambassador in 1980, giving an interview announcing that two Libyan exiles in London were to be killed. He was expelled immediately.
He was deputy head of Libyan intelligence at the time of the Lockerbie bombing, and then head, before becoming foreign minister in 2009. The intelligence agency was responsible for tracking down and killing regime opponents outside the country.
When the uprising against Col Gaddafi’s rule began, he was still very much part of the inner circle. He gave angry press conferences in the Rixos Hotel, where journalists have been lodged in Tripoli, to denounce foreign interference. But just a few days later he negotiated safe passage to London with MI6. The British intelligence services had long regarded Mr Koussa as an “asset”.
Nevertheless, his presence in Britain led to demands for legal action. (...)
He eats regularly from the £35 all-you-can-eat buffet, though he is also said to have a liking for the expensive Il Teatro Italian restaurant. Both have views over the hotel’s swimming pools and private beach, and the yacht marina next door.
It is not clear who is paying. He was originally a guest of the Qatari government, but he also had his private assets unfrozen as a reward for defecting. He occasionally relaxes in the lobby, accompanied always by one of a number of men who are clearly intelligence minders – they are dressed in Western style in jeans and T-shirts, and work on iPads.
When The Daily Telegraph approached to request an interview, a minder snapped his fingers, and within seconds a group of kandoura-wearing Qataris on duty in the lobby formed a protective shield.
“I am a little too busy to talk now,” Mr Koussa said. He had previously been reading a newspaper. Mr Koussa’s life of luxury reflects a dilemma in how to treat renegades from the Gaddafi regime.
Whitehall officials privately express fears that other Libyans would be deterred from defecting if Mr Koussa faced charges for his past role.
Yet, many Libyan exiles and the families of Lockerbie victims are outraged to see corrupt members of the former regime freely taking up senior positions with the opposition.
In Mr Koussa’s case, the situation is complicated because of his relationship with MI6. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said he had not been given immunity from prosecution, yet the Foreign Office said as far as it was concerned Mr Koussa was free to come and go.
Political sources have said that the decision to allow him to leave was made “in the interests of national security”.
The pianist a few feet away played “I Just Called to Say I love You". Men in traditional Qatari white kandouras – gowns – and headdresses sat scattered around the nearby café.
Yet, the man’s distinctive features were until recently one of the best-known faces of the regime of Col Muammar Gaddafi.
Moussa Koussa, the Libyan foreign minister who defected to Britain at the end of March, left for Qatar shortly afterwards to take part in a “Gulf contact group” meeting of countries with an interest in resolving the Libya crisis.
He was expected to return to Britain shortly afterwards, where he was facing calls for his prosecution over accusations ranging from the Lockerbie bombing to supplying arms to the IRA.
Ten weeks later, there is little sign of that at the Four Seasons, causing growing anger among Libyan exiles and others who want him to be put on trial at the International Criminal Court.
“I remain firmly of the view that he should face the ICC,” said Robert Halfon, the Conservative MP for Harlow whose family are of Libyan-Italian-Jewish ancestry and fled after suffering during pogroms. “You can’t have people like that being given protection without any recourse to justice.”
Mr Koussa was one of Col Gaddafi’s longest serving aides. He first came to attention in Britain as ambassador in 1980, giving an interview announcing that two Libyan exiles in London were to be killed. He was expelled immediately.
He was deputy head of Libyan intelligence at the time of the Lockerbie bombing, and then head, before becoming foreign minister in 2009. The intelligence agency was responsible for tracking down and killing regime opponents outside the country.
When the uprising against Col Gaddafi’s rule began, he was still very much part of the inner circle. He gave angry press conferences in the Rixos Hotel, where journalists have been lodged in Tripoli, to denounce foreign interference. But just a few days later he negotiated safe passage to London with MI6. The British intelligence services had long regarded Mr Koussa as an “asset”.
Nevertheless, his presence in Britain led to demands for legal action. (...)
He eats regularly from the £35 all-you-can-eat buffet, though he is also said to have a liking for the expensive Il Teatro Italian restaurant. Both have views over the hotel’s swimming pools and private beach, and the yacht marina next door.
It is not clear who is paying. He was originally a guest of the Qatari government, but he also had his private assets unfrozen as a reward for defecting. He occasionally relaxes in the lobby, accompanied always by one of a number of men who are clearly intelligence minders – they are dressed in Western style in jeans and T-shirts, and work on iPads.
When The Daily Telegraph approached to request an interview, a minder snapped his fingers, and within seconds a group of kandoura-wearing Qataris on duty in the lobby formed a protective shield.
“I am a little too busy to talk now,” Mr Koussa said. He had previously been reading a newspaper. Mr Koussa’s life of luxury reflects a dilemma in how to treat renegades from the Gaddafi regime.
Whitehall officials privately express fears that other Libyans would be deterred from defecting if Mr Koussa faced charges for his past role.
Yet, many Libyan exiles and the families of Lockerbie victims are outraged to see corrupt members of the former regime freely taking up senior positions with the opposition.
In Mr Koussa’s case, the situation is complicated because of his relationship with MI6. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said he had not been given immunity from prosecution, yet the Foreign Office said as far as it was concerned Mr Koussa was free to come and go.
Political sources have said that the decision to allow him to leave was made “in the interests of national security”.
Sunday, 26 June 2011
Acquitted Lockerbie bomber could be retried
[This is the headline over the lead story in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Independent on Sunday. It reads as follows:]
Just when Malta thought it may have been seeing the infamy attached to it by way of the Lockerbie disaster subsiding, Scottish prosecutors are looking into the prospect of retrying acquitted Lockerbie bomber Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah.
The prospect, if realised, would reopen an ugly chapter in recent Maltese history as having been alleged to be the place where the bomb, concealed in a suitcase, was first loaded. The bomb was eventually loaded aboard Pan Am Flight 103 which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland in Christmas 1988 killing all 259 people on board and 11 on the ground.
But the Scottish authorities appear unwilling to let the matter die a natural death following the acquittal and the subsequent guilty verdict and release of the second accused person, and rightly so seeing that a new legal window has now opened up.
A change in double jeopardy laws now provides the possibility of an accused person to stand trial a second time if compelling new evidence surfaces, and a specialist unit at the Crown Office in Edinburgh is in the process of re-examining the evidence against Mr Fhimah to ascertain the potential strength of such a case.
Mr Fhimah, a former station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines in Malta, had been accused of helping Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi place the bomb into the luggage system at Malta International Airport, where it was claimed the bomb’s fateful journey had begun.
Mr Fhimah had been acquitted in the Lockerbie trial at The Hague in 2001 after his defence argued the case against him was nothing more than “inference upon inference upon inference upon inference leading to an inference”.
Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the co-accused, had been convicted and the rest of his story is by now well known. He was granted a compassionate release from a Scottish prison in August 2009 just before he was about to appeal his guilty verdict, on the grounds that he was suffering from prostate cancer and had only a short time left to live. He is still alive.
But more than merely seeking once again to bring Mr Fhimah to justice, the Crown Office believes that the collapse of Libya’s Gaddafi regime could provide evidence for still further Lockerbie prosecutions.
Scottish prosecutors recently interviewed Libyan defector Moussa Koussa, Gaddafi’s former foreign minister and intelligence chief, when he was on British soil, and it is believed a number of questions about Mr Fhimah had been raised during the interview.
In an interview with The Times of London, the new Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, QC, appealed for Koussa’s fellow high-ranking Libyan defector, former justice minister Mustafa Mohammed Abdul Jalil, to come forward with information on the bombing. Mr Abdul Jalil, who is now the head of the provisional Libyan government in Benghazi, had said in a number of interviews that he had evidence of Gaddafi’s involvement in the 1988 bombing.
In one interview, he had told Swedish newspaper Expressen that Gaddafi had personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing. “I have proof that Gaddafi gave the order about Lockerbie,” he said, but did not describe the proof.
“To hide it, he [Gaddafi] did everything in his power to get al-Megrahi back from Scotland,” Abdel-Jalil was quoted as saying.
Mr Mulholland meanwhile told The Times of London in the interview, “I cannot send our investigators into an unsafe place but he [Fhimah] could pick up the phone. [RB: Surely the "he" Mulholland is referring to is Abdel-Jalil.] If he has relevant information on Lockerbie we would be delighted to see it.
“If a meeting can be arranged we would be prepared to see him in another country. The interview with Moussa Koussa was easier to arrange because he was in UK jurisdiction so it was quicker.”
[As I have said before on this blog, there will be no re-trial of Lamin Fhimah or any trial of Colonel Gaddafi for the bombing of Pan Am 103. The Crown Office is perfectly well aware that the evidence simply does not exist to make a conviction a realistic prospect; and that the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi on the evidence led at Zeist was a travesty perpetrated by a credulous court which has long since been exposed, by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission amongst many others.]
Just when Malta thought it may have been seeing the infamy attached to it by way of the Lockerbie disaster subsiding, Scottish prosecutors are looking into the prospect of retrying acquitted Lockerbie bomber Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah.
The prospect, if realised, would reopen an ugly chapter in recent Maltese history as having been alleged to be the place where the bomb, concealed in a suitcase, was first loaded. The bomb was eventually loaded aboard Pan Am Flight 103 which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland in Christmas 1988 killing all 259 people on board and 11 on the ground.
But the Scottish authorities appear unwilling to let the matter die a natural death following the acquittal and the subsequent guilty verdict and release of the second accused person, and rightly so seeing that a new legal window has now opened up.
A change in double jeopardy laws now provides the possibility of an accused person to stand trial a second time if compelling new evidence surfaces, and a specialist unit at the Crown Office in Edinburgh is in the process of re-examining the evidence against Mr Fhimah to ascertain the potential strength of such a case.
Mr Fhimah, a former station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines in Malta, had been accused of helping Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi place the bomb into the luggage system at Malta International Airport, where it was claimed the bomb’s fateful journey had begun.
Mr Fhimah had been acquitted in the Lockerbie trial at The Hague in 2001 after his defence argued the case against him was nothing more than “inference upon inference upon inference upon inference leading to an inference”.
Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the co-accused, had been convicted and the rest of his story is by now well known. He was granted a compassionate release from a Scottish prison in August 2009 just before he was about to appeal his guilty verdict, on the grounds that he was suffering from prostate cancer and had only a short time left to live. He is still alive.
But more than merely seeking once again to bring Mr Fhimah to justice, the Crown Office believes that the collapse of Libya’s Gaddafi regime could provide evidence for still further Lockerbie prosecutions.
Scottish prosecutors recently interviewed Libyan defector Moussa Koussa, Gaddafi’s former foreign minister and intelligence chief, when he was on British soil, and it is believed a number of questions about Mr Fhimah had been raised during the interview.
In an interview with The Times of London, the new Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, QC, appealed for Koussa’s fellow high-ranking Libyan defector, former justice minister Mustafa Mohammed Abdul Jalil, to come forward with information on the bombing. Mr Abdul Jalil, who is now the head of the provisional Libyan government in Benghazi, had said in a number of interviews that he had evidence of Gaddafi’s involvement in the 1988 bombing.
In one interview, he had told Swedish newspaper Expressen that Gaddafi had personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing. “I have proof that Gaddafi gave the order about Lockerbie,” he said, but did not describe the proof.
“To hide it, he [Gaddafi] did everything in his power to get al-Megrahi back from Scotland,” Abdel-Jalil was quoted as saying.
Mr Mulholland meanwhile told The Times of London in the interview, “I cannot send our investigators into an unsafe place but he [Fhimah] could pick up the phone. [RB: Surely the "he" Mulholland is referring to is Abdel-Jalil.] If he has relevant information on Lockerbie we would be delighted to see it.
“If a meeting can be arranged we would be prepared to see him in another country. The interview with Moussa Koussa was easier to arrange because he was in UK jurisdiction so it was quicker.”
[As I have said before on this blog, there will be no re-trial of Lamin Fhimah or any trial of Colonel Gaddafi for the bombing of Pan Am 103. The Crown Office is perfectly well aware that the evidence simply does not exist to make a conviction a realistic prospect; and that the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi on the evidence led at Zeist was a travesty perpetrated by a credulous court which has long since been exposed, by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission amongst many others.]
Justice for Megrahi petition further considered
The new Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament meets on Tuesday, 28 June at 10.00am in Committee Room 2. Amongst the items on the agenda is the Justice for Megrahi petition seeking an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. The committee clerk's note on the agenda item reads as follows:
Note by the Clerk
PE1370 – lodged November 2010
Petition by Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie on behalf of ‘Justice for Megrahi’ calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.
Purpose
1. The Committee is invited to agree what action it wishes to take on this petition. This petition has been carried over from the previous session. At the meeting on 1 March 2011, the previous PPC discussed the petition and agreed to keep it open in order to let the incoming committee decide what it wishes to do. The option of passing it on to the Justice Committee was canvassed but given the proximity to dissolution was not acted upon.
Background
2. The previous PPC asked the then Scottish Government whether it would open an independent inquiry. By letter of 7 January 2011, the then Scottish Government responded, saying:
“The Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr AlMegrahi. He was tried and convicted by a Scottish court before three judges and his appeal against conviction, heard by a panel of five judges, was unsuccessful. A second appeal, following a referral from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was abandoned by Mr Al-Megrahi. The conduct of his defence during his trial and the appeals, including his decision not to give evidence at trial and the decision to abandon the second appeal, was entirely a matter for Mr Al-Megrahi and his legal advisors. The Government’s view is that the petition is inviting the Scottish Government to do something which falls properly to the criminal justice system i.e. inquire into whether a miscarriage of justice has taken place. The criminal justice system already provides a mechanism for that to happen. The fact that Mr Al-Megrahi chose to abandon his second appeal rather than pursue it is entirely a matter for him and it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to institute an inquiry as a result.”
In response to the question who would have the power to undertake an inquiry in the terms proposed in the petition, the Scottish Government responded in the same letter:
“The Inquiries Act 2005 provides that, to the extent that the matters dealt with are devolved, and criminal justice is devolved, the Scottish Government would have the power to conduct an inquiry. However, the wide ranging and international nature of the issues involved (even if the inquiry is confined to the trial and does not concern itself with wider matters) means that there is every likelihood of issues arising which are not devolved, which would require either a joint inquiry with or a separate inquiry by the UK government. Separately, the Scottish Government intends to bring forward legislation to allow the SCCRC to publish a statement of reasons in cases such as Mr Al-Megrahi's where an appeal is abandoned, subject of course to legal restrictions applying to the SCCRC such as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities.”
3. The previous Committee received written evidence from the following—
Scottish Government letter of 7 January 2011
Petitioner letter of 13 January 2011
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission letter of 7 February 2011
Scottish Government letter of 3 February 2011
Lord Advocate letter of 9 February 2011
Petitioner letter of 16 February 2011
4. More recently, the Petitioner submitted the following further evidence (enclosed with these papers):
• PE1370/G: Petitioner letter of 17 June 2001
• A copy of an article by Stephen Raeburn in The Independent Law Journal [The Firm]
Action
5. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take; there are three possible options:
(1) To continue the petition in order to seek an update from the Scottish Government on its plans for legislation regarding the SCCRC;
(2) To refer the petition on to another Committee (the Justice Committee) under Rule 15.6.2; or
(3) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so. On a strict reading of the petition the Parliament has done what was asked to do and the Scottish Government has responded to say that it does not intend to open an independent inquiry.
Note by the Clerk
PE1370 – lodged November 2010
Petition by Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie on behalf of ‘Justice for Megrahi’ calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.
Purpose
1. The Committee is invited to agree what action it wishes to take on this petition. This petition has been carried over from the previous session. At the meeting on 1 March 2011, the previous PPC discussed the petition and agreed to keep it open in order to let the incoming committee decide what it wishes to do. The option of passing it on to the Justice Committee was canvassed but given the proximity to dissolution was not acted upon.
Background
2. The previous PPC asked the then Scottish Government whether it would open an independent inquiry. By letter of 7 January 2011, the then Scottish Government responded, saying:
“The Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr AlMegrahi. He was tried and convicted by a Scottish court before three judges and his appeal against conviction, heard by a panel of five judges, was unsuccessful. A second appeal, following a referral from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was abandoned by Mr Al-Megrahi. The conduct of his defence during his trial and the appeals, including his decision not to give evidence at trial and the decision to abandon the second appeal, was entirely a matter for Mr Al-Megrahi and his legal advisors. The Government’s view is that the petition is inviting the Scottish Government to do something which falls properly to the criminal justice system i.e. inquire into whether a miscarriage of justice has taken place. The criminal justice system already provides a mechanism for that to happen. The fact that Mr Al-Megrahi chose to abandon his second appeal rather than pursue it is entirely a matter for him and it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to institute an inquiry as a result.”
In response to the question who would have the power to undertake an inquiry in the terms proposed in the petition, the Scottish Government responded in the same letter:
“The Inquiries Act 2005 provides that, to the extent that the matters dealt with are devolved, and criminal justice is devolved, the Scottish Government would have the power to conduct an inquiry. However, the wide ranging and international nature of the issues involved (even if the inquiry is confined to the trial and does not concern itself with wider matters) means that there is every likelihood of issues arising which are not devolved, which would require either a joint inquiry with or a separate inquiry by the UK government. Separately, the Scottish Government intends to bring forward legislation to allow the SCCRC to publish a statement of reasons in cases such as Mr Al-Megrahi's where an appeal is abandoned, subject of course to legal restrictions applying to the SCCRC such as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities.”
3. The previous Committee received written evidence from the following—
Scottish Government letter of 7 January 2011
Petitioner letter of 13 January 2011
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission letter of 7 February 2011
Scottish Government letter of 3 February 2011
Lord Advocate letter of 9 February 2011
Petitioner letter of 16 February 2011
4. More recently, the Petitioner submitted the following further evidence (enclosed with these papers):
• PE1370/G: Petitioner letter of 17 June 2001
• A copy of an article by Stephen Raeburn in The Independent Law Journal [The Firm]
Action
5. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take; there are three possible options:
(1) To continue the petition in order to seek an update from the Scottish Government on its plans for legislation regarding the SCCRC;
(2) To refer the petition on to another Committee (the Justice Committee) under Rule 15.6.2; or
(3) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so. On a strict reading of the petition the Parliament has done what was asked to do and the Scottish Government has responded to say that it does not intend to open an independent inquiry.
Saturday, 25 June 2011
SCCRC Megrahi report discussed on Newsdrive
Steven Raeburn, editor of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm, was interviewed yesterday on BBC Radio Scotland's Newsdrive programme about the reasons for the non-disclosure of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's report on the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. The interview can be heard here, 45 minutes into the programme.
Friday, 24 June 2011
Moolah For Memories…
[This is the heading over a post published today on bensix's blog Back Towards The Locus. It reads as follows (full references and links in the original, but omitted here):]
Richard Marquise, the FBI investigator into the Pan Am bombing, is, as far as I’m aware, the only public figure who’s tried to defend the prosecution. It’s interesting, then, that he does it rather badly.
Anyway, in an interview with OhmyNews, back in 2009, Marquise addressed the evidence that crucial (if unconvincing) witness Tony Gauci was rewarded for his testimony in the form of loadsamoney…
"I can assure you that no witnesses were ever offered any money by anyone…"
When he was interviewed for Gideon Levy’s documentary Lockerbie Revisited Marquise seems to have been more equivocal…
"Richard Marquise states categorically that no money was paid to any of the witnesses before the trial. In relation to witness Tony Gauci, Marquise refuses to say whether any money was paid out after the trial."
After the Al Jazeera documentary – which provided a sceptical view of the investigation – Marquise popped up in the comments at Robert Black’s blog and gave an even weirder response…
"I believe that I and any of my Scottish colleagues could well have testified in Zeist that no witness asked for, was promised or paid money in exchange for saying anything anything."
Let’s all play a game where we answer the relevant question! Was money offered? Given? It seems so…
"Presented with documents showing that Scottish police officers and FBI agents had discussed as early as September 1989, ‘an offer of unlimited money to Tony Gauci, with $10,000 being available immediately’, Lord Fraser said: “I have to accept that it happened. It shouldn’t have and I was unaware of it.”
"The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission conducted its own investigation into the case, which resulted in it being referred back for a second appeal – abandoned when Megrahi was freed. Unlike the trial court, it required police officers to produce notebooks and diaries.
"Harry Bell’s diary reveals that reward money was discussed from September 1989 onwards, within days of Gauci being traced.The Commission also reported that Gauci’s brother, Paul, who made important witness statements, ‘had a clear desire to gain financial benefit’, and that ‘the US authorities offered to make substantial payments to Tony Gauci at an early stage’."
Witness payments have typically been an issue when the media has offered witnesses moolah for their tales. It’s so controversial that the practice was nearly banned, and is subject to a host of regulations. (One of them, which might interest Lord Fraser, is that any payment or offer of payment must be disclosed to the prosecution and defence.) They’re concerned that the idea of cash might sway the witnesses’ judgements.
Hmm.
Seems like Mr Marquise has some ‘splaining to do.
Richard Marquise, the FBI investigator into the Pan Am bombing, is, as far as I’m aware, the only public figure who’s tried to defend the prosecution. It’s interesting, then, that he does it rather badly.
Anyway, in an interview with OhmyNews, back in 2009, Marquise addressed the evidence that crucial (if unconvincing) witness Tony Gauci was rewarded for his testimony in the form of loadsamoney…
"I can assure you that no witnesses were ever offered any money by anyone…"
When he was interviewed for Gideon Levy’s documentary Lockerbie Revisited Marquise seems to have been more equivocal…
"Richard Marquise states categorically that no money was paid to any of the witnesses before the trial. In relation to witness Tony Gauci, Marquise refuses to say whether any money was paid out after the trial."
After the Al Jazeera documentary – which provided a sceptical view of the investigation – Marquise popped up in the comments at Robert Black’s blog and gave an even weirder response…
"I believe that I and any of my Scottish colleagues could well have testified in Zeist that no witness asked for, was promised or paid money in exchange for saying anything anything."
Let’s all play a game where we answer the relevant question! Was money offered? Given? It seems so…
"Presented with documents showing that Scottish police officers and FBI agents had discussed as early as September 1989, ‘an offer of unlimited money to Tony Gauci, with $10,000 being available immediately’, Lord Fraser said: “I have to accept that it happened. It shouldn’t have and I was unaware of it.”
"The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission conducted its own investigation into the case, which resulted in it being referred back for a second appeal – abandoned when Megrahi was freed. Unlike the trial court, it required police officers to produce notebooks and diaries.
"Harry Bell’s diary reveals that reward money was discussed from September 1989 onwards, within days of Gauci being traced.The Commission also reported that Gauci’s brother, Paul, who made important witness statements, ‘had a clear desire to gain financial benefit’, and that ‘the US authorities offered to make substantial payments to Tony Gauci at an early stage’."
Witness payments have typically been an issue when the media has offered witnesses moolah for their tales. It’s so controversial that the practice was nearly banned, and is subject to a host of regulations. (One of them, which might interest Lord Fraser, is that any payment or offer of payment must be disclosed to the prosecution and defence.) They’re concerned that the idea of cash might sway the witnesses’ judgements.
Hmm.
Seems like Mr Marquise has some ‘splaining to do.
Thursday, 23 June 2011
Chicken and egg as SCCRC state that no Pan Am 103 documents can be released without “unqualified” consent of all
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
The full report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which concluded that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi will not be published, the Commission says, because the parties who gave information to it have not all given “unqualified” consent.
However, the only qualification that the board said applied [in the case of Abdelbaset Megrahi himself] was that the other parties had to each consent too.
The First Minister confirmed that the Government would introduce primary legislation to allow the report to be published. The current requirement that the consent of all parties be obtained before publication was however introduced under secondary delegated legislation only.
Campaigners have argued that the restriction could be removed swiftly and easily without recourse to a complex primary legislative process.
In a Freedom of Information request from campaigner William Beck, the Commission was asked which of the named parties who provided information to the Commission had provided their consent, and which had not.
A senior legal officer at the SCCRC said:
“The Commission wrote to a number of the main parties who were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for providing information to the Commission, asking them if they were prepared to provide their consent, in writing, to the disclosure of the information they provided which was contained within the statement of reasons it issued in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
“Those parties were the Crown Office, Dumfries and Galloway Police, the Foreign Office, Mr Megrahi and his legal representatives, and Mr Fhimah and his legal representatives. None of those parties gave their unqualified consent to the disclosure of the information.
“Mr Megrahi did not give his unqualified consent to the disclosure of the information he provided which was contained within the statement of reasons the Commission issued in his case.”
The Commissioner referred to a statement placed on the Megrahi: My Story website, which said that in a meeting on April 12th 2010, Megrahi ‘was happy for the documents to be released, providing all the official bodies that provided documents to the Commission agreed to the release of all of those documents.’
“In other words, he consented to the disclosure of all information only if others do so too,” the Commissioner concluded.
No timeframe has been provided from the First Minister for the introduction of the primary legislation he referred to.
[So we know what the only qualification was that Mr Megrahi attached to his consent. It would be interesting to discover what the qualifications were that the other persons and bodies attached. An expansion and clarification by the SCCRC to The Firm of Megrahi's attitude towards disclosure can be read here.]
The full report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which concluded that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi will not be published, the Commission says, because the parties who gave information to it have not all given “unqualified” consent.
However, the only qualification that the board said applied [in the case of Abdelbaset Megrahi himself] was that the other parties had to each consent too.
The First Minister confirmed that the Government would introduce primary legislation to allow the report to be published. The current requirement that the consent of all parties be obtained before publication was however introduced under secondary delegated legislation only.
Campaigners have argued that the restriction could be removed swiftly and easily without recourse to a complex primary legislative process.
In a Freedom of Information request from campaigner William Beck, the Commission was asked which of the named parties who provided information to the Commission had provided their consent, and which had not.
A senior legal officer at the SCCRC said:
“The Commission wrote to a number of the main parties who were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for providing information to the Commission, asking them if they were prepared to provide their consent, in writing, to the disclosure of the information they provided which was contained within the statement of reasons it issued in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
“Those parties were the Crown Office, Dumfries and Galloway Police, the Foreign Office, Mr Megrahi and his legal representatives, and Mr Fhimah and his legal representatives. None of those parties gave their unqualified consent to the disclosure of the information.
“Mr Megrahi did not give his unqualified consent to the disclosure of the information he provided which was contained within the statement of reasons the Commission issued in his case.”
The Commissioner referred to a statement placed on the Megrahi: My Story website, which said that in a meeting on April 12th 2010, Megrahi ‘was happy for the documents to be released, providing all the official bodies that provided documents to the Commission agreed to the release of all of those documents.’
“In other words, he consented to the disclosure of all information only if others do so too,” the Commissioner concluded.
No timeframe has been provided from the First Minister for the introduction of the primary legislation he referred to.
[So we know what the only qualification was that Mr Megrahi attached to his consent. It would be interesting to discover what the qualifications were that the other persons and bodies attached. An expansion and clarification by the SCCRC to The Firm of Megrahi's attitude towards disclosure can be read here.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)