[This is the headline over an Agence France Presse news agency report published today on the Al-Arabiya website. It reads as follows:]
Libya is responsible for a deadly 1989 attack on a French airliner, Libyan former foreign minister Abdel Rahman Shalgam told al-Hayat newspaper in an interview published on Monday.
“The Libyan security services blew up the plane. They believed that opposition leader Mohammed al-Megrief was on board, but after the plane was blown up, it was found that he was not on the plane,” said Mr Shalgam, who defected from Muammar Qaddafi’s embattled regime earlier this year.
On September 19, 1989, a UTA DC-10 travelling from Brazzaville to Paris via N’Djamena crashed in Niger after explosives on board detonated, killing 170 passengers and crew, including 54 French citizens.
A French court in 2009 sentenced six Libyan agents in absentia to life in prison for the attack, but Libya has never admitted it was responsible.
However, Tripoli had in 2004 agreed to pay $170 million in compensation to the families of the victims.
Mr Shalgam also said that the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over the Scottish town of Lockerbie that killed 270 people, for which Libya is widely believed to have been responsible, was more complicated than the UTA attack.
“The Lockerbie operation was more complex ... the role of states and organizations has been discussed, and while the Libyan services were implicated, I do not think it was a purely Libyan operation,” he said.
Last February, a former official from the radical Palestinian group Abu Nidal said that the attacks against the Pan Am and UTA planes were conducted “in conjunction” with Libya, and that the explosives were fabricated in Libya.
Mr Shalgam’s defection came in March when he was serving as Libya’s representative to the United Nations.
[Whether Libya was involved in the destruction of Pan Am 103 or not (eg by supplying materials to the culprits) it does not follow that a particular Libyan, viz Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was involved. The evidence against him remains just as weak as it was before Mr Shalgam spoke and the conviction of Megrahi on the evidence led at Zeist remains just as outrageous.
I may say that Mr Shalgam, whom I met on several occasions while he was Libya's foreign minister, always denied to me that his country was responsible for Lockerbie. But it may be that he is one of those who tends to tell people what he thinks, rightly or wrongly, that they want to hear.]
Monday, 18 July 2011
Sunday, 17 July 2011
New doubts over crucial evidence in Lockerbie trial
[This is the headline over an article by John Ashton in today's edition of the Sunday Herald. It reads as follows:]
A prosecution expert misled judges at the Lockerbie trial about key evidence, according to a classified police memo obtained by the Sunday Herald.
Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over the Scottish border town on December 21, 1988, killing 270 people.
The trial of the two Libyan men accused of the bombing began in May 2000, in front of a Scottish court set up in the Netherlands. During the trial, Dr Thomas Hayes, an expert witness for the prosecution, testified that a fragment allegedly from the bomb’s timer had not been tested for explosive residues.
However, according to the memo, tests were in fact carried out – and proved negative.
The revelation comes as the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee prepares to consider calls for a public inquiry into the conviction in 2001 of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Campaigners believe he was wrongly convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, and accuse the police and Crown Office of concealing evidence that might have cleared him.
Forensic evidence suggested that the fragment, known as PT/35, was part of a timer supplied to Libyan intelligence by the Swiss company Mebo. Mebo’s offices were shared by a company co-owned by Megrahi.
According to the prosecution, the timer and the explosive were hidden in a Toshiba radio-cassette player which Megrahi packed into a suitcase along with clothing.
Hayes was employed by the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE), linked to the UK Ministry of Defence. Scientists from the RARDE were involved in examining material found at the Lockerbie crash scene.
Hayes told the trial in June 2000 that he did not test PT/35, or a fragment of Toshiba circuit board, for explosive residues because it was clear from their appearance that they were bomb-damaged.
He added that the chances of finding residues were “vanishingly small”, but acknowledged that residues had been found on pieces of aircraft debris, and that test results for other items were not disclosed.
A previously secret memo, dated April 3, 1990, describes a visit to the Lockerbie investigation by French police officers examining the 1989 bombing of a French airliner in Niger. The memo states that Detective Superintendent Stuart Henderson, senior investigating officer, told the French delegation “that the piece of PCB [printed circuit board] from the Toshiba [cassette player] bore no trace of explosive contamination and that this was due to the total consummation of the explosive material. Similarly with PT/35, the item was negative in regard to explosive traces”.
It is not known whether Hayes knew of the tests alluded to in the memo, and there is no suggestion that he deliberately misled the court. Henderson did not testify at the trial, and there is no suggestion that he acted improperly.
Christine Grahame, SNP MSP and convener of the Justice Committee, said yesterday: “This adds to the growing body of evidence that Megrahi’s conviction, if it was placed before the appeal court today, would not stand the test of being proven beyond reasonable doubt.”
Calls for a public enquiry have been led by the campaign group Justice for Megrahi. Group member Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the Lockerbie bombing, said yesterday: “At the end of Megrahi’s trial, PT/35 stood out for me as being shrouded in a cloud of anomalies. Everything that I’ve learned since then has added to my suspicion that there was something very wrong.”
The trial court heard that Hayes found the fragment in May 1989 in the collar of a blast-damaged shirt. However, his laboratory notes and the collar’s police evidence label were inexplicably altered, and other official documents gave the date of discovery as January 1990.
Hayes’s employer, the RARDE, was involved in a string of miscarriages of justice in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1990, Hayes and senior colleagues were criticised by former appeal court judge Sir John May in his report on the Maguire Seven case, in which individuals had been charged with handling explosives linked to the IRA. Sir John said they knew of evidence pointing to the innocence of the accused yet failed to inform the court.
After seeing PT/35, Mebo’s owner, Edwin Bollier, said it was from a prototype circuit board that was never part of a functioning timer.
The police memo was one of hundreds of documents appended to the 800-page report into Megrahi’s conviction produced by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. However, its potential significance was apparently overlooked.
The Crown Office would not comment directly on the memo. In a joint statement with Dumfries and Galloway Police, which led the Lockerbie investigation, it said: “The only appropriate forum for the determination of guilt or innocence is the criminal court. Mr Megrahi was convicted unanimously … following trial and his conviction was upheld unanimously by five judges in an appeal court.”
[The flaws in the Zeist trial and the strictly circumscribed nature of the appeal are described in my article Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result.]
A prosecution expert misled judges at the Lockerbie trial about key evidence, according to a classified police memo obtained by the Sunday Herald.
Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over the Scottish border town on December 21, 1988, killing 270 people.
The trial of the two Libyan men accused of the bombing began in May 2000, in front of a Scottish court set up in the Netherlands. During the trial, Dr Thomas Hayes, an expert witness for the prosecution, testified that a fragment allegedly from the bomb’s timer had not been tested for explosive residues.
However, according to the memo, tests were in fact carried out – and proved negative.
The revelation comes as the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee prepares to consider calls for a public inquiry into the conviction in 2001 of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Campaigners believe he was wrongly convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, and accuse the police and Crown Office of concealing evidence that might have cleared him.
Forensic evidence suggested that the fragment, known as PT/35, was part of a timer supplied to Libyan intelligence by the Swiss company Mebo. Mebo’s offices were shared by a company co-owned by Megrahi.
According to the prosecution, the timer and the explosive were hidden in a Toshiba radio-cassette player which Megrahi packed into a suitcase along with clothing.
Hayes was employed by the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE), linked to the UK Ministry of Defence. Scientists from the RARDE were involved in examining material found at the Lockerbie crash scene.
Hayes told the trial in June 2000 that he did not test PT/35, or a fragment of Toshiba circuit board, for explosive residues because it was clear from their appearance that they were bomb-damaged.
He added that the chances of finding residues were “vanishingly small”, but acknowledged that residues had been found on pieces of aircraft debris, and that test results for other items were not disclosed.
A previously secret memo, dated April 3, 1990, describes a visit to the Lockerbie investigation by French police officers examining the 1989 bombing of a French airliner in Niger. The memo states that Detective Superintendent Stuart Henderson, senior investigating officer, told the French delegation “that the piece of PCB [printed circuit board] from the Toshiba [cassette player] bore no trace of explosive contamination and that this was due to the total consummation of the explosive material. Similarly with PT/35, the item was negative in regard to explosive traces”.
It is not known whether Hayes knew of the tests alluded to in the memo, and there is no suggestion that he deliberately misled the court. Henderson did not testify at the trial, and there is no suggestion that he acted improperly.
Christine Grahame, SNP MSP and convener of the Justice Committee, said yesterday: “This adds to the growing body of evidence that Megrahi’s conviction, if it was placed before the appeal court today, would not stand the test of being proven beyond reasonable doubt.”
Calls for a public enquiry have been led by the campaign group Justice for Megrahi. Group member Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the Lockerbie bombing, said yesterday: “At the end of Megrahi’s trial, PT/35 stood out for me as being shrouded in a cloud of anomalies. Everything that I’ve learned since then has added to my suspicion that there was something very wrong.”
The trial court heard that Hayes found the fragment in May 1989 in the collar of a blast-damaged shirt. However, his laboratory notes and the collar’s police evidence label were inexplicably altered, and other official documents gave the date of discovery as January 1990.
Hayes’s employer, the RARDE, was involved in a string of miscarriages of justice in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1990, Hayes and senior colleagues were criticised by former appeal court judge Sir John May in his report on the Maguire Seven case, in which individuals had been charged with handling explosives linked to the IRA. Sir John said they knew of evidence pointing to the innocence of the accused yet failed to inform the court.
After seeing PT/35, Mebo’s owner, Edwin Bollier, said it was from a prototype circuit board that was never part of a functioning timer.
The police memo was one of hundreds of documents appended to the 800-page report into Megrahi’s conviction produced by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. However, its potential significance was apparently overlooked.
The Crown Office would not comment directly on the memo. In a joint statement with Dumfries and Galloway Police, which led the Lockerbie investigation, it said: “The only appropriate forum for the determination of guilt or innocence is the criminal court. Mr Megrahi was convicted unanimously … following trial and his conviction was upheld unanimously by five judges in an appeal court.”
[The flaws in the Zeist trial and the strictly circumscribed nature of the appeal are described in my article Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result.]
Saturday, 16 July 2011
Lockerbie: Diplomat's wife hears a different story
[This is the heading over an item posted yesterday on the Sedulia's Quotations website. It reads as follows:]
A curious thing happened in the Gambia which I have often thought about since. Very soon after the Lockerbie disaster, an ex-Interpol detective came to dinner with us. He was in the Gambia investigating some kind of fisheries fraud for the EU. Over the meal we discussed Lockerbie and he said, "Oh it will all come out soon. That plane was carrying drugs to the US as part of a deal over the American hostages in Lebanon." He went on to tell us that in order for the drugs to get through unimpeded it was arranged that the cargo in the Pan Am plane would not be inspected. What happened then, he said, was that, via the Lebanese/Hezbollah/Iran connection, the extraordinary fact that the plane's cargo would travel unchecked, came to the ears of Iranians seeking revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner by the US not long before; somehow they arranged to put a bomb on board.
Though the detective said that this story would be all over the papers in the following months, it never was. I have told it to every journalist I know, but no paper has ever taken it up -- although there was a book published years ago called The Octopus Trail [The Trail of the Octopus, by Donald Goddard and Lester Coleman] which told more or less the same tale. Last year, not long before he died, I happened to tell Paul Foot the story and he urged me not to let it lie-- which is why I am putting it into this book.
-- Brigid Keenan (1939- ), Diplomatic Baggage: The Adventures of a Trailing Spouse (2005).
[This Lockerbie theory was, of course, also advanced by Juval Aviv in his Interfor Report. More about Aviv can be found by entering his name in the blog's search facility.]
A curious thing happened in the Gambia which I have often thought about since. Very soon after the Lockerbie disaster, an ex-Interpol detective came to dinner with us. He was in the Gambia investigating some kind of fisheries fraud for the EU. Over the meal we discussed Lockerbie and he said, "Oh it will all come out soon. That plane was carrying drugs to the US as part of a deal over the American hostages in Lebanon." He went on to tell us that in order for the drugs to get through unimpeded it was arranged that the cargo in the Pan Am plane would not be inspected. What happened then, he said, was that, via the Lebanese/Hezbollah/Iran connection, the extraordinary fact that the plane's cargo would travel unchecked, came to the ears of Iranians seeking revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner by the US not long before; somehow they arranged to put a bomb on board.
Though the detective said that this story would be all over the papers in the following months, it never was. I have told it to every journalist I know, but no paper has ever taken it up -- although there was a book published years ago called The Octopus Trail [The Trail of the Octopus, by Donald Goddard and Lester Coleman] which told more or less the same tale. Last year, not long before he died, I happened to tell Paul Foot the story and he urged me not to let it lie-- which is why I am putting it into this book.
-- Brigid Keenan (1939- ), Diplomatic Baggage: The Adventures of a Trailing Spouse (2005).
[This Lockerbie theory was, of course, also advanced by Juval Aviv in his Interfor Report. More about Aviv can be found by entering his name in the blog's search facility.]
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
Mistakes by Scottish legal system should be exposed
[The following is an excerpt from a letter by William Forbes in today's edition of The Herald:]
Once a case from any jurisdiction reaches the Supreme Court they are all treated the same – there are no “additional” powers and all have to satisfy the test that there is a case to answer, in accordance with rules and statutes. If anything, greater care is exercised with Scottish cases to ensure the sovereignty of the Scottish courts. What appears to upset Alex Salmond and his supporters is that Scots appear to have better access to the Supreme Court than fellow UK citizens, but arguably this is illusionary. The idea that the Scottish legal system can be improved by further restricting access to justice is flawed and can only suit who would have our mistakes kept quiet. Whether mistakes are made in Camp Zeist, London or Edinburgh it is of the utmost importance that they are exposed and our system is improved as a result.
Justice without fairness is the justice of the lynch mob. (...)
There is a great need to consider how the Scottish legal system copes with the notion of basic human rights. The opposing attitude of who cares if there has been a mistake, as long as it was a “Scoattish wan” does little to advance hope that the law in Scotland will mature.
[The Scottish Government has a golden opportunity to show that it is just as serious about investigating, rectifying and learning lessons from possible mistakes by the Scottish criminal justice system as it is about "protecting Scots law's independence" from a predatory Supreme Court. It should immediately announce the establishment of an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. Until that happens, the Scottish Government can with justice be accused of being more concerned with political posturing than with securing the rights of those who have been ill-served by Scotland's criminal justice system.
The above comment has been picked up in a news item on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
Once a case from any jurisdiction reaches the Supreme Court they are all treated the same – there are no “additional” powers and all have to satisfy the test that there is a case to answer, in accordance with rules and statutes. If anything, greater care is exercised with Scottish cases to ensure the sovereignty of the Scottish courts. What appears to upset Alex Salmond and his supporters is that Scots appear to have better access to the Supreme Court than fellow UK citizens, but arguably this is illusionary. The idea that the Scottish legal system can be improved by further restricting access to justice is flawed and can only suit who would have our mistakes kept quiet. Whether mistakes are made in Camp Zeist, London or Edinburgh it is of the utmost importance that they are exposed and our system is improved as a result.
Justice without fairness is the justice of the lynch mob. (...)
There is a great need to consider how the Scottish legal system copes with the notion of basic human rights. The opposing attitude of who cares if there has been a mistake, as long as it was a “Scoattish wan” does little to advance hope that the law in Scotland will mature.
[The Scottish Government has a golden opportunity to show that it is just as serious about investigating, rectifying and learning lessons from possible mistakes by the Scottish criminal justice system as it is about "protecting Scots law's independence" from a predatory Supreme Court. It should immediately announce the establishment of an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. Until that happens, the Scottish Government can with justice be accused of being more concerned with political posturing than with securing the rights of those who have been ill-served by Scotland's criminal justice system.
The above comment has been picked up in a news item on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Many still question Megrahi conviction in bombing of Pan Am 103
[This is the headline over an article in the current issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs by the magazine's publisher, Ambassador Andrew I Killgore. It reads as follows:]
Libyan intelligence officer Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi was convicted on Jan 31, 2001 of destroying Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec 21, 1988, killing the plane's 259 passengers, including 179 Americans, and 11 people on the ground. Megrahi was tried under Scottish law by Scottish judges in a special court sitting at Camp Zeist, a former American military base in The Netherlands.
As readers of the Washington Report are aware, the American media coverage of the Lockerbie trial was very thin, despite the heavy loss of American lives. There seems to be a determined silence about even the existence of an organization called "Justice for Megrahi," whose members include (full disclosure) this writer and several distinguished Britons, including Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the crash, and Dr. Robert Black, former professor of criminal law at Edinburgh University and creator of the idea of trying Megrahi and his co-defendant, Lamen Fhimah, in The Netherlands under Scottish law.
The revolution in Libya, and particularly the defection to Britain of former Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, has stirred some peripheral interest in Lockerbie. Before he became foreign minister, Koussa was head of Libyan intelligence, and close to Muammar al-Qaddafi. He would know what was in Qaddafi's mind when he agreed to turn over Megrahi and Fhimah for trial. Was it because the Libyan leader thought the two men were guilty, or because he knew he was obliged to do so to gain sufficient Western approval for the development of his country, including increased oil production?
The April 9 Washington Post ran an article saying that Scottish officials had "met" with Koussa, who they think may have crucial information about Lockerbie. According to the article, "Prosecutors said that they would offer no additional details of their conversations with Koussa." Just what did Koussa tell them, and why is no more information about the meeting forthcoming?
So far as this writer has seen, no American newspaper has mentioned that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ruled that Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice—a finding that presumably remains valid despite Megrahi's release from prison on compassionate grounds. Yet, the Washington Post article writes that "the case remains open despite Megrahi's conviction."
The heavy lethargy of the American media on Lockerbie includes no word that many outstanding Britons who lost relatives or friends in the Lockerbie crash do not believe that Megrahi is guilty. If members of "Justice for Megrahi," who obviously think he is not guilty, could possibly arrange a discussion with Moussa, it could clear up a lot of questions. Depending on Koussa's answers, it could reopen the question of who really bombed Pan Am 103.
[Yesterday, for the first time in its history, this blog had more visitors from the United States than from the United Kingdom. The most-read item was MSPs call for independent inquiry into Lockerbie.]
Libyan intelligence officer Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi was convicted on Jan 31, 2001 of destroying Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec 21, 1988, killing the plane's 259 passengers, including 179 Americans, and 11 people on the ground. Megrahi was tried under Scottish law by Scottish judges in a special court sitting at Camp Zeist, a former American military base in The Netherlands.
As readers of the Washington Report are aware, the American media coverage of the Lockerbie trial was very thin, despite the heavy loss of American lives. There seems to be a determined silence about even the existence of an organization called "Justice for Megrahi," whose members include (full disclosure) this writer and several distinguished Britons, including Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the crash, and Dr. Robert Black, former professor of criminal law at Edinburgh University and creator of the idea of trying Megrahi and his co-defendant, Lamen Fhimah, in The Netherlands under Scottish law.
The revolution in Libya, and particularly the defection to Britain of former Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, has stirred some peripheral interest in Lockerbie. Before he became foreign minister, Koussa was head of Libyan intelligence, and close to Muammar al-Qaddafi. He would know what was in Qaddafi's mind when he agreed to turn over Megrahi and Fhimah for trial. Was it because the Libyan leader thought the two men were guilty, or because he knew he was obliged to do so to gain sufficient Western approval for the development of his country, including increased oil production?
The April 9 Washington Post ran an article saying that Scottish officials had "met" with Koussa, who they think may have crucial information about Lockerbie. According to the article, "Prosecutors said that they would offer no additional details of their conversations with Koussa." Just what did Koussa tell them, and why is no more information about the meeting forthcoming?
So far as this writer has seen, no American newspaper has mentioned that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ruled that Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice—a finding that presumably remains valid despite Megrahi's release from prison on compassionate grounds. Yet, the Washington Post article writes that "the case remains open despite Megrahi's conviction."
The heavy lethargy of the American media on Lockerbie includes no word that many outstanding Britons who lost relatives or friends in the Lockerbie crash do not believe that Megrahi is guilty. If members of "Justice for Megrahi," who obviously think he is not guilty, could possibly arrange a discussion with Moussa, it could clear up a lot of questions. Depending on Koussa's answers, it could reopen the question of who really bombed Pan Am 103.
[Yesterday, for the first time in its history, this blog had more visitors from the United States than from the United Kingdom. The most-read item was MSPs call for independent inquiry into Lockerbie.]
Monday, 11 July 2011
An interview with the British ambassador to Libya
[The following is an excerpt from an interview given by the UK's ambassador to Libya to the rebel-supporting Libya TV and published yesterday on its website:]
The H2O law firm, which represents the British victims of IRA bombings, visited Benghazi three weeks after the revolution erupted. Did they reach a deal with the NTC?
The law firm received an understanding and support at a later stage. The NTC has committed to helping clarify the Lockerbie case, the Yvonne Fletcher case and IRA victims.
Moussa Koussa, a former intelligence chief, defected to the UK and was permitted to leave without charge in April. He currently resides in Qatar and was at the contact group meeting in Doha. Is he helping the UK?
Moussa Koussa’s defection was a political gain for the revolution. He has given his commitment to the British government to talk to the police and help them with their investigations. No doubt he needs to rebuild his life in Doha.
The H2O law firm, which represents the British victims of IRA bombings, visited Benghazi three weeks after the revolution erupted. Did they reach a deal with the NTC?
The law firm received an understanding and support at a later stage. The NTC has committed to helping clarify the Lockerbie case, the Yvonne Fletcher case and IRA victims.
Moussa Koussa, a former intelligence chief, defected to the UK and was permitted to leave without charge in April. He currently resides in Qatar and was at the contact group meeting in Doha. Is he helping the UK?
Moussa Koussa’s defection was a political gain for the revolution. He has given his commitment to the British government to talk to the police and help them with their investigations. No doubt he needs to rebuild his life in Doha.
Not so fast, Mr President! How Obama got it (all) wrong on Libya and how to fix it
[This is the headline over an article by Susan Lindauer published today on The Intel Hub and various other websites. The section headed The Lockerbie bombing reads as follows:]
Gadhaffi haters like to throw out Lockerbie to remind Europeans and Americans of Libya’s dark past long ago. In March 1999, after 7 years of UN sanctions, Gadhaffi’s government handed over two Libyans for Trial in the bombing of Pan Am 103, which exploded over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988. Regardless, Gadhaffi fiercely denied any involvement in the Lockerbie conspiracy.
As with so many other terrorist cases, appearances of Libya’s guilt prove deceiving. Two star witnesses against Libya have now recanted their testimony, and confessed to receiving $4 million dollar payments each from the US and Britain. It’s an ugly stain on the International Criminal Court. [RB: The court that convicted Megrahi (and acquitted Lamin Fhimah) was a Scottish court, albeit sitting in the Netherlands.]
The good news for truth seekers is that last week the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee moved to launch a new inquiry into the Lockerbie case. Christine Grahame 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 Abdelbaset al-Megrahi rightly convicted, and we have not heard the answer to that yet.”
That decision should be strongly applauded by everyone who champions integrity in government oversight. If American leaders would show the same concern for reexamining 9/11, it would go a long way to restoring confidence in our government.
In fact, there’s a lot of fresh leads for a Scottish inquiry to pursue. The Justice Committee could start by opening the deposition of my own CIA handler, Dr Richard Fuisz, sworn under oath in the US District Court of Virginia, in the closing days of the Lockerbie Trial. It’s got some eye popping information, for sure.
At my very first meeting with Dr Fuisz in September, 1994 — and throughout our years together — he gave me the real skinny on Lockerbie. Dr Fuisz swore that Pan Am 103 was a false flag operation to hide a rogue CIA team’s involvement in heroin trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley during the Terry Anderson hostage crisis in Lebanon.
Dr Fuisz explained that when Defense Intelligence officer, Maj Charles Dennis McKee and CIA officer, Matthew Gannon, stationed in Beirut, complained that a double agent was compromising efforts to rescue the hostages, the CIA and FBI sent a team to Lebanon for a fact-finding investigation.
Investigators were flying back to Washington on Pan Am 103 with evidence exposing the heroin ring when a bomb exploded on the plane. Intriguingly, shortly before, the State Department issued an internal travel warning to US Embassies that Pan Am 103 would be targeted for bombing on that day, and everybody should get off the plane.
The sudden exodus of government personnel freed up seats for students from Syracuse University, flying home stand by for the Christmas Holidays. The college students died.
Dr Fuisz frequently swore that he could identify every terrorist involved in the attack. Because he is such high ranking CIA operative, he has been forbidden from speaking publicly about his role in events leading up to the bombing. Throughout the 1990s, he was repeatedly threatened with 10 years in prison if he broke his silence.
Imagine then the herculean effort on my part to force the CIA to permit Dr Fuisz to give closed door testimony in front of Judge White in Virginia. In the process of speaking out myself, I made a lot of enemies at the Justice Department, who proved they had a long memory during my 5 year indictment on the Patriot Act.
My desire to call Lockerbie attorney, Edward MacKechnie as my chief witness to prove my relationship with Dr Fuisz and my standing as an Intelligence Asset played a significant role in why the Justice Department fought my demand for a Trial.
A Trial would have reopened questions about the Lockerbie conviction and Libya’s guilt. It also would have exposed the CIA’s continued role in heroin trafficking to finance black ops through the 1990s.
The CIA was fighting to protect itself. When my efforts succeeded in forcing the CIA to allow the deposition to go forward, the CIA stipulated that Dr. Fuisz’s deposition must be sealed in the United States, so that Americans would have zero knowledge that his testimony existed or what it contained.
True to his word, inside the deposition, there’s a double seal that contains a list of 11 names of the Lockerbie conspirators and a map outlining the conspiracy.
It would be supremely valuable for the Scottish Justice Committee to open that double seal and review the full deposition. At that point, a decision could be made whether Dr Fuisz should be subpoenaed again to answer further questions.
However already there’s a substantial body of evidence that has never been viewed by Scottish Judges at all.
If Scottish families want justice in Lockerbie, that’s the best way forward. As for the rest, there’s nothing to fear. Gadhaffi’s arm does not reach into Europe. He’s got no ties to terrorism whatsoever.
Gadhaffi haters like to throw out Lockerbie to remind Europeans and Americans of Libya’s dark past long ago. In March 1999, after 7 years of UN sanctions, Gadhaffi’s government handed over two Libyans for Trial in the bombing of Pan Am 103, which exploded over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988. Regardless, Gadhaffi fiercely denied any involvement in the Lockerbie conspiracy.
As with so many other terrorist cases, appearances of Libya’s guilt prove deceiving. Two star witnesses against Libya have now recanted their testimony, and confessed to receiving $4 million dollar payments each from the US and Britain. It’s an ugly stain on the International Criminal Court. [RB: The court that convicted Megrahi (and acquitted Lamin Fhimah) was a Scottish court, albeit sitting in the Netherlands.]
The good news for truth seekers is that last week the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee moved to launch a new inquiry into the Lockerbie case. Christine Grahame 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 Abdelbaset al-Megrahi rightly convicted, and we have not heard the answer to that yet.”
That decision should be strongly applauded by everyone who champions integrity in government oversight. If American leaders would show the same concern for reexamining 9/11, it would go a long way to restoring confidence in our government.
In fact, there’s a lot of fresh leads for a Scottish inquiry to pursue. The Justice Committee could start by opening the deposition of my own CIA handler, Dr Richard Fuisz, sworn under oath in the US District Court of Virginia, in the closing days of the Lockerbie Trial. It’s got some eye popping information, for sure.
At my very first meeting with Dr Fuisz in September, 1994 — and throughout our years together — he gave me the real skinny on Lockerbie. Dr Fuisz swore that Pan Am 103 was a false flag operation to hide a rogue CIA team’s involvement in heroin trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley during the Terry Anderson hostage crisis in Lebanon.
Dr Fuisz explained that when Defense Intelligence officer, Maj Charles Dennis McKee and CIA officer, Matthew Gannon, stationed in Beirut, complained that a double agent was compromising efforts to rescue the hostages, the CIA and FBI sent a team to Lebanon for a fact-finding investigation.
Investigators were flying back to Washington on Pan Am 103 with evidence exposing the heroin ring when a bomb exploded on the plane. Intriguingly, shortly before, the State Department issued an internal travel warning to US Embassies that Pan Am 103 would be targeted for bombing on that day, and everybody should get off the plane.
The sudden exodus of government personnel freed up seats for students from Syracuse University, flying home stand by for the Christmas Holidays. The college students died.
Dr Fuisz frequently swore that he could identify every terrorist involved in the attack. Because he is such high ranking CIA operative, he has been forbidden from speaking publicly about his role in events leading up to the bombing. Throughout the 1990s, he was repeatedly threatened with 10 years in prison if he broke his silence.
Imagine then the herculean effort on my part to force the CIA to permit Dr Fuisz to give closed door testimony in front of Judge White in Virginia. In the process of speaking out myself, I made a lot of enemies at the Justice Department, who proved they had a long memory during my 5 year indictment on the Patriot Act.
My desire to call Lockerbie attorney, Edward MacKechnie as my chief witness to prove my relationship with Dr Fuisz and my standing as an Intelligence Asset played a significant role in why the Justice Department fought my demand for a Trial.
A Trial would have reopened questions about the Lockerbie conviction and Libya’s guilt. It also would have exposed the CIA’s continued role in heroin trafficking to finance black ops through the 1990s.
The CIA was fighting to protect itself. When my efforts succeeded in forcing the CIA to allow the deposition to go forward, the CIA stipulated that Dr. Fuisz’s deposition must be sealed in the United States, so that Americans would have zero knowledge that his testimony existed or what it contained.
True to his word, inside the deposition, there’s a double seal that contains a list of 11 names of the Lockerbie conspirators and a map outlining the conspiracy.
It would be supremely valuable for the Scottish Justice Committee to open that double seal and review the full deposition. At that point, a decision could be made whether Dr Fuisz should be subpoenaed again to answer further questions.
However already there’s a substantial body of evidence that has never been viewed by Scottish Judges at all.
If Scottish families want justice in Lockerbie, that’s the best way forward. As for the rest, there’s nothing to fear. Gadhaffi’s arm does not reach into Europe. He’s got no ties to terrorism whatsoever.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
The conundrum of Scots Law
[This is the headline over an article by Hazel Lewry
published today on the Newsnet Scotland website. For some mysterious reason it is dated 3 June 2011 (now changed to 9 July). It reads in part:]
In recent years there have been at least three readily identifiable cases of potential miscarriages of justice or denial of basic human rights taking place under Scots Law: the Megrahi, Cadder and Fraser cases, each with their own unique aspects, each with their own unique implications for Scots justice. In every case there have been strong common threads. All put Scots Law, and those who practise within it, under an external microscope. Each case had its own issues that rightfully required this intense scrutiny.
Each case highlighted the dissimilarities between England and Scotland.
History has demonstrated that in the view of the UK, differences are not encouraged. Differences that can give Westminster’s dictated foreign policy a very bloody nose, as in the Megrahi case, shall and must be dealt with at the earliest opportunity.
With respect to Megrahi it was absolutely no surprise that the Scotland Bill was quietly and quickly amended in an attempt to address this issue, at least partially.
[It is unfortunate that the author is not more specific about the amendment she is referring to. On a quick trawl through the Bill, the only provision that seems potentially relevant is clause 27, which reads in relevant part:
Implementation of international obligations
(1) The 1998 Act [ie the Scotland Act 1998] is amended as follows.
(2) After section 57 insert—
“57A International obligations
Despite the transfer to the Scottish Ministers by virtue of section 53 of functions in relation to observing and implementing international obligations, a function in relation to those matters which is exercisable by the Scottish Ministers is also exercisable by a Minister of the Crown as regards Scotland if it was exercisable by that Minister as regards Scotland immediately before that transfer.”
I suppose that this could be interpreted to cover a situation in which the UK Government had concluded a prisoner transfer agreement with a foreign country, but the Scottish Government was unwilling to operate it in respect of a particular prisoner in a Scottish prison. A UK Government Scotland Office minister might then have the power to exercise the transfer function in relation to that prisoner.]
published today on the Newsnet Scotland website. For some mysterious reason it is dated 3 June 2011 (now changed to 9 July). It reads in part:]
In recent years there have been at least three readily identifiable cases of potential miscarriages of justice or denial of basic human rights taking place under Scots Law: the Megrahi, Cadder and Fraser cases, each with their own unique aspects, each with their own unique implications for Scots justice. In every case there have been strong common threads. All put Scots Law, and those who practise within it, under an external microscope. Each case had its own issues that rightfully required this intense scrutiny.
Each case highlighted the dissimilarities between England and Scotland.
History has demonstrated that in the view of the UK, differences are not encouraged. Differences that can give Westminster’s dictated foreign policy a very bloody nose, as in the Megrahi case, shall and must be dealt with at the earliest opportunity.
With respect to Megrahi it was absolutely no surprise that the Scotland Bill was quietly and quickly amended in an attempt to address this issue, at least partially.
[It is unfortunate that the author is not more specific about the amendment she is referring to. On a quick trawl through the Bill, the only provision that seems potentially relevant is clause 27, which reads in relevant part:
Implementation of international obligations
(1) The 1998 Act [ie the Scotland Act 1998] is amended as follows.
(2) After section 57 insert—
“57A International obligations
Despite the transfer to the Scottish Ministers by virtue of section 53 of functions in relation to observing and implementing international obligations, a function in relation to those matters which is exercisable by the Scottish Ministers is also exercisable by a Minister of the Crown as regards Scotland if it was exercisable by that Minister as regards Scotland immediately before that transfer.”
I suppose that this could be interpreted to cover a situation in which the UK Government had concluded a prisoner transfer agreement with a foreign country, but the Scottish Government was unwilling to operate it in respect of a particular prisoner in a Scottish prison. A UK Government Scotland Office minister might then have the power to exercise the transfer function in relation to that prisoner.]
Friday, 8 July 2011
Will NATO resurrect Operation Gladio to frame Gaddafi?
[This is the headline over an article published today on the Prison Planet website. It reads in part:]
Libyan leader’s threat to attack Europe could provide NATO with the perfect pretext to launch a full ground invasion
Given the fact that NATO itself was one of the pioneers of false flag terror to frame political enemies under Operation Gladio, a CIA-supported terror campaign that was responsible for a series of bloody attacks in Europe throughout the cold war years, we shouldn’t be surprised if NATO ressurects the legacy of Gladio in its desperation to justify a final decapitation strike to topple Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
Gaddafi’s threat to attack Europe in retaliation for the NATO bombing campaign in Libya prompted the establishment media to react with contrived outrage, eliciting sharp intakes of breath at the mere thought that Gaddafi, whose country has been under constant bombardment for over three months, would dare to even speak about fighting back. (...)
Gaddafi himself is no stranger to being the focus of international condemnation for bloody terror attacks blamed on his government.
Although Libyan government agents working at the behest of Gaddafi were accused of carrying out the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 over Scotland, evidence that emerged both before and after the 2001 trial and conviction of alleged former intelligence office Abdelbaset al-Megrahi strongly indicates that the attack was a false flag event.
“Former Labor MP Tam Dalyell and Edinburgh law professor Robert Black urged the Scottish and UK governments to answer reports there is evidence Abu Nidal, aka Hasan Sabri al-Banna, was a US agent,” The Scotsman reported on October 27, 2008. “They have long believed Abu Nidal, who died in Iraq in 2002, and his Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command were responsible for co-ordinating the bomb that blew up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December, 1988 with the loss of 270 lives.”
“Intelligence reports, said to have been drawn up for Saddam Hussein’s security services, said Kuwaitis had asked Abu Nidal, whose real name was Sabri al-Banna, to find out if al-Qaeda was present in Iraq,” David Maddox wrote for the newspaper. The reports referred to Abu Nidal’s “collusion with both the American and Kuwaiti intelligence apparatuses in co-ordination with Egyptian intelligence.” [RB: A comment on this story that I wrote at the time can be read here.]
MP Dalyell said the reports added weight to the theory that Lockerbie was a “tit-for-tat” attack for the shooting down of an Iranian passenger airliner by the warship USS Vincennes in 1988, and was allowed by the US administration. (...)
In May of 2000, a gag order added weight to the theory that Libya was not behind the Lockerbie bombing. Dr Richard Fuisz, a CIA agent and a potential key trial witness, was gagged by the US government under state secrecy laws and faced 10 years in prison if he revealed any information about the terrorist attack, the Sunday Herald reported. Fuisz, a multi-millionaire businessman and pharmaceutical researcher, was, according to US intelligence sources, the CIA’s key operative in the Syrian capital Damascus during the 1980s where he also had business interests.
“One month before a court order was served on him by the US government gagging him from speaking on the grounds of national security, he spoke to US congressional aide Susan Lindauer, telling her he knew the identities of the Lockerbie bombers and claiming they were not Libyan,” Neil Mackay wrote. “Fuisz’s statements to Lindauer support the claims of the two Libyan accused who are to incriminate a number of terrorist organizations, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, which had strong links to Syria and Iran,” in short Abu Nidal.
Nidal was either killed by the Iraqi secret police for his role as an American double agent or he committed suicide after the Iraqis learned of his betrayal, according to The Independent. (...)
At the foundation of the Lockerbie fiction is the claim that Gaddafi had Pan Am flight 103 blown of the sky as revenge for Reagan’s 1986 bombing of Triopli, allegedly in response to the bombing of a night club in West Berlin that killed one US soldier. Reagan’s illegal attack on October 18, 1985, was at the time the largest air assault since the Vietnam War. 120 aircraft rained destruction on points around the cities of Tripoli and Benghazi. At least 100 civilians were killed, including Gaddafi’s 15-month-old adopted daughter, Hana.
Former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky revealed the truth behind the bombing in his 2002 book, By Way of Deception: The Making of a Mossad Officer — it was orchestrated by Israel.
A special communications device, Ostrovsky claims, was planted by naval commandos deep inside Libya by the Mossad. “The device would act as a relay station for misleading transmissions made by the disinformation unit in the Mossad, called LAP, and intended to be received by American and British listening stations,” write Ostrovsky and Claire Hoy. “The listeners would have no doubt they had intercepted a genuine communication” and “the content of the messages, once deciphered, would confirm information from other intelligence sources, namely the Mossad.”
“After the bombing of Libya, our friend Qadhafi is sure to stay out of the picture for some time. Iraq and Saddam Hussein are the next target. We’re starting now to build him up as the big villain. It will take some time, but in the end, there’s no doubt it’ll work,” a Mossad agent told the author. (...)
Gaddafi steadfastly refused to accept responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing for over a decade and made it a condition of Libya’s $2.7 billion payout to the families affected in 2002 that it was “the price of peace” and not an admission of guilt.
The story of how Libyan patsies were framed for the Lockerbie attack should give Gaddafi pause for thought and remind him to be a little more sophisticated in his rhetoric. Should there be a staged event in Europe that gets blamed on Libya, NATO powers will confidently point to Gaddafi’s own public statement as evidence for his culpability.
Libyan leader’s threat to attack Europe could provide NATO with the perfect pretext to launch a full ground invasion
Given the fact that NATO itself was one of the pioneers of false flag terror to frame political enemies under Operation Gladio, a CIA-supported terror campaign that was responsible for a series of bloody attacks in Europe throughout the cold war years, we shouldn’t be surprised if NATO ressurects the legacy of Gladio in its desperation to justify a final decapitation strike to topple Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
Gaddafi’s threat to attack Europe in retaliation for the NATO bombing campaign in Libya prompted the establishment media to react with contrived outrage, eliciting sharp intakes of breath at the mere thought that Gaddafi, whose country has been under constant bombardment for over three months, would dare to even speak about fighting back. (...)
Gaddafi himself is no stranger to being the focus of international condemnation for bloody terror attacks blamed on his government.
Although Libyan government agents working at the behest of Gaddafi were accused of carrying out the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 over Scotland, evidence that emerged both before and after the 2001 trial and conviction of alleged former intelligence office Abdelbaset al-Megrahi strongly indicates that the attack was a false flag event.
“Former Labor MP Tam Dalyell and Edinburgh law professor Robert Black urged the Scottish and UK governments to answer reports there is evidence Abu Nidal, aka Hasan Sabri al-Banna, was a US agent,” The Scotsman reported on October 27, 2008. “They have long believed Abu Nidal, who died in Iraq in 2002, and his Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command were responsible for co-ordinating the bomb that blew up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December, 1988 with the loss of 270 lives.”
“Intelligence reports, said to have been drawn up for Saddam Hussein’s security services, said Kuwaitis had asked Abu Nidal, whose real name was Sabri al-Banna, to find out if al-Qaeda was present in Iraq,” David Maddox wrote for the newspaper. The reports referred to Abu Nidal’s “collusion with both the American and Kuwaiti intelligence apparatuses in co-ordination with Egyptian intelligence.” [RB: A comment on this story that I wrote at the time can be read here.]
MP Dalyell said the reports added weight to the theory that Lockerbie was a “tit-for-tat” attack for the shooting down of an Iranian passenger airliner by the warship USS Vincennes in 1988, and was allowed by the US administration. (...)
In May of 2000, a gag order added weight to the theory that Libya was not behind the Lockerbie bombing. Dr Richard Fuisz, a CIA agent and a potential key trial witness, was gagged by the US government under state secrecy laws and faced 10 years in prison if he revealed any information about the terrorist attack, the Sunday Herald reported. Fuisz, a multi-millionaire businessman and pharmaceutical researcher, was, according to US intelligence sources, the CIA’s key operative in the Syrian capital Damascus during the 1980s where he also had business interests.
“One month before a court order was served on him by the US government gagging him from speaking on the grounds of national security, he spoke to US congressional aide Susan Lindauer, telling her he knew the identities of the Lockerbie bombers and claiming they were not Libyan,” Neil Mackay wrote. “Fuisz’s statements to Lindauer support the claims of the two Libyan accused who are to incriminate a number of terrorist organizations, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, which had strong links to Syria and Iran,” in short Abu Nidal.
Nidal was either killed by the Iraqi secret police for his role as an American double agent or he committed suicide after the Iraqis learned of his betrayal, according to The Independent. (...)
At the foundation of the Lockerbie fiction is the claim that Gaddafi had Pan Am flight 103 blown of the sky as revenge for Reagan’s 1986 bombing of Triopli, allegedly in response to the bombing of a night club in West Berlin that killed one US soldier. Reagan’s illegal attack on October 18, 1985, was at the time the largest air assault since the Vietnam War. 120 aircraft rained destruction on points around the cities of Tripoli and Benghazi. At least 100 civilians were killed, including Gaddafi’s 15-month-old adopted daughter, Hana.
Former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky revealed the truth behind the bombing in his 2002 book, By Way of Deception: The Making of a Mossad Officer — it was orchestrated by Israel.
A special communications device, Ostrovsky claims, was planted by naval commandos deep inside Libya by the Mossad. “The device would act as a relay station for misleading transmissions made by the disinformation unit in the Mossad, called LAP, and intended to be received by American and British listening stations,” write Ostrovsky and Claire Hoy. “The listeners would have no doubt they had intercepted a genuine communication” and “the content of the messages, once deciphered, would confirm information from other intelligence sources, namely the Mossad.”
“After the bombing of Libya, our friend Qadhafi is sure to stay out of the picture for some time. Iraq and Saddam Hussein are the next target. We’re starting now to build him up as the big villain. It will take some time, but in the end, there’s no doubt it’ll work,” a Mossad agent told the author. (...)
Gaddafi steadfastly refused to accept responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing for over a decade and made it a condition of Libya’s $2.7 billion payout to the families affected in 2002 that it was “the price of peace” and not an admission of guilt.
The story of how Libyan patsies were framed for the Lockerbie attack should give Gaddafi pause for thought and remind him to be a little more sophisticated in his rhetoric. Should there be a staged event in Europe that gets blamed on Libya, NATO powers will confidently point to Gaddafi’s own public statement as evidence for his culpability.
Thursday, 7 July 2011
Lebanon: another Western frame-up?
[This is the headline over an article published today on the website of the Gulf Daily News. It reads in part:]
Here we go again. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon, a UN-backed body investigating the killing of Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri in 2005, has accused four people of his murder. They belong to Hizbollah, the militant Lebanese Shi'ite movement, but may not be guilty. (...)
Arrest warrants have now been issued for Hizbollah's chief operations officer Mustafa Badreddin, and three other officials - but some argue they are being framed by Western intelligence agencies because Hizbollah is a threat to Israel.
If this sounds paranoid, consider the case of the Lockerbie bombing. The bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 killed 270 people, mostly American.
At first, US intelligence blamed Iran, claiming it used an Arab terrorist group based in Syria to carry out the operation.
So Syria was under pressure too, but then in 1990 Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and Washington needed the Syrians as allies. Suddenly, the Iran-Syria case was abandoned and the new suspect was Libya. [RB: As Rolfe has more than once pointed out, there are real difficulties with this explanation.]
Libya, under Muammar Gadaffi, was an enemy of the West, so new evidence was found linking Libyan intelligence agents to the attack.
Gadaffi was brought to heel and Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was tried by an international court and sentenced to life in prison. [RB: The court was a Scottish one although it sat in the Netherlands.]
Alas, the new "evidence" was then gradually discredited as key "witnesses" turned out to be incredible.
In 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission said it would refer Al Megrahi's case to the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh (the Libyan was being held in a Scottish prison) because he "may have suffered a miscarriage of justice".
To avoid all this coming out into the open in a new trial, Al Megrahi was released in 2009 and sent home on the grounds that he was a dying man and wouldn't last three months (he's still alive).
If Western intelligence agencies played this kind of game over the Lockerbie bombing, what's to stop them from doing the same over Hariri's murder?
Hizbollah and its Christian and Druze allies now dominate the Lebanese government and are seen as a threat to Israeli and US interests.
The Middle East is a hotbed of conspiracy theories, mostly implausible, but maybe this one is real.
Here we go again. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon, a UN-backed body investigating the killing of Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri in 2005, has accused four people of his murder. They belong to Hizbollah, the militant Lebanese Shi'ite movement, but may not be guilty. (...)
Arrest warrants have now been issued for Hizbollah's chief operations officer Mustafa Badreddin, and three other officials - but some argue they are being framed by Western intelligence agencies because Hizbollah is a threat to Israel.
If this sounds paranoid, consider the case of the Lockerbie bombing. The bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 killed 270 people, mostly American.
At first, US intelligence blamed Iran, claiming it used an Arab terrorist group based in Syria to carry out the operation.
So Syria was under pressure too, but then in 1990 Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and Washington needed the Syrians as allies. Suddenly, the Iran-Syria case was abandoned and the new suspect was Libya. [RB: As Rolfe has more than once pointed out, there are real difficulties with this explanation.]
Libya, under Muammar Gadaffi, was an enemy of the West, so new evidence was found linking Libyan intelligence agents to the attack.
Gadaffi was brought to heel and Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was tried by an international court and sentenced to life in prison. [RB: The court was a Scottish one although it sat in the Netherlands.]
Alas, the new "evidence" was then gradually discredited as key "witnesses" turned out to be incredible.
In 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission said it would refer Al Megrahi's case to the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh (the Libyan was being held in a Scottish prison) because he "may have suffered a miscarriage of justice".
To avoid all this coming out into the open in a new trial, Al Megrahi was released in 2009 and sent home on the grounds that he was a dying man and wouldn't last three months (he's still alive).
If Western intelligence agencies played this kind of game over the Lockerbie bombing, what's to stop them from doing the same over Hariri's murder?
Hizbollah and its Christian and Druze allies now dominate the Lebanese government and are seen as a threat to Israeli and US interests.
The Middle East is a hotbed of conspiracy theories, mostly implausible, but maybe this one is real.
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
"I am desperate for the truth of the matter to come out..."
[This is the heading over an item posted yesterday on the Lallands Peat Worrier blog, following the publication of the official report of the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee's most recent consideration of the Justice for Megrahi petition. The discussion was as follows:]
The Convener: PE1370 is on justice for Megrahi. I refer members to the clerks' paper and invite comments from the committee.
Nanette Milne: I find this to be a difficult petition to deal with. There is an option to get an update from the Scottish Government on its plans for legislation regarding the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Beyond that, however, I think that the committee has gone as far as it can with the petition. I know that I have been a bit reluctant to refer petitions to subject committees, but this is clearly one to refer to the Justice Committee.
Sandra White: It is an extremely important petition on a subject that people have various views on. It could be controversial, but I think that it is an honest petition that is seeking the truth. I was not a member of the previous session's committee, which deliberated on the petition. Would it be sufficient for the Public Petitions Committee to ask the Scottish Government to open an inquiry, or would it be better to send the petition to the Justice Committee with the recommendation that the Government pursue an inquiry? My problem is that I do not want it to get hidden in the Justice Committee stuff and not come back out again.
Kevin Stewart: I agree that the petition should go to the Justice Committee. As a new member of Parliament, I should probably declare an interest in that I may have signed the petition—I am not quite sure. If I did not, I probably did not see it, otherwise I would have signed it. It is a matter for the Justice Committee and we should allow that committee to have a clear look at it.
The Convener: I should have mentioned that Jim Swire and Robert Forrester are present. I thank them for the comprehensive work that they have done on the petition and for referring us to the interview with Gareth Peirce, "The Quiet Storm", which made fascinating reading.
Bill Walker: I am desperate for the truth of the matter to come out. It is fundamental that the truth come out, and we should do everything that we can to help it to come out. I agree with Kevin Stewart that the petition should go to the Justice Committee, although I was a bit concerned when Sandra White said that it might get buried in that committee's paperwork. The terrible events happened a long time ago so we must get to the truth sooner rather than later. Let us not let the Justice Committee bury it.
The Convener: I cannot make any predictions about other committees, but given Christine Grahame's interest in the matter, I would be extremely surprised if the petition did not have a high profile in the Justice Committee.
John Wilson: You said it, convener. The interest of the new convener of the Justice Committee in the matter will do the petition justice and ensure that the issues that have been raised are examined. The previous Public Petitions Committee tried to deal with the petition although it came to the committee late in the previous session. However, the responses that we have received and the further evidence that has been submitted by the petitioners indicate that the matter is for the Justice Committee to consider. The petition raises a number of concerns about who takes responsibility for what decisions in relation to the process of appeals within the Scottish criminal justice system, so I would be happy to see it passed on to the Justice Committee.
The Convener: If no member wishes to make any further comment, we will move on. It is agreed that we will refer the petition to the Justice Committee under rule 15.6.2?
Members indicated agreement.
The Convener: PE1370 is on justice for Megrahi. I refer members to the clerks' paper and invite comments from the committee.
Nanette Milne: I find this to be a difficult petition to deal with. There is an option to get an update from the Scottish Government on its plans for legislation regarding the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Beyond that, however, I think that the committee has gone as far as it can with the petition. I know that I have been a bit reluctant to refer petitions to subject committees, but this is clearly one to refer to the Justice Committee.
Sandra White: It is an extremely important petition on a subject that people have various views on. It could be controversial, but I think that it is an honest petition that is seeking the truth. I was not a member of the previous session's committee, which deliberated on the petition. Would it be sufficient for the Public Petitions Committee to ask the Scottish Government to open an inquiry, or would it be better to send the petition to the Justice Committee with the recommendation that the Government pursue an inquiry? My problem is that I do not want it to get hidden in the Justice Committee stuff and not come back out again.
Kevin Stewart: I agree that the petition should go to the Justice Committee. As a new member of Parliament, I should probably declare an interest in that I may have signed the petition—I am not quite sure. If I did not, I probably did not see it, otherwise I would have signed it. It is a matter for the Justice Committee and we should allow that committee to have a clear look at it.
The Convener: I should have mentioned that Jim Swire and Robert Forrester are present. I thank them for the comprehensive work that they have done on the petition and for referring us to the interview with Gareth Peirce, "The Quiet Storm", which made fascinating reading.
Bill Walker: I am desperate for the truth of the matter to come out. It is fundamental that the truth come out, and we should do everything that we can to help it to come out. I agree with Kevin Stewart that the petition should go to the Justice Committee, although I was a bit concerned when Sandra White said that it might get buried in that committee's paperwork. The terrible events happened a long time ago so we must get to the truth sooner rather than later. Let us not let the Justice Committee bury it.
The Convener: I cannot make any predictions about other committees, but given Christine Grahame's interest in the matter, I would be extremely surprised if the petition did not have a high profile in the Justice Committee.
John Wilson: You said it, convener. The interest of the new convener of the Justice Committee in the matter will do the petition justice and ensure that the issues that have been raised are examined. The previous Public Petitions Committee tried to deal with the petition although it came to the committee late in the previous session. However, the responses that we have received and the further evidence that has been submitted by the petitioners indicate that the matter is for the Justice Committee to consider. The petition raises a number of concerns about who takes responsibility for what decisions in relation to the process of appeals within the Scottish criminal justice system, so I would be happy to see it passed on to the Justice Committee.
The Convener: If no member wishes to make any further comment, we will move on. It is agreed that we will refer the petition to the Justice Committee under rule 15.6.2?
Members indicated agreement.
Monday, 4 July 2011
US wants Lockerbie bomb deal
[Yesterday's Mail on Sunday story has been picked up in a report in today's edition of The Sun. It reads as follows:]
America wants Libyan rebels to capture the Lockerbie bomber two years after he was freed - so he can face justice in the States, it was claimed yesterday.
The secret deal between President Barack Obama and Libyan rebel leaders would see Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, 59, detained by opposition troops and then handed to US Special Forces.
Americans and families of the plane bomber's victims were outraged after the Scottish Government freed him on "compassionate grounds". He seemingly only had three months to live with cancer.
That decision sparked worldwide fury. Now Mr Obama wants Megrahi to face trial in the US in exchange for continued US support of Libyan rebel forces.
A White House insider yesterday said: "If he's found guilty here, he faces life in jail without parole." [RB: I would be interested to learn on what legal basis the White House insider believes that Megrahi could be tried again in the United States.]
Megrahi bombed a Heathrow to New York flight above Lockerbie in 1988, killing 270.
He is said to be living in good conditions in Tripoli.
Meanwhile, Libya's rebel leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil - Colonel Gaddafi's ex justice minister - said the Mad Dog could retire peacefully on Libyan soil if he quits and agrees to international supervision.
America wants Libyan rebels to capture the Lockerbie bomber two years after he was freed - so he can face justice in the States, it was claimed yesterday.
The secret deal between President Barack Obama and Libyan rebel leaders would see Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, 59, detained by opposition troops and then handed to US Special Forces.
Americans and families of the plane bomber's victims were outraged after the Scottish Government freed him on "compassionate grounds". He seemingly only had three months to live with cancer.
That decision sparked worldwide fury. Now Mr Obama wants Megrahi to face trial in the US in exchange for continued US support of Libyan rebel forces.
A White House insider yesterday said: "If he's found guilty here, he faces life in jail without parole." [RB: I would be interested to learn on what legal basis the White House insider believes that Megrahi could be tried again in the United States.]
Megrahi bombed a Heathrow to New York flight above Lockerbie in 1988, killing 270.
He is said to be living in good conditions in Tripoli.
Meanwhile, Libya's rebel leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil - Colonel Gaddafi's ex justice minister - said the Mad Dog could retire peacefully on Libyan soil if he quits and agrees to international supervision.
Sunday, 3 July 2011
Maltese shopkeeper offered ‘unlimited funds’ for Lockerbie testimony
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Independent on Sunday. It reads as follows:]
Former Lord Advocate Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC has admitted that new documents show Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, whose evidence was the cornerstone in convicting Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie disaster did receive payment for his testimony.
The issue has been a hot potato for years and while American authorities insist that witnesses were never paid, the former law chief who led the Lockerbie bombing probe hit out after a leaked report claimed key witness Gauci had been paid £1.2million to testify.
In recent comments to The Scottish Sun, Lord Fraser said: “I have to accept that it happened. It shouldn’t have and I was unaware of it. It is obviously unacceptable in the biggest case of mass murder ever carried out in Europe.”
He added that he had warned Scottish investigators at the time that offering bribes to witnesses would be “unacceptable”.
But a documentary aired recently on Al Jazeera, Lockerbie: The Pan Am Bomber, has revealed papers claiming Gauci was offered “unlimited funds” before he was paid.
The claims are made in findings from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which insists there is evidence of a mistrial, findings which had led convicted bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi to launch an appeal against his conviction. The appeal was ditched two years ago when al-Megrahi was released from jail suffering from cancer.
The report was kept under wraps until now, despite the efforts of the SNP to release them.
The findings, which rely heavily on diary entries by retired Strathclyde Police detective Harry Bell, also say Gauci’s brother Paul received £600,000, despite not testifying.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission report says Scottish police applied to US authorities for reward cash after the trial and “substantial payments were received by both Tony and Paul Gauci after the appeal”.
Tony Gauci became the key witness as clothes from the suitcase that carried the bomb on Pan Am flight 103 - which killed 270 in 1988 - were traced back to his shop in Malta.
In addition to the payment of the Maltese witness for testimony, the Commission had previously found several other problems with the evidence on which al-Megrahi had been convicted.
Mr al-Megrahi’s appeal had been granted after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found the reliability of Maltese evidence used to convict the former Libyan intelligence agent of carrying out as highly questionable and recommended he be granted an appeal.
Al-Megrahi had been convicted largely on the basis of evidence supplied by Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci of Mary’s House Tower Road Sliema. In his evidence Mr Gauci had identified Al-Megrahi as the purchaser of articles of clothing and an umbrella found in the suitcase - placed on an Air Malta flight and transferred to the Pan Am flight in Frankfurt - containing the bomb.
The Commission, however, found “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House, took place on 7 December 1988”, an argument that had sealed the indictment against Al-Megrahi.
The Commission noted that although it had been proven Al-Megrahi had been in Malta on several occasions in the month in question, it was determined through new evidence submitted that 7 December 1988 was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to make the purchases from Mary’s House.
New evidence in the Commission’s hands at the time, not heard at the trial, concerned the date on which Christmas lights had been illuminated in Sliema near Mary’s House which, taken together with Mr Gauci’s evidence at trial and the contents of his police statements, indicates the purchase of the incriminating items had taken place before 6 December 1988 – when no evidence had been presented at trial to the effect that the applicant was in Malta before 6 December.
Yet more new evidence given to the Commission indicates that Mr Gauci, four days before the identification parade at which he picked out Al-Megrahi, had seen a photograph of Al-Megrahi in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.
The Commission found Mr Gauci’s exposure to the photograph, so close to the date of the identity parade, “undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself”.
Former Lord Advocate Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC has admitted that new documents show Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, whose evidence was the cornerstone in convicting Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie disaster did receive payment for his testimony.
The issue has been a hot potato for years and while American authorities insist that witnesses were never paid, the former law chief who led the Lockerbie bombing probe hit out after a leaked report claimed key witness Gauci had been paid £1.2million to testify.
In recent comments to The Scottish Sun, Lord Fraser said: “I have to accept that it happened. It shouldn’t have and I was unaware of it. It is obviously unacceptable in the biggest case of mass murder ever carried out in Europe.”
He added that he had warned Scottish investigators at the time that offering bribes to witnesses would be “unacceptable”.
But a documentary aired recently on Al Jazeera, Lockerbie: The Pan Am Bomber, has revealed papers claiming Gauci was offered “unlimited funds” before he was paid.
The claims are made in findings from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which insists there is evidence of a mistrial, findings which had led convicted bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi to launch an appeal against his conviction. The appeal was ditched two years ago when al-Megrahi was released from jail suffering from cancer.
The report was kept under wraps until now, despite the efforts of the SNP to release them.
The findings, which rely heavily on diary entries by retired Strathclyde Police detective Harry Bell, also say Gauci’s brother Paul received £600,000, despite not testifying.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission report says Scottish police applied to US authorities for reward cash after the trial and “substantial payments were received by both Tony and Paul Gauci after the appeal”.
Tony Gauci became the key witness as clothes from the suitcase that carried the bomb on Pan Am flight 103 - which killed 270 in 1988 - were traced back to his shop in Malta.
In addition to the payment of the Maltese witness for testimony, the Commission had previously found several other problems with the evidence on which al-Megrahi had been convicted.
Mr al-Megrahi’s appeal had been granted after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found the reliability of Maltese evidence used to convict the former Libyan intelligence agent of carrying out as highly questionable and recommended he be granted an appeal.
Al-Megrahi had been convicted largely on the basis of evidence supplied by Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci of Mary’s House Tower Road Sliema. In his evidence Mr Gauci had identified Al-Megrahi as the purchaser of articles of clothing and an umbrella found in the suitcase - placed on an Air Malta flight and transferred to the Pan Am flight in Frankfurt - containing the bomb.
The Commission, however, found “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House, took place on 7 December 1988”, an argument that had sealed the indictment against Al-Megrahi.
The Commission noted that although it had been proven Al-Megrahi had been in Malta on several occasions in the month in question, it was determined through new evidence submitted that 7 December 1988 was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to make the purchases from Mary’s House.
New evidence in the Commission’s hands at the time, not heard at the trial, concerned the date on which Christmas lights had been illuminated in Sliema near Mary’s House which, taken together with Mr Gauci’s evidence at trial and the contents of his police statements, indicates the purchase of the incriminating items had taken place before 6 December 1988 – when no evidence had been presented at trial to the effect that the applicant was in Malta before 6 December.
Yet more new evidence given to the Commission indicates that Mr Gauci, four days before the identification parade at which he picked out Al-Megrahi, had seen a photograph of Al-Megrahi in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.
The Commission found Mr Gauci’s exposure to the photograph, so close to the date of the identity parade, “undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself”.
US tells Libya rebels: Capture the Lockerbie bomber for us
[This is the headline over a report published today on the Mail Online website. It reads in part:]
A dramatic mission to capture the freed Lockerbie bomber from Libya and return him to face justice in the United States was revealed last night.
Under a secret deal between Barack Obama and Libyan rebel leaders, Abdelbaset Al Megrahi would be detained by opposition troops and then handed over to US Special Forces.
Senior Congressional sources in Washington have disclosed to The Mail on Sunday that President Obama has told the Libyan rebels through intermediaries that a condition of continued support from the US is that they must hand over Megrahi if they enter Tripoli.
The mission would involve Megrahi being flown to a neutral Arab country by US Special Forces once he is handed over by the rebels, and then on to America to face trial. [RB: Megrahi has already faced trial and been convicted -- wrongly, in my view -- in a process supported by the United States. He could not be tried again in the USA unless Federal Law were changed to allow it.] British SAS soldiers are unlikely to be directly involved in the operation.
The plan to capture the bomber came after US Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder last week to demand the US ‘continue working to return Abdelbaset Al Megrahi to prison’.
Mr Menendez has amended a Congressional Bill authorising the continued use of force in Libya to include a paragraph ordering ‘the continuation of Federal investigations into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103’.
Congressional sources disclosed that the US will ‘grab’ Megrahi as soon as they can.
A dramatic mission to capture the freed Lockerbie bomber from Libya and return him to face justice in the United States was revealed last night.
Under a secret deal between Barack Obama and Libyan rebel leaders, Abdelbaset Al Megrahi would be detained by opposition troops and then handed over to US Special Forces.
Senior Congressional sources in Washington have disclosed to The Mail on Sunday that President Obama has told the Libyan rebels through intermediaries that a condition of continued support from the US is that they must hand over Megrahi if they enter Tripoli.
The mission would involve Megrahi being flown to a neutral Arab country by US Special Forces once he is handed over by the rebels, and then on to America to face trial. [RB: Megrahi has already faced trial and been convicted -- wrongly, in my view -- in a process supported by the United States. He could not be tried again in the USA unless Federal Law were changed to allow it.] British SAS soldiers are unlikely to be directly involved in the operation.
The plan to capture the bomber came after US Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder last week to demand the US ‘continue working to return Abdelbaset Al Megrahi to prison’.
Mr Menendez has amended a Congressional Bill authorising the continued use of force in Libya to include a paragraph ordering ‘the continuation of Federal investigations into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103’.
Congressional sources disclosed that the US will ‘grab’ Megrahi as soon as they can.
Was Lockerbie Key Evidence Antedated?
[This is the heading over an article, with illustrations, published yesterday on the Canada Free Press website by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer. It reads in part:]
Q Well, I understood you to tell us that these were contemporaneous notes that you prepared as you were carrying out your examinations; is that right?
A Yes. But presumably our definitions of “contemporaneous” are different.
—Testimony of Dr Hayes at the Lockerbie trial, Page 2592.
The discovery of a tiny fragment of a Swiss timer played an essential role in the Lockerbie investigation. In fact, according to the FBI agent who led the US part of the investigation, an indictment would have been impossible without that piece of evidence.
We can now reveal with certainty that this piece of evidence was not discovered in May 1989 as officially stated but in fact surfaced in the fall of 1989.
According to the official line, DC Gilchrist and DC McColm found, on 13 January 1989, a piece of charred material which was given the police number PI/995.
The original inscription on the label was “Cloth (charred)”. The word ‘cloth’ has been overwritten by the word ‘debris’. [illustration omitted]
Q Now, when we magnify the photograph of the label, Mr. Gilchrist, we can see, can we not, that it has been altered?
A I can see writing underneath it.
Q Exactly. And if we look carefully at the writing underneath the word ”debris,” we can make out, can we not, the word ”cloth,” with the C being under the D, the L under the E, an O under the B of ”debris,” and a T under the R, and a H under the S?
A It’s possible, yes, sir.
Q It’s more than possible, Mr. Gilchrist. It’s perfectly obvious, isn’t it?
A Yes.
Q Well, why didn’t you mention this alteration during your examination in chief, Mr. Gilchrist, when you read out the label to us?
A I didn’t notice it. It’s the first time it’s been brought to my attention.
The judges concluded that “There was no satisfactory explanation as to why this was done, and DC Gilchrist’s attempts to explain it were at worst evasive and at best confusing."
According to his examinations notes, Dr Hayes examined this item on May 12 1989 and, after dissection of the material described as part of the neckband of a grey shirt, he extracted a fragment of a green colored circuit board. [illustration omitted]
There is something very peculiar about PI/995. In his report, Dr Hayes presents photos 116 and 117 as pictures of PI/995 before and after its dissection that led to the discovery of the MEBO timer. [illustrations and some text omitted]
Therefore it is rather obvious that PI/995 could not have been dissected before October 10 1989. And the key piece of evidence that led the investigation towards Libya could not have surfaced before that date.
The US investigators (FBI) were told about it for the first time on January 10 1989. [RB: Dr De Braeckeleer asks me to say that this is a typo that appears in the original. The correct date is January 10, 1990.]
The consequence is inescapable and indisputable. The key piece of “evidence” surfaced between October 10 1989 and January 10 1990. For some reason, this finding was antedated to May 12 1989.
Why would anyone antedate a genuine piece of evidence?
Q Well, I understood you to tell us that these were contemporaneous notes that you prepared as you were carrying out your examinations; is that right?
A Yes. But presumably our definitions of “contemporaneous” are different.
—Testimony of Dr Hayes at the Lockerbie trial, Page 2592.
The discovery of a tiny fragment of a Swiss timer played an essential role in the Lockerbie investigation. In fact, according to the FBI agent who led the US part of the investigation, an indictment would have been impossible without that piece of evidence.
We can now reveal with certainty that this piece of evidence was not discovered in May 1989 as officially stated but in fact surfaced in the fall of 1989.
According to the official line, DC Gilchrist and DC McColm found, on 13 January 1989, a piece of charred material which was given the police number PI/995.
The original inscription on the label was “Cloth (charred)”. The word ‘cloth’ has been overwritten by the word ‘debris’. [illustration omitted]
Q Now, when we magnify the photograph of the label, Mr. Gilchrist, we can see, can we not, that it has been altered?
A I can see writing underneath it.
Q Exactly. And if we look carefully at the writing underneath the word ”debris,” we can make out, can we not, the word ”cloth,” with the C being under the D, the L under the E, an O under the B of ”debris,” and a T under the R, and a H under the S?
A It’s possible, yes, sir.
Q It’s more than possible, Mr. Gilchrist. It’s perfectly obvious, isn’t it?
A Yes.
Q Well, why didn’t you mention this alteration during your examination in chief, Mr. Gilchrist, when you read out the label to us?
A I didn’t notice it. It’s the first time it’s been brought to my attention.
The judges concluded that “There was no satisfactory explanation as to why this was done, and DC Gilchrist’s attempts to explain it were at worst evasive and at best confusing."
According to his examinations notes, Dr Hayes examined this item on May 12 1989 and, after dissection of the material described as part of the neckband of a grey shirt, he extracted a fragment of a green colored circuit board. [illustration omitted]
There is something very peculiar about PI/995. In his report, Dr Hayes presents photos 116 and 117 as pictures of PI/995 before and after its dissection that led to the discovery of the MEBO timer. [illustrations and some text omitted]
Therefore it is rather obvious that PI/995 could not have been dissected before October 10 1989. And the key piece of evidence that led the investigation towards Libya could not have surfaced before that date.
The US investigators (FBI) were told about it for the first time on January 10 1989. [RB: Dr De Braeckeleer asks me to say that this is a typo that appears in the original. The correct date is January 10, 1990.]
The consequence is inescapable and indisputable. The key piece of “evidence” surfaced between October 10 1989 and January 10 1990. For some reason, this finding was antedated to May 12 1989.
Why would anyone antedate a genuine piece of evidence?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)