Lockerbie bombing fabrication sealed Gaddafi's fate

[T]he Libya campaign was preceded by a years-long propaganda war that had prepared our domestic populations well for the eventuality of the 'evil dictator's' downfall. And perhaps it was the infamous Lockerbie bombing, which more than any other fabrication that sealed Gaddafi's fate (though at the time, Iran was the preferred culprit, accused by yet another defector).[1]

1. "A man claiming to be a senior Iranian intelligence service defector has said that Iran, not Libya, masterminded the Lockerbie bombing." -- 'Iran blamed for Lockerbie bomb', BBC News, 5 June 2000

[The above is an excerpt from an article by William Bowles published yesterday on the Global Research website and also today here on The 5th Estate website.]

SNP has no justification for Criminal Cases legislation

[This is the headline over an item published today on the ToryHoose website, which describes itself as providing "fresh thinking for Scottish conservatism".  The relevant portion reads as follows:]

The Scottish Government has published the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill. The bill seeks to resolve the sentencing anomaly which surrounds mandatory life sentences, and to try and force the disclosure of information relative to the Al-Megrahi case. (...)

When commenting on the Scottish Government’s attempts to provide more transparency on the Al-Megrahi case, [Scottish Conservative Justice Spokesman, David McLetchie MSP] said:

"The Scottish Government states that it ‘does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Al-Megrahi’. That being the case it is difficult to see the justification for this legislation. If any information is to be released then it should be all the medical evidence as to why the SNP Government set a mass murderer free, something it has consistently refused to do.”

[When I saw the headline over this story, I naively anticipated Tory recognition that (a) the Bill is unnecessary since all that it will do could equally have been achieved by secondary legislation (a Statutory Instrument) and (b) the Bill's provisions are so circumscribed and restrictive that no information that matters will ever be released by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission under it.  Silly me!  These are Scottish Tories we are talking about. Expecting them ever to identify the true issue on any Scottish topic of importance is utterly futile.  That is why they have become an irrelevance on the Scottish political scene.]

Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill

This Bill, Part 2 of which relates to the terms upon which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission can release information in cases where it has referred a case to the High Court of Justiciary but the resulting appeal has been abandoned, was introduced into the Scottish Parliament on 30 November 2011 and published on the Parliament's website this morning.  The Bill can be read here, the relevant provisions to be found in sections 3 and 4.

The Bill is accompanied by a policy memorandum.  The portions of this document that relate to SCCRC disclosure are paragraphs 4, 50 to 59, 62 to 65, 67 and 74 to 77.  Also published are explanatory notes relating to the Bill.  The relevant portions of this document are paragraphs 4, 18 to 45 and 52 to 61.

As I anticipated here and here when such a Bill was announced in the Scottish Government's Programme for Government 2011-2012, the provisions of the Bill relating to SCCRC disclosure are a complete waste of Parliamentary time. The conditions attached to release of information are so restrictive that no useful information relating to the Megrahi case will be forthcoming. Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

The Scottish Government's press release on the Bill can be read here and the BBC News report based on it here.  Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has this afternoon published on its website a news item headlined “Restrictive” Megrahi Bill “a complete waste of Parliamentary time”.

Council will not back down over Megrahi

[What follows is the text of a report published today on the website of the Barrhead News, a newspaper circulating in East Renfrewshire:]

East Renfrewshire Council will not back down as pressure from Washington to extradite the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, looks set to grow. 

A legal clash between Washington and East Renfrewshire Council could hold up efforts to bring Megrahi before an American court.

East Renfrewshire will do what it can to make certain that the condition that has been agreed with Megrahi and the Libyan Government is not breached.

One report suggests that if the US Government was allowed to succeed in its plan that it would breach his conditions, therefore the case would have to be referred to the Parole Board of Scotland who would decide how to deal with the matter.

[It is comforting to learn that East Renfrewshire Council appreciates where its duty lies.  Would that the same could be said of the Scottish and United Kingdom governments on this matter.]

Law change may reopen Lockerbie bomb inquiry

[This is the headline over a report (not featured on the newspaper's website) in today's Scottish print edition of The Times. It reads in part:]

Legislation that permits the retrial of suspects comes into force today and could trigger fresh developments in the Lockerbie case.

Under the reform the principle of double jeopardy, which prevents a person being tried twice for the same crime, will be enshrined in law but will permit exemptions.

Crown Office sources have confirmed that they are ready to examine the case of Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, who in 2001 was found not guilty of blowing up Pan Am flight 103.

Mr Fhimah's defence argued successfully that the case against him amounted to "inference upon inference".

Over the summer Scottish prosecutors interviewed the Libyan defector Moussa Koussa, Colonel Gaddafi's former foreign minister. It is understood that he was asked a series of questions about Mr Fhimah.

The key changes in the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act were backed unanimously by MSPs in March.

A second trial will be permitted in very serious cases where, after an acquittal, "compelling new evidence" emerges to "substantially strengthen" the case against the suspect. The measures will also allow a suspect to face retrial on a more serious charge if the victim has died since the original trial.

The principle of double jeopardy dates back more than 800 years. "the law needed to be modernised to ensure that it is fit for the 21st century and I am delighted this day has come," said Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's Justice Secretary.

Robert Black, a professor of Scottish law at Edinburgh University said that he would be "astounded" if prosecutors sought to re-indict Mr Fhimah.

"The Crown Office is just as aware as the rest of us are that the astonishing thing about the Zeist trial was not the acquittal of Fhimah but the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi," he wrote in his blog. 

"Any new evidence that has emerged since 2001 points clearly towards the innocence of the accused Libyans rather than their guilt, as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission amongst others has pointed out." 

[This story now features in a news item in the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm headlined Professor challenges Crown Office spin over Pan Am 103 double jeopardy retrial.]

Fhimah retrial speculation on abolition of double jeopardy rule

[The following are excerpts from a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday:]

Prosecutors are examining whether to reopen a series of “double jeopardy” cases which could lead to some of Scotland’s most notorious unsolved murders being brought back to court.

The 800-year-old law of double jeopardy will be radically overhauled tomorrow, ending the rule which prevents an accused being tried twice for the same crime. (...)

Officials declined to specify which cases could be among those coming back to court, but they are likely to include the so-called “World’s End” murders of Christine Eadie and Helen Scott from 1977. Other cases believed to be at the top of the list include the prosecution and acquittal of Libyan al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah for the Lockerbie bombing (...)

The reform could also trigger fresh developments in the Lockerbie case, which remains active, amid speculation that Fhimah, who was found innocent of the atrocity, could be prosecuted once again. (...)

[T]he reforms, which come into force tomorrow, will ensure that a second trial can take place where “compelling new evidence emerges to substantially strengthen the case against the accused”. A second trial may also be allowed to proceed where there is evidence that the first trial was “tainted”. An example might be where a witness was found to have been intimidated into supporting the accused.

Furthermore, if after acquittal the accused admits having committed the offence, the Crown Office will be permitted to have a second trial. (...)

A Crown Office spokeswoman said: “The Solicitor General for Scotland, Lesley Thomson QC, has been asked by the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, to review and prioritise cases which may be prosecuted anew under the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill.”

She added: “It is too early to say which cases would be considered, nor would we speculate on how any particular cases will be dealt with under the change to the law of double jeopardy in Scotland.”

[I would be astounded if prosecutors sought to re-indict Lamin Fhimah.  The Crown Office is just as aware as the rest of us are that the astonishing thing about the Zeist trial was not the acquittal of Fhimah but the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi.  Any "new evidence" that has emerged since 2001 points clearly towards the innocence of the accused Libyans rather than their guilt, as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission amongst others has pointed out.]

US bid to extradite Lockerbie bomber raises prospect of David and Goliath battle between Washington and Scottish local council

[This the headline over a report in today's edition of the Daily Mail.  It reads in part:]

US efforts to extradite the Lockerbie bomber face an unlikely challenge - from a local council in Scotland. 

A transatlantic legal clash between Washington and East Renfrewshire Council could scupper efforts to bring Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi before an American court. 

Earlier this month, the Scottish Daily Mail revealed the US government had begun legal moves to extradite 59-year-old Megrahi, who is suffering from prostate cancer and may not have long to live.

But yesterday it emerged that East Renfrewshire Council – which has responsibility for ensuring Megrahi does not breach his licence conditions following his release from Greenock Prison more than two years ago – is likely to challenge the move.

A spokesman for East Renfrewshire said Megrahi would breach his licence conditions if he disappeared from his Tripoli home and was no longer easily contactable.

His comments raised the prospect of a David and Goliath battle between the council and the American authorities. 

The spokesman said: 'It would be treated in the same way as anyone else in this position – if they are no longer at the address we have for them, then there could be a breach. 

'That would be referred to the Parole Board for Scotland and they would decide how to deal with it.'

If Megrahi were extradited, he would no longer be at his Tripoli residence, where East Renfrewshire Council officials are required by law to contact him periodically, thus triggering a breach of his licence. (...)

Last night, legal expert Professor Robert Black, who believes Megrahi is innocent, said: 'I don’t think the US government would be worried in the slightest about the licence breach.

'It has never concerned itself with international legality and never will. Quite simply, if America thinks it’s right, it’s right – it does what it wants and won’t care about legal issues.

'But if a US extradition was attempted which caused a breach of his licence conditions, then the UK Government should act.

'The Foreign Office should intervene – but, of course, with the "special relationship", it’s unlikely that will happen. 

'It’s far more likely that the UK Government wouldn’t say anything about it. That would be disgraceful.'

The National Transitional Council in Libya has said it 'doesn't care' what happens to Megrahi. Last night, a US State Department source said there were communications concerning Megrahi with Libyan officials.

The US source added that the capture in the past few days of Gaddafi's son Saif and of Abdullah al-Sanussi, former Libyan chief of internal security, had powerful implications for Megrahi's future. Both are set to stand trial in Libya.

A Scottish Government spokesman said it did not comment on hypothetical scenarios but added: 'Scotland’s Justice Secretary granted compassionate release to Megrahi according to the due process of Scots Law.

'The fact remains that Megrahi has a  terminal illness, is an extremely sick man dying of prostate cancer and continues to abide by the terms of his release licence. 

'There has been no breach of licence conditions and therefore the issue of recall does not arise.'

Terrorists on Trial: The Lockerbie Case

[This was the title of a seminar held at The Hague on 23 November 2011. The principal speakers were Judge Howard Morrison (Judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia); Scottish QC Paul McBride; and investigative journalist and Lockerbie author Ian Ferguson. The Sun newspaper yesterday published an article about Paul McBride "leading debate" at the seminar. In the audience were Lockerbie relatives Dr Jim Swire and Rev John Mosey. The comments that follow were provided by Dr Swire after the seminar.]

Colin Boyd, (who was Lord Advocate at the time of the trial) had been invited, and had accepted, but apparently declined to come when he heard that I would be there!  Nice story anyway.

I liked McBride, we got on well, and he simply spouted old material on a Powerpoint set of slides provided to him by the Crown Office. He was not 'leading the debate', and had no fire in his belly I felt. We did not clash at all.

There were of course significant contributions from the floor.

The main discussion was supposed to centre on the consequences for communities served by the criminal justice system used. I was able to point out that:

1.)  The Zeist set up was indeed theatrical and designed to encourage press and TV attendance, while the use of the 'relatives' lounge at Zeist by members of the prosecution team (never the defence) to groom American relatives into believing that they were hearing the truth emerging, and that 'the bastards who did this are going to go down for a very long time' has seriously damaged relations between the British and many of the US relatives.

2.)  In the context of the effect on regimes I amplified a point raised by Hague research fellow, Dr Beatrice de Graaf concerning the question of the effect on the regimes which had hosted the real terrorists, ie Iran and Syria. Did the academics present think that absolution from accusation over Lockerbie might have emboldened those regimes through making them feel that the US would not retaliate against them? Could this, I asked have contributed to the position the world now finds itself in, where Iran has long range rockets, is on the brink of nuclear capability and has openly threatened to destroy America's protege Israel, while Assad in Syria seems to feel he can turn whatever force he likes upon his own people and not be stopped by the West.

But my main function there was to get to know the academics, judges, members of the ICC etc, and to distribute copies of the Davina Miller paper to them.  I made sure that Paul McBride took one with him. [RB: The Davina Miller paper is an article to be published in the December 2011 issue of the journal Defence & Security Analysis. A synopsis of the article appears here (at pages 75 to 77 of the PDF document.]

Good may come of this.

Certainly a bevy of people some much younger than I am are now motivated to carry on raising questions, even if something should happen to me. 

Lockerbie raised in the House of Lords

[Two days ago I posted an item based on a news agency report about a question and answer on Lockerbie in the House of Lords.  The full Hansard report of the exchange is now available.  It reads as follows:]

Asked By Lord Selkirk of Douglas:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will continue to make representations to the National Transitional Council of Libya to make available any evidence in their possession concerning the attack on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 to the Lord Advocate and the Scottish police to assist their investigation.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): My Lords, the Government will continue to support the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary's investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. We will approach Libya's newly formed transitional Government about getting the Dumfries and Galloway police back to Libya at the earliest opportunity to take forward their investigations. The National Transitional Council chairman, Abdul Jalil, has assured my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that the new Libyan authorities will co-operate with the UK on this and other ongoing investigations.

Lord Selkirk of Douglas: While I welcome the Minister's statement, does he believe that the recent capture of Colonel Gaddafi's intelligence chief, Abdullah al-Senussi, and of the intelligence archives in Tripoli, may finally provide the vital information that would assist the Lord Advocate with his ongoing inquiries? I ask this question as one of the two former Ministers who were at the crime scene within a few hours and who met some of the relatives shortly afterwards. In order to bring closure to the families of 270 victims, is it not highly desirable that they should learn from any new evidence exactly what happened 23 years ago, and precisely what the background was to this monstrous crime?

Lord Howell of Guildford: Yes, it is desirable and yes, indeed, it was the most monstrous crime. We are seeking confirmation from the Libyan Government regarding the reported detention of Abdullah al-Senussi. We have been clear that no effort should be spared in bringing him to justice. Al-Senussi's arrest, if confirmed, would offer an opportunity to uncover the truth behind some of the former regime's dreadful crimes. As I just said, the Government will continue to support the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary's investigation into the bombing. We would want any new evidence to be made available to it and indeed to the Lord Advocate. I am confident that the new Libyan Government will act in accordance with Chairman Jalil's commitment to co-operate with the UK on this and other investigations, and bring closure to the concerns and misery of the families of the victims.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it would also shed light on this matter if the report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission were published in full, so far as is possible?

Lord Howell of Guildford: Of course, there has been the report of Sir Gus O'Donnell. It has been placed in the Library and it was fully discussed when it was produced some weeks ago. Further light needs to be shed on this and I am confident that, with the full assistance of the new Libyan Government, we will get the papers and the evidence to show exactly what was said and by whom.

Lord Empey: My Lords, can the Minister tell us that in addition to pursuing the issue of Lockerbie, the Government will rigorously and vigorously pursue the issue of compensation for all UK victims who were damaged by weapons supplied to the IRA by the Gaddafi regime and that the Government themselves will lead those negotiations rather than leaving them to third parties?

Lord Howell of Guildford: At present we are looking at all possible options with the Libyan Government to get a resolution on the legacy issues, including this one, which is certainly a very high priority. It is very early days for the new Libyan Government as they have only just been appointed, but we want to see a broad proposal for embracing questions of compensation, reconciliation and, indeed, investment in Northern Ireland. We are trying to develop a broad approach with, and led by, the Libyan Government.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is utterly natural and inevitable that parliaments the world over should seek to have as much light as possible cast upon the perpetrators of the Lockerbie bombing? However, technically speaking, a request should be made formally by the Scottish Parliament themselves-bearing in mind, of course, the transfer of jurisdiction in relation to that. As for this Parliament, could the same principle not also apply to casting light upon those who were responsible for the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher?

Lord Howell of Guildford: On the second point about WPC Yvonne Fletcher, that is most certainly so. We are in touch with the Metropolitan Police about reopening their investigations into the perpetrators of that hideous crime. On the former question, the decision was made by the devolved Scottish Government and it is a matter for them to pursue. We have indicated that the Government in London will give full assistance to the devolved Government in pursuing their inquiries.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform us about the state of health of Mr Al Megrahi, who was released by the Scottish authorities on the grounds that he had only six months to live?

Lord Howell of Guildford: We have passed a request from the devolved Administration to the Libyan chargé d'affaires in London asking that the supervision arrangements of Al Megrahi's licence are observed. Part of the investigation by the Dumfries and Galloway police will also embrace the question of his condition, but we are awaiting the precise details of his health from the Libyan Government now.

Lord Selkirk of Douglas: Does the Minister accept that the Lord Advocate has put in a formal request to the National Transitional Council and that a statement has been issued by the Crown Office to the effect that the trial court of Mr Al Megrahi accepted that he did not act alone?

Lord Howell of Guildford: I am not sure that I can comment on my noble friend's second point, but it is certainly correct that the Lord Advocate has put in a formal request, and indeed has made that absolutely clear to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. We are collaborating closely on this.

Libya may investigate Lockerbie

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman.  It reads as follows:]

The new Libyan government may run its own investigation into the Lockerbie bombing, once unseen documents emerge, the country’s interior minister said yesterday.

The ousting of Muammar al-Gaddafi has presented an opportunity to bring to light thousands of documents lying in the coffers of the institutions of the former regime.

The papers may contain evidence that could finally bring to justice those responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, an atrocity in which 270 people died.

Fawzi Abdul Aal, appointed to the role of interior minister on Tuesday, said: “If there are new documents on Lockerbie, we will start an internal investigation. It may be possible to re-open the case and show the truth. My desire is to show the truth.”

However, Mr Aal refused to commit to making any documentation public.

“This is a complicated issue … the decision of whether to reveal the documents must come from the Cabinet,” he said. “This is an issue that affects America and Britain, and Scotland, and the decision must come from other powers, not just the ministry.”

There were conflicting reports yesterday that Gaddafi’s intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi, who is thought to have been behind the Lockerbie bombing, had been captured.

The Libyan Transitional Council announced this week that rebel brigades had captured Senussi in southern Libya.

But members of the local brigades cast doubt on the announcement. “We are in the area where he is, we are searching house-to-house but he has not yet been found,” said one fighter.

International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said in Tripoli yesterday he did not believe Senussi had been captured.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, thought to have been recruited by Senussi, was jailed for the atrocity in 2001 but was released in 2009 on compassionate grounds after being given three months to live. He is still alive.

Tripoli mission for Lockerbie police

[This is the headline over a report by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald.  It reads as follows:]

Scottish detectives could soon be in Tripoli to sift through undisclosed evidence that might shed new light on the Lockerbie bombing, 23 years after Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity took place.
   
Members of the House of Lords were told yesterday that the UK Government was “collaborating closely” with Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland’s request to Libya’s National Transitional Government (NTC) for evidence relating to the 1988 terrorist attack – which theoretically raises the prospect of a new trial – and, in addition, its ministers were seeking an update on the health of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. During the recent uprising, he was said to be at “death’s door”.

During questions in the upper chamber, Lord Howell, the Foreign Office Minister, said: “The Government will continue to support the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary’s investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. We will approach Libya’s newly formed transitional Government about getting the police back to Libya at the earliest opportunity to take forward their investigations. The NTC chairman, Abdul Jalil, has assured the Prime Minister that the new Libyan authorities will co-operate with the UK on this and other on-going investigations.”

Lord Selkirk of Douglas asked if the recent capture of Colonel Gaddafi’s intelligence chief, Abdullah al Senussi, and the intelligence archives in Tripoli “may finally provide the vital information which will assist the Lord Advocate with his ongoing inquiries”.

The Conservative peer, who was a Scottish Office minister at the time of the bombing, asked that in order to bring closure to the families of the 270 victims was it “not highly desirable that they should learn from any new evidence exactly what it was that happened 23 years ago and, precisely, what was the background to this monstrous crime”.

Lord Howell said: “Senussi’s arrest, if confirmed, would offer an opportunity to uncover the truth behind some of the former regime’s dreadful crimes.”

Meanwhile, the Scottish Government has said Megrahi could not be extradited to the US because it would breach the conditions of his licence. [RB: This is true, of course, but I was not aware that the Scottish Government had actually said so.]

Hope for Lockerbie bombing truth

[This is the headline over a report published this evening on the Herald Scotland website from The Press Association news agency.  It reads in part:]

The reported capture of the man thought to be behind the Lockerbie bombing gives the UK an opportunity to discover the truth about some of the crimes of the former Libyan regime, a Foreign Office minister says.

Lord Howell of Guildford said that no effort should be spared in bringing former intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi to justice.

At question time in the House of Lords, Lord Selkirk of Douglas [RB: formerly Lord James Douglas-Hamilton], a former Scotland minister who was on the scene of the Lockerbie bombing within hours of it taking place, said the capture of Al-Senussi and intelligence archives could "finally provide the information that would assist the Lord Advocate with his ongoing inquiries". (...)

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, thought to have been recruited by Al-Senussi, was jailed for mass murder in 2001 but was returned to Tripoli in 2009 on compassionate grounds after doctors treating him for prostate cancer gave him an estimated three months to live. He is still alive.

Conservative peer Lord Selkirk asked Lord Howell: "In order to bring closure for the families of the 270 dead victims, is it not highly desirable that they should learn from any new evidence exactly what it was that happened 23 years ago and precisely what was the background to this monstrous crime?"

Lord Howell replied that the Government was seeking "confirmation" about Al-Senussi's "reported detention".

"We have been clear that no effort should be spared in bringing him to justice," he said.

"Abdullah al-Senussi's arrest, if confirmed, would offer an opportunity to uncover the truth behind some of the former regime's dreadful crimes.

"The Government will continue to support the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary's investigation into the bombing. We would want any new evidence to be made available to them and to the Lord Advocate."

Answer to PQ about extradition of Megrahi to USA

[On 11 November 2011 Christine Grahame MSP tabled a written question.  Here is the question and the answer:]

Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (Scottish National Party):  To ask the Scottish Executive whether the (a) Cabinet Secretary for Justice or (b) Lord Advocate had received any communication from the (i) US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, (ii) Home Office or (iii) interim Libyan government concerning proposals to extradite Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi to the USA. (S4W-04021)

Mr Kenny MacAskill:  The Scottish Government have not received any communication from the United States Government, the Libyan National Transitional Council or the Home Office, concerning proposals to extradite Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi to the USA.

[If Mr Megrahi were to be extradited to the United States, this would place him (without any voluntary action on his part) in breach of the terms of the licence under which he was released from his Scottish life sentence. I understand that in the new Libyan cabinet announced yesterday Mohammed al-Alagi remains justice minister.  He has in the past said that there was no question of any such extradition.]

Abdullah al-Senussi and Lockerbie

[The following is an excerpt from a report in today's edition of The Herald:]

Muammar Gaddafi’s brother-in-law and spymaster general was dramatically captured yesterday, just a day after the dictator’s son Saif was caught, in what were dubbed the “last acts” of a now-extinct regime.

Having both men in custody will boost hopes that they will reveal what they know about the Lockerbie bombing and other atrocities. 

The last stand of intelligence chief Abdullah al Senussi came as Libyan rebels insisted they would try Saif rather than transfer him to International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague. Unlike the ICC, it is expected a Libyan court would have the power to impose the death penalty, and officials in the interim government yesterday indicated that was the punishment they would seek.

It is likely the rebels will also push for the death penalty for al Senussi, long known as Gaddafi’s brutal right-hand man and a hate figure for many in the country. (...)

A decade ago he was convicted in his absence in France of the 1989 bombing of a UTA passenger plane over Niger which killed 170 people. As a former head of the country’s intelligence services he is likely to face pressure to reveal what he knows about the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, in which 270 people in died the worst terrorist atrocity over UK soil.

[A similar report in The Scotsman can be read here.  The following appears in a post of 17 May 2011 on this blog:]

In the 1980s, he headed Libya's external security organisation, in which capacity he was said to have recruited Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, in which 270 people were killed. Like Megrahi, Senussi is a member of the powerful Megarha tribe. He is also a cousin of Abdel-Salam Jalloud, one of Gaddafi's oldest comrades.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and Lockerbie

[The following are excerpts from an article in today's edition of The Sunday Telegraph:]

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was his father's favourite son. Until the start of the Libyan revolution, he was also feted by the West, as the arch-moderniser who would supposedly guide the oil and gas rich north African country along the path of democracy.

He was influential in his father's decision to give up weapons of mass destruction that brought Libya in from the cold in 2004 and helped to negotiate the release of the Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish jail in 2009.

Saif's extensive contacts included the Duke of York, Tony Blair and Lord Mandelson.  (...)

By about 2002, he was becoming a regular visitor to London and within a year is said to have fixed up a meeting between the Libyan regime and MI6 that would lead to Libya's public abandonment of its nuclear and chemical weapons programme, paving the way for Tony Blair to embrace Muammar Gaddafi in his Bedouin tent in March 2004 – the now infamous "deal in the desert". (...)

He was hugely influential in controlling the Libyan Investment Authority, the sovereign wealth fund with billions of pounds to spend in the UK and elsewhere.

The fund was used as leverage to secure the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan intelligence agent convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

Saif and others let it be known that if al-Megrahi died of cancer in a British jail, then all business deals with the UK would be cancelled. Saif was entrusted with accompanying Megrahi back to Tripoli for a hero's welcome.

[An article written by Saif in The New York Times about this supposed "hero's welcome" can be read here.

A report in The Sunday Times (behind the paywall) contains the following:]

His trial could prove deeply embarrassing if he chooses to reveal details of his once-cosy relations with British politicians including Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson, the former business secretary.

Mohammed al-Alagi, Libya’s interim justice minister, said yesterday that Gadaffi will be placed on trial in Libya and faces the death penalty.

With little to lose, Gadaffi may decide from his desert prison in Zintan to spill the beans on business deals and political promises made to the regime over the past decade.

Blair, who was described by Gadaffi Jr as a close personal friend of the family, may face searching questions if Gadaffi goes ahead and reveals the secrets of their deals including oil contracts and the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber.

Gadaffi was his father’s point man on the settlement of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 which killed 270 people. His detailed knowledge of the negotiations that involved British diplomats and Musa Kusa, his father’s chief of intelligence, could prove explosive. The questions of who knew what, and who did what, have never been answered.(...)

Blair, Prince Andrew, Mandelson and the Rothschild banking family are among those who could be cited by Gadaffi in court.

They were among Establishment figures who courted him in the belief that Libya would pursue a reformist agenda while lucrative business contracts were on the agenda. Among the secrets he could unlock are the machinations that may have gone on under the former Labour government ahead of the release of Megrahi.

Gadaffi Jr greeted Megrahi’s flight from Glasgow to Tripoli when he was freed by the Scottish authorities on “humanitarian” grounds in August 2009. [RB: Saif did not greet the flight.  He was on board it.] Megrahi is still alive even though doctors claimed he would die within three months from cancer.

The release happened after Blair’s notorious “deal in the desert” with Muammar Gadaffi paving the way for multi- million-pound oil contracts with Shell and BP.

Gadaffi Jr claimed that the former prime minister acted as a consultant to the Libyan Investment Authority, the country’s sovereign wealth fund. Blair vehemently denies this. However, he has visited Libya at least six times since leaving office.

Five meetings with Muammar Gadaffi took place in the 14-month period prior to Megrahi’s release. On at least two occasions Blair flew on a private jet paid for by Gadaffi. But he denies influencing the Scottish government’s decision to free the Lockerbie bomber.

Just a week before Megrahi’s release, Mandelson discussed his case with Gadaffi Jr while on holiday at a villa in Corfu owned by the Rothschilds. Mandelson later met Gadaffi at a shooting party at Waddesdon Manor in Buckinghamshire, the Rothschild family seat.

[The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on Saif al-Islam Gaddafi (footnotes omitted):]

He was also negotiating with the United States in order to conclude a comprehensive agreement making any further payments for American victims of terror attacks that have been blamed on Libya – such as the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing, the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and the 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombing – conditional upon U.S. payment of compensation for the 40 Libyans killed and 220 injured in the 1986 United States bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi. On 14 August 2008, the U.S.-Libya Comprehensive Claims Settlement Agreement was signed in Tripoli. Former British Ambassador to Libya Oliver Miles described the agreement as "a bold step, with political cost for both parties" and wrote an article in the online edition of The Guardian querying whether the agreement is likely to work.

In an August 2008 BBC TV interview, Saif Gaddafi said that Libya had admitted responsibility (but not "guilt") for the Lockerbie bombing simply to get trade sanctions removed. He further admitted that Libya was being "hypocritical" and was "playing on words", but Libya had no other choice on the matter. According to Saif, a letter admitting "responsibility" was the only way to end the economic sanctions imposed on Libya. When asked about the compensation that Libya was paying to the victims' families, he again repeated that Libya was doing so because it had no other choice. He went on to describe the families of the Lockerbie victims as "trading with the blood of their sons and daughters" and being very "greedy": "They were asking for more money and more money and more money".

Interviewed by French newspaper Le Figaro on 7 December 2007, Saif said that the seven Libyans convicted for the Pan Am Flight 103 and the UTA Flight 772 bombings "are innocent". When asked if Libya would therefore seek reimbursement of the compensation paid to the families of the victims (US$2.33 billion), Saif replied: "I don't know." Saif led negotiations with Britain for the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the convicted Pan Am 103 conspirator.