“We all owe Megrahi a profound apology”

[What follows is the text of an article headlined Swire wants to 'apologise' for Lockerbie verdict that was published in The Sunday Times on this date in 2004:]

[Dr Jim] Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the atrocity, which killed 270 people, said he believes that Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi is innocent and he wants to visit him in prison to offer his sympathy.

Swire was instrumental in establishing the Scottish court in the Netherlands that hosted the Lockerbie trial, believing Megrahi would be found not guilty along with his co- accused Lamen Khalifa Fhima.

While Fhima was acquitted of involvement in the 1988 bombing, Megrahi was found guilty and sentenced to a minimum of 27 years in jail. An appeal against his conviction failed and he is now waiting for a decision by the Scottish criminal cases review commission on whether he can lodge a fresh bid to have his conviction quashed. The commission is an independent body set up in 1999 to consider alleged miscarriages of justice.

Swire said he plans to wait until early next year, when the legal process is completed, before arranging the visit.

“I would like to see him once the appeal process is settled.

I was made aware that if I wanted to see him I could,” said Swire.

“I decided, at this stage, not to because it would be seen as influencing the criminal justice appeal process.

“But I will have no hesitation in apologising to him for the part I played. Sorry is the least I can say. I have a feeling of guilt over what has happened. I played an influential role that the trial should be on neutral ground. I do not feel happy about the verdict that was reached. If he is not guilty, as I believe, then we all owe Megrahi a profound apology.”

Swire, a former GP, is convinced that vital evidence casting doubt on Megrahi’s guilt was never made available. He believes a Palestinian group — acting on behalf of Iran — carried out the atrocity.

“I believe the verdict was unsafe and it will be overturned. I am not convinced of his guilt and there should be a revaluation of the evidence and why the defence did not do justice to the material it had available to it,” he said.

Eddie McKechnie, Megrahi’s lawyer, has agreed to help arrange a meeting between the pair. “My client has been encouraged by these warm words of support and encouragement and is willing to meet Dr Swire and any of the victims’ relatives,” he said.

Megrahi is serving his sentence in solitary confinement at Barlinnie prison in Glasgow. He is to be moved to Greenock prison in December, where he will mix with other prisoners.

The commission can decide whether it is in the interests of justice to refer Megrahi’s case to the Appeal Court. Megrahi is also appealing against the length of his sentence as a breach of his human rights.

Trade sanctions imposed on Libya in the 1980s were lifted earlier this year as a reward for its renunciation of weapons of mass destruction and its admission of responsibility over the Lockerbie bombing.

The now defunct PanAm airline has lodged a £200m claim against Megrahi and the Libyan government.

Lockerbie bombing: This ‘new’ evidence on the atrocity offers no new answers

[This is the headline over an article in today’s edition of The Independent by Kim Sengupta, the paper’s Defence Correspondent. It reads as follows:]

The news that new evidence has been uncovered about the Lockerbie bombing should have raised hopes that the truth about this terrible atrocity may at last be revealed and, at the same time, a shameful miscarriage of justice corrected.

But that is not the case. Little has emerged that is new, and what has emerged is highly questionable. The avenue being taken by the British and American authorities continues to be predicated on the basis that the Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was responsible for the deaths of 270 people, on the plane and at the crash site. But many of those touched by the events believe that his conviction was unjust, and that the authorities are covering up their mistakes.

I saw Megrahi in the winter of 2011 in Tripoli, where he had been sent from his prison in Scotland after being diagnosed with terminal cancer. He was lying in bed attached to a drip, oxygen mask on his skeletal face, drifting in and out of consciousness. The medicine he needed had been plundered by looters in the chaotic aftermath of the fall of the Gaddafi regime; the doctors treating him had fled.

The vengeful pursuit of Megrahi, the feeling that he had escaped justice by failing to die in a cell, persisted among those who were adamant that he was guilty. He was faking his illness, they claimed; there were demands that the post-revolutionary Libyan government should arrest and extradite him.

Megrahi died a few months later. Members of some of the bereaved families, such as Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter, Flora, in the bombing, have long been convinced that his conviction was unsafe. Their appeal to clear his name was turned down by the Appeal Court in Edinburgh three months ago because the law was “not designed to give relatives of victims a right to proceed in an appeal for their own or the public’s interest”.

The campaigners had just cause to have misgivings about what happened to Megrahi. I reported from the specially constituted Scottish court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands where he and his fellow Libyan defendant, Lamin Khalifa Fhimah, were tried. The two men were charged with what amounted to joint enterprise, yet only Megrahi was found guilty. The prosecution evidence was circumstantial and, at times, contradictory. Key prosecution witnesses were shaky under cross-examination. The evidence of a supposedly prime “CIA intelligence asset”, Abdul Majid Giaka, codename “Puzzle Piece”, who turned up in a Shirley Bassey wig in an attempt to hide his identity, was widely viewed as risible. It emerged later that important evidence had not been passed to the defence lawyers.

There was scathing criticism from international lawyers about the proceedings. Professor Hans Köchler, a UN appointed legal adviser, described them as “ inconsistent, arbitrary and a spectacular miscarriage of justice”. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission identified six grounds where it believed “a miscarriage of justice may have occurred”.

So what are the new leads being pursued by the US and Britain? They focus on Abdullah al-Senussi, who was both Muammar Gaddafi’s chief of intelligence and also his brother-in-law, and on Mohammed Masud, a regime agent. Both are being held in prison, on unrelated charges, in Tripoli, by one of Libya’s two rival administrations.

But, in fact, both men have been scrutinised by Lockerbie investigators in the past. Scottish police announced in 2013 that they were looking at information that Masud was in Malta, where prosecutors claimed the bomb was placed on the flight, at the same time as Megrahi. But Fhimah, cleared by the Camp Zeist court, was in Malta as well.

Robert Black, a law professor born in Lockerbie who played a key role in organising the Camp Zeist proceedings, later became convinced that there had been a miscarriage of justice. He warned in 2013 that British officials were trying to retrospectively buttress the case against Megrahi by implicating Masud. “It looks like the Crown Office is trying to shore up the Malta connection, which is pretty weak,” he said.

Some of the impetus for the new inquiry has come from an American documentary, My Brother’s Bomber, by Ken Dornstein, whose brother was among the victims. Most of the information for this came from a former Libyan agent, Musbah Eter, who has implicated both Megrahi and Masud.

Eter, however, has had a chequered life. He was convicted of the bombing of the La Belle nightclub in Berlin in 1986, an attack which prompted Ronald Reagan to bomb Libya, with some of the warplanes flying from British bases. A German TV investigation subsequently revealed that Eter was a CIA “asset”. We do not know why it took him more than two decades to come forward with the Lockerbie information, or what influence his relationship with US intelligence played in this.

Might Masud and Senussi end up in another Camp Zeist-type trial over Lockerbie?  One reason for the Gaddafi regime allowing the extradition of Megrahi and Fhimah  was that it was seeking rapprochement with the West at the time. The current Islamist government in Tripoli is not recognised by the West. During my recent visit to Libya I discovered some in the administration who were very keen for that recognition and the better relations, including investment, it may bring.

So, handing over the two men to Britain and America may not be an impossible scenario in the future. Senussi has already been sentenced to death on other charges and may, indeed, welcome being sent abroad. We may yet see another CIA operative, Eter this time, doing a court turn in a Shirley Bassey wig. It will not, however, bring us nearer to the truth about the Lockerbie massacre.

“Not entirely happy with the evidence against Megrahi”

[It was on this date ten years ago that The Sunday Times published its notorious “an apple short of a picnic” article. Here it is, in its full glory:]

Fraser: my Lockerbie trial doubts

The former Conservative minister described Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper whose testimony was central in securing a conviction against Abdelbasset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, as “not quite the full shilling” and “an apple short of a picnic”.

[Peter] Fraser [Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC], who as Scotland’s senior law officer was responsible for indicting Megrahi, says he is now not entirely happy with the evidence against Megrahi during his trial in 2001 and in his subsequent appeal.

While making clear that this does not mean that he believes Megrahi was innocent of the 1988 atrocity, in which 270 people were killed, Fraser said he should be free to leave Scotland to serve the remainder of his sentence in Libya.

His intervention is the most significant yet in a series of developments that have cast doubt on the safety of the conviction against Megrahi.

Pan Am flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie on December 21, 1988 after an explosion in the cargo hold. Megrahi was sentenced to 27 years following a trial presided over by three Scottish judges in the Netherlands. A condition of his sentence was that he served the full term in Scotland. His co- accused, Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was cleared.

Lawyers acting for the former intelligence officer and head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines have since claimed to have uncovered anomalies suggesting that vital evidence presented at the trial came from tests conducted months after the terror attack. The new evidence is due to be presented in an appeal to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission next year.

Earlier this month it was reported that officials from Britain, America and Libya had met to discuss moving Megrahi back to Libya on the condition that the appeal is dropped.

A key plank in the case against Megrahi was provided by Gauci who claimed that he sold Megrahi clothes that were believed to have been wrapped around the bomb. Fraser said that he believes Gauci was a “weak point” in the case and has expressed concern that he was a “simple” man who might have been “easily led”.

“Gauci was not quite the full shilling. I think even his family would say (that he) was an apple short of a picnic. He was quite a tricky guy, I don’t think he was deliberately lying but if you asked him the same question three times he would just get irritated and refuse to answer,” he said.

“You do have to worry, he’s a slightly simple chap, are you putting words in his mouth even if you don’t intend to?” Fraser said he has been invited to Tripoli to meet Colonel Gadaffi after the Libyan leader learnt of his views but, so far, he has declined.

“I wasn’t particularly impressed with his defence. Their techniques of muddle and confusion can work for a jury but it doesn’t work for three judges,” he said.

Fraser said he believes that Megrahi should now be free to return to his native Libya to see out the remainder of his sentence.

Father of victim says nothing reliable will come out of Lockerbie probe

[This is the headline over a report published in today’s edition of The National. The Rev’d John Mosey, as ever, speaks sound sense on Lockerbie. The article reads as follows:]

The father of a teenage Lockerbie victim yesterday said the new probe will not help “find the truth” after Libyan authorities offered prosecutors the chance to interview suspects.

Musician Helga Mosey was just 19 when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over the Scottish town, killing her and 269 other people in 1988. Now Scottish prosecutors have been invited to Libya to interview two new suspects in the case.

Although the pair have not been officially named, it is understood that they are Mohammed Abouajela Masud and Abdullah al-Senussi.

Both are serving prison terms in Libya, with Masud thought to be serving 10 years for bomb-making and Senussi – the brother-in-law and intelligence chief of former dictator Colonel Gaddafi – on death row.

Jamal Zubair, spokesman for the self-declared National Salvation government which controls much of the country, said authorities would facilitate interviews with the men, telling the BBC: “They can send some investigators, they come here to see those guys and see what they can do.

“Always we are very helpful, we want to talk to people and we want to show what we have.

“We might have more evidence about other people or maybe those guys have more information about something else.”

However, Mosey’s father John has expressed doubt about the development, telling broadcaster West Sound: “I’m not quite sure whether I would accept as genuine or real anything that came out of troubled Libya just at the moment.

“I think that if you spread enough dollars around and make enough promises you could get almost anybody to say almost anything.

“I know that if I was on death row like Senussi is there, I would offer to make any confession they wanted in exchange for a centrally heated cell in Glasgow with Sky TV.”

Though Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who died in 2012, is the only person ever convicted of the atrocity, it was always believed that he did not work alone and Scottish and US investigators announced that two new suspects had been identified last week.

The development follows the screening of a three-part documentary series by American Ken Dornstein, whose brother David died in the atrocity.

He said: “We went in with a list of names that had come from the original investigation, pulled out of the tens of thousands of pages of documents. I established many were dead or missing. “Ultimately, I concluded there may be three people left.”

Speaking about Masud, he added: “Figuring out simply that he existed would solve many of the unanswered questions to the bombing because he was attached to Megrahi according to the best information there was, including at the airport in Malta on the day that the bomb was said to have been infiltrated into the baggage system and ultimately on to Flight 103.”

However, Mosey, from Lancaster, who believes Megrahi was innocent, said: “I don’t think it’s a step forward, I think it’s an effort to delay forward movement.

“The Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission, an independent body, came up with six grounds on which there could have been a miscarriage of justice against Megrahi, who personally I don’t believe was involved at all.

“These are the things that need looking at really, not remote interviews with people that might or might not be involved.

“They need to look at the serious, serious questionings there are about the outcome of the trial, which I attended the whole of.

“I have no confidence that any good will come out of this. I think it’s a blind of some sort to delay facing the real facts.

“There’s certainly no closure for us. We think of our daughter every day and it’s something we carry til the day we die.

“If you mean closure in finding the truth, no I don’t think this is going to bring us any closure at all.”

Mandela, Gaddafi and Lockerbie

[What follows is the text of a report headlined Nelson Mandela visits Libya, embraces Moammar Gadhafi that was published on the CNN website on this date in 1997. It reads as follows:]

South African President Nelson Mandela was shown on Libyan state television embracing Moammar Gadhafi in front of his military barracks home in Tripoli.

Thousands of Libyans gathered in the capital's streets on Wednesday to welcome Mandela, according to official Libyan media monitored in Cairo.

Mandela is on his first presidential visit to the diplomatically isolated North African nation. He has scheduled two days of talks with Gadhafi.

"Mandela is not only South African but he is also a symbol for the peoples of the entire world," Gadhafi was quoted by official media as saying at a late-night dinner for Mandela.

The two leaders were shown punching their fists into the air just before listening to each other's national anthem.

The United States and Great Britain have objected to Mandela's visit, because of Libya's refusal to turn over two suspects in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland that claimed 270 lives.

Mandela drove into Libya from Tunisia, in observance of a United Nations air embargo on Libya over the bombing.

His motorcade stopped at the site of the ruins of a residence of Gadhafi that had been bombed by U.S. warplanes in 1986. He was welcomed to the spot with an honor guard and a band.

Mandela visited Libya in 1990 after his release from 27 years in jail, and 1994, after his election as South Africa's first black leader but before he took office.

"President Mandela is coming to thank the people of Libya for standing by the African National Congress during the years of struggle against apartheid," said Ebrahim Saley, South Africa's ambassador to Tunisia and Libya.

[RB: President Mandela was on his way to Edinburgh for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) held there between 24 and 27 October 1997. This meeting (and a press conference during it involving, amongst others, Dr Jim Swire, Dr David Fieldhouse and me) was a very important milestone on the tortuous path towards a neutral venue Lockerbie trial.]

More Lockerbie errors by Magnus Linklater

[This is the headline over an article posted today by John Ashton on his Megrahi: You are my Jury website.  It reads as follows:]

The following article by Magnus Linklater appears in the Scottish edition of The Times under the headline Lockerbie evidence points firmly in the direction of Libya. Unfortunately, as is so often the case with Mr Linklater’s writing on Lockerbie, it contains numerous distortions and factual errors.

The article follows in italics, interspersed with my comments.

It is time to extinguish the last embers of controversy that have heated the Lockerbie case for so long. For more than two decades critics have argued that Scottish police got the wrong man and that the prosecution of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was — perhaps deliberately — a botched job.

Yet last week, after a long and dogged investigation, the Crown Office announced that it had identified two further suspects, and was asking the government in Tripoli to allow it access to them in prison.

The investigation of the two new suspects was done primarily by Ken Dornstein. The key fact that Ken uncovered (the fact that Megrahi’s alleged associate Abu Agila Mas’ud was a suspect in the La Belle Disco bombing) was missed by the Crown Office for 18 years.

It may not succeed — Libya is in chaos at the moment — but it is clear that enough prima facie evidence has now emerged to perhaps home in on those who planned and helped execute a terrorist attack that killed 270 innocent people 27 years ago.

I agree that there is a prima facie case against Mas’ud, just as there was against Megrahi, and I hope he can be brought to trial. However, the case against him will rely on much of the discredited evidence that convicted Megrahi.

Those who have argued down the years that this line of inquiry is misguided, and that Libya was not responsible, have some hard questions to answer.

No one that I know of has argued that the Crown should not pursue lines of inquiry that point to Libya. Our criticism of the Crown is that it has failed to pursue exculpatory evidence.

Why would the Crown Office still be spending public money and using scarce resources to shore up a case that is — as its critics claim — fundamentally flawed?

One reason might be that, it is a way of keeping at bay the tide of scandal that surrounds Megrahi’s prosecution. Another question, which Mr Linklater fails to ask, is: why is the Crown not using its resources to consider the evidence that points away from Libya, such as the forensic evidence, that shows that the fragment of circuit board PT/35b did not, as the Crown alleged at trial, originate from a timer supplied to Libya by the Swiss company Mebo?

The central accusations that have sustained the conspiracy theorists is that evidence was manipulated by the CIA to accuse Libya rather than Syria or Iran; that information was withheld from defence lawyers representing al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the bombing; and that Scottish judges presided over what they call “the worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history”.

Wrong. The central allegation, which is in the realm of fact, not conspiracy, is that the Crown withheld exculpatory evidence. We also believe that it was a terrible miscarriage of justice, for which the judges must share the blame. On this point, Mr Linklater fails to report that the SCCRC ruled that the trial court judgment was unreasonable.

Ever since, they argue, the Scottish judicial system has connived in an attempt to prevent the truth coming out. Allowing al-Megrahi back to Libya on condition that he dropped his appeal was part of the strategy.

Wrong. It has never been seriously suggested by Megrahi’s mainstream supporters that the Scottish judicial system pressured Megrahi to drop his appeal. The pressure was purely political and came from the Scottish Government and/or the Libyan government.

Why, then, should that same legal process be obstinately nurturing a case that it must, by now, have conceded is wrong-headed? Perhaps, as one of its accusers has alleged, the explanation is sheer stupidity. Or, as another claims, it is desperately trying to cover its tracks by pursuing an empty investigation.

But perhaps it is simply following the evidence, and doing what every family of every Lockerbie victim wants it to, which is trying to get at the truth. The hard facts are that every countertheory, and every alternative thread of evidence, has been examined to distraction, and has led nowhere.

Wrong. The counter evidence relating to PT/35b (and much else) has not been pursued.

The time has come for those who cling to them to accept that the evidence points firmly in the direction of Libya rather than the myriad of misty theories and unsupported allegations on which their case has rested.

Wrong. The primary claims of Megrahi’s supporters are supported by a wealth of hard evidence, the great majority of which was gathered by the Scottish police.

New Lockerbie suspects 'can be interviewed' by investigators

[This is the headline over a report published today on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]

Scottish and American investigators have been invited to travel to Libya to question two new suspects in the Lockerbie bombing.

Mohammed Abouajela Masud and Abdullah al-Senussi were named last week.

The offer to speak to the men came from a spokesman for the National Salvation government in Libya.

It controls the capital, Tripoli, and large parts of the rest of the country, but is not recognised by the international community.

National Salvation government spokesman Jamal Zubair told the BBC: "They can send some investigators, they come here to see those guys and see what they can do.

"Always we are very helpful, we want to talk to people and we want to show what we have.

"We might have more evidence about other people or maybe those guys have more information about something else, might help you." (...)

Both of the newly identified suspects are currently serving prison sentences in Libya, which is in chaos as rival factions fight for control of the country.

Senussi, who was sentenced to death in July, is appealing the verdict. He was the brother-in-law and intelligence chief of former Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi.

Masud is reported to be serving a prison sentence for bomb-making.

Both men were named as possible suspects by an American TV documentary last month.

Documentary maker Ken Dornstein's brother David died in the Lockerbie bombing. (...)

Megrahi's part in the bombing has been called into question in a series of books and documentaries.

Lockerbie evidence points firmly in the direction of Libya

[This is the headline over an article by Magnus Linklater in today’s edition of The Times (subscription). It reads as follows:]

Every countertheory has been examined and has led nowhere

It is time to extinguish the last embers of controversy that have heated the Lockerbie case for so long. For more than two decades critics have argued that Scottish police got the wrong man and that the prosecution of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was — perhaps deliberately — a botched job.

Yet last week, after a long and dogged investigation, the Crown Office announced that it had identified two further suspects, and was asking the government in Tripoli to allow it access to them in prison. It may not succeed — Libya is in chaos at the moment — but it is clear that enough prima facie evidence has now emerged to perhaps home in on those who planned and helped execute a terrorist attack that killed 270 innocent people 27 years ago.

Those who have argued down the years that this line of inquiry is misguided, and that Libya was not responsible, have some hard questions to answer. Why would the Crown Office still be spending public money and using scarce resources to shore up a case that is — as its critics claim — fundamentally flawed?

The central accusations that have sustained the conspiracy theorists is that evidence was manipulated by the CIA to accuse Libya rather than Syria or Iran; that information was withheld from defence lawyers representing al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the bombing; and that Scottish judges presided over what they call “the worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history”.

Ever since, they argue, the Scottish judicial system has connived in an attempt to prevent the truth coming out. Allowing al-Megrahi back to Libya on condition that he dropped his appeal was part of the strategy.

Why, then, should that same legal process be obstinately nurturing a case that it must, by now, have conceded is wrong-headed? Perhaps, as one of its accusers has alleged, the explanation is sheer stupidity. Or, as another claims, it is desperately trying to cover its tracks by pursuing an empty investigation.

But perhaps it is simply following the evidence, and doing what every family of every Lockerbie victim wants it to, which is trying to get at the truth. The hard facts are that every countertheory, and every alternative thread of evidence, has been examined to distraction, and has led nowhere. The time has come for those who cling to them to accept that the evidence points firmly in the direction of Libya rather than the myriad of misty theories and unsupported allegations on which their case has rested.

[RB: Magnus Linklater is profoundly mistaken. The Justice for Megrahi campaign is not advancing “countertheories”. It is drawing attention to grave flaws in the evidence that resulted in the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi and to credible scientific and other evidence that further undermines the case against him. This evidence has been pointed out to Mr Linklater by John Ashton amongst others and he has been challenged to respond. Although promising to do so, he has not. All that he contributes is the assertion that the conviction was correct (because Scottish judges do not make mistakes, perhaps?) and that those who fail to swallow it hook, line and sinker are purblind conspiracy theorists. For Mr Linklater, as far as the Megrahi conviction is concerned all is for the best in the best of all possible legal systems. When the house of cards crumbles, as it assuredly will, Scotland’s Dr Pangloss will be deservedly left hanging his head in shame at his part in defending the indefensible.]

A return to the Lockerbie bombing

[This is the headline over an article published yesterday by Asharq al-Awsat by Abdulrahman al-Rashed, the newspaper’s former editor and now general manager of Al-Arabiya Television. It reads as follows:]

“Twenty-six years have passed . . . It is a very long time. Many people died and stories were forgotten . . . ”

This is also the view of the parents of the victims who died on the Pan Am plane that exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. This crime represents an important landmark in the history of terrorist acts conducted against international civil aviation. Since all the evidence points to Libya and Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, the reopening of the investigations and trial no longer makes sense: Gaddafi, the prime suspect, was killed by his own people, after they rose up against his regime, in October 2011.

Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, the only Libyan who was convicted and imprisoned in connection with the bombing, died of cancer at his home in Tripoli after he was released due to his severe illness one year after the Libyan revolution. The question is, was Megrahi really involved in the crime or was he used as a scapegoat to satisfy international investigators? Up until he was on his deathbed, Megrahi was proclaiming his innocence, insisting that he didn’t have anything to hide. Was he, in the end, also a victim?

Tens of thousands have been killed in Libya since the revolution in 2011. However, no one can give a precise number because, unlike Syria, there are no organizations that are able to monitor and document the events in Libya during these last troubled four years of war. Amid the ongoing chaos in the country, no one should seek to reopen this old wound and hold accountable those who participated in the planning and execution of the bombing of the Pan Am flight, which was heading from London to New York in late 1988. The crime was committed by a regime that was headed by one person, Gaddafi, who is fully responsible for a huge number of crimes in Libya and around the world. But Gaddafi and most of his main aides are now dead. Those who are left are either languishing in prisons or hiding behind local tribal organizations in search of protection. Justice has been served, although many innocent Libyans were falsely tried due to the ongoing disorder in the country.

As a result of the massive destruction and the rising death toll since the Libyan revolution, the Libyan people, who suffered decades of persecution under Gaddafi’s regime, no longer want to talk about the injustice of that era. Moreover, they now have to contend with the various militias and terrorist groups that have replaced Gaddafi’s secret police.

If the goal of reopening the investigations into the Pan Am bombing is to find out whether Megrahi was innocent, or whether there were other governments involved in the planning and execution of the attack, then the move is justified.

However, if the aim is to serve a kind of selective justice, while ignoring the ongoing crisis and murder in Libya today, this will turn into an even greater injustice. Searching for suspects in a crime committed 26 years ago, which stems from a country whose people are calling on the world to help end a tragedy that is still haunting them in the post-Gaddafi era, should be condemned.

A much-needed reality check

[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined Empire where The Sun never sets that was published on the Red Flag Flying website on this date in 2011:]

It seems every time an event of national significance occurs, The Sun is there to put its almighty foot in it with some headline of blinding stupidity. From the hideous ‘Gotcha!’ in response to the arguable war crime of the sinking of the General Belgrano in the Falklands War (a vessel leaving the combat zone), to ‘It’s The Sun wot won it!’ (yes, a tabloid claiming responsibility for the result of a democratic election is a little like proudly owning up to the Omagh bombing), there is always The Sun’s exclusive reductive right-wing trash there to serenade the march of history. (...)

Today’s headline blares ‘That’s for Lockerbie’, accompanied by a picture of a bleeding Colonel Gaddafi. Really? Since when did The Sun laud violence as a solution to political problems? During the tuition fee demonstrations and August riots, they were busily screaming at anyone who took a window, let alone a life (of course, the solution was ‘break all their kneecaps’ or something - the paper has never had a massive problem with hypocrisy.)

As far as Lockerbie goes, it is difficult to imagine how much more of a tenuous link could be made. Professor Robert Black, a Scots law expert, calls the Adelbaset al-Megrahi conviction ‘the most disgraceful miscarriage of justice in Scotland for 100 years’, whilst an independent non-profit thinktank reminds us that ‘all of the Crown’s witnesses in the 36-week trial…have been discredited.’ Assuming for one moment in the absence of much substantive evidence that al-Megrahi was at fault, does that instantly imply Colonel Gaddafi was personally responsible? Not in the slightest.

The headline goes on to refer to Yvonne Fletcher and IRA Semtex victims. It is time for a much-needed reality check. Yes, Gaddafi sold arms to the IRA, and yes, agents of the Libyan regime shot dead a policewoman. We of course assume that selling arms to ‘terrorists’ is wrong, as is shooting people. So where was The Sun when British business was busy selling weapons to the Israeli regime that deploys them against civilians regularly in the Occupied Territories? Where were they when British special forces weren’t merely arming, but training Bahraini forces in the repression of their own people in the midst of the Arab spring? What about the backing for Iraq’s brutal and dirty attack on Iran? The millions dead and millions more displaced in the Iraq War? (Murdoch backed the Iraq War on the grounds it would cheapen oil prices- cutting straight past even a pretence of humanitarianism.)