Libya confirms support for proposed neutral venue trial

[On this date in 1998 Dr Jim Swire and I were in Libya. During our discussions in Cairo on 16 April 1998 at the headquarters of the Arab League, it was suggested that it would be useful for us to make a visit to Tripoli. This we did. What follows is from a press release issued following that visit:]

A meeting to discuss issues arising out of the Lockerbie bombing was held in the premises of the Libyan Foreign Office in Tripoli on the evening of Saturday 18 April 1998. Present were Mr Abdul Ati Obeidi, Under-Secretary of the Libyan Foreign Office; Mr Mohammed Belqassem Zuwiy [or Zwai], Secretary of Justice of Libya; Mr Abuzaid Omar Dorda, Permanent Representative of Libya to the United Nations; Dr Ibrahim Legwell, head of the defence team representing the two Libyan citizens suspected of the bombing; Dr Jim Swire, spokesman for the British relatives group UK Families-Flight 103; and Professor Robert Black QC, Professor of Scots Law in the University of Edinburgh and currently a visiting professor in the Faculty of Law of the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.

At the meeting, discussion focused upon the plan which had been formulated in January 1994 by Professor Black for the establishment of a court to try the suspects which would: operate under the criminal law and procedure of Scotland; have in place of a jury an international panel of judges presided over by a senior Scottish judge; and, sit not in Scotland but in a neutral country such as The Netherlands.

Among the issues discussed were possible methods of appointment of the international panel of judges, and possible arrangements for the transfer of the suspects from Libya for trial and for ensuring their safety and security pending and during the trial.

Dr Legwell confirmed, as he had previously done in January 1994, that his clients agreed to stand trial before such a court if it were established. The representatives of the Libyan Government stated, as they had done in 1994 and on numerous occasions since then, that they would welcome the setting up of such a court and that if it were instituted they would permit their two citizens to stand trial before it and would co-operate in facilitating arrangements for that purpose.

Dr Swire and Prof Black undertook to persist in their efforts to persuade the Government of the United Kingdom to join Libya in accepting this proposal.

Unfulfilled hopes

[On this date in 2000 an article headlined Dr Jim Swire: My hopes was published on the BBC News website. It reads as follows:]

Since the Lockerbie disaster, Dr Jim Swire has led a high-profile campaign for justice on behalf of UK relatives. Here, he explains his motivation and reveals what he hopes the trial will achieve.

My daughter, Flora wanted to fly to the US to spend Christmas with her American boyfriend.

The week before Christmas is a busy time for transatlantic flights. Twenty-four hours before the fatal flight, Flora was able to get a seat - on Pan Am Flight 103.

Why was that, and why was the 103 only two-thirds full that night?

Our group has sought truth and justice throughout the last 11 years since our loved ones perished so horribly.

We want to know why the intelligence warnings were ignored, why UK aviation security was so inept that its head, who had seen a warning about a bomb in a tape recorder specifically designed to work in the hold of an aircraft in-flight, actually informed his staff, just before Lockerbie, that if they were unsure about a tape recorder: "Any device about which a searcher is unable to satisfy himself/herself must, if it is to be carried in the aircraft, be consigned to the aircraft hold."

No explanation or apology has been forthcoming, for this or for the apparent torpor of the intelligence services.

All attempts to persuade the Conservative Government to hold an objective inquiry were dismissed, even though the doomed aircraft "Maid of the Seas" had been loaded from empty, (and therefore the bomb itself had been loaded) at Heathrow Airport, under the "Host State Protection" of the UK.

Indictments issued

In November 1991, the UK and US Governments suddenly issued indictments against two named Libyans, claiming that there was no evidence for the involvement of any other country, and demanding their immediate surrender for trial in the UK or US.

In 1971, the Libyans, the UK and the US had all been parties to the Montreal Convention, which stated that under these circumstances the accused could be tried under the law of their own country, that is Libya.

I am two-thirds Scottish and my daughter died in Scotland. I wanted the accused tried under Scottish law, with its excellent reputation for impartiality.

Against the background of such demands at international level, and the existence of such a treaty, it seemed very unlikely that an independent state, such as Libya, would ever comply.

It was difficult as a small-town GP in England to see what could be done, but with the help of an Egyptian journalist, Nabil Nagemeldin, who was able to arrange the logistics, I decided I must try to persuade Libya to allow her citizens to be tried under Scots law.

Sealed letters

I had to see Colonel Gaddafi. Leaving sealed letters with a solicitor, in case I could not return, I found myself finally making the nerve-racking trip down the concrete path to the colonel's tent in Tripoli.

I shall never forget that dark cold December night. Fear sharpens the senses.

Unfortunately, his aides did not allow me to bring in my briefcase which contained one or two small presents for him, so my opening gambit was, that while I was very grateful to him for agreeing to see me, I thought he must be almost as scared of me as I was of him.

After that the briefcase was brought and the ice was broken.

The Arabs have a rich tradition of courtesy to travellers, which was honoured that night. The colonel was determined that I should hear that he believed that his citizens were innocent and that he did not know how the disaster had been caused.

His adopted daughter had been killed in the 1986 bombing of Tripoli by the US, and he agreed that in the preserved ruined bedroom, where she had been mortally wounded, a photograph of her and of Flora should be put up side by side, with the message beneath in Arabic and English: "The consequence of the use of violence is the death of innocent people."

So far as I know it is still there.

West sanctions

As I left he allowed me to pin a badge to his robe. It read "Pan Am 103 - the truth must be known".

Western demands remained, and were backed by Security Council sanctions. The Libyans could not try the two because the West would not supply them with the evidence.

In January 1994 Professor Robert Black QC, a native of Lockerbie, had proposed a trial under Scottish criminal law, but in a neutral country. In addition he proposed that such a court have a panel of judges instead of a jury.

Under Scottish law, jurors should not come to a case having already formed opinions as to the guilt or innocence of those upon whom they are to give a verdict.

Where would 15 such Scots be found after the media coverage of the preceding years?

Professor Black had also obtained the agreement of the Libyans to such a solution. With the refusal of the US or UK Governments to consider such a "neutral country" trial, in April 1998 Prof Black and I decided to lobby internationally for support of his proposal.

Cairo trip

With the help of loyal friends we flew to Cairo and obtained the support of HE Esmat Abdel-Meguid, secretary-general of the League of Arab States.

The Organisation of African Unity had gone as far as to threaten to break Security Council sanctions imposed on Libya, unless the west found a solution to the Lockerbie deadlock.

With this encouragement we visited Libya again and obtained renewed and stronger support from both Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyan People's Congresses for the "neutral country" trial solution.

The following month, May 1998, I met Donald K Bandler, special adviser to President Clinton, and member of the National Security Council at the Whitehouse in Birmingham, England.

When asked why the US still refused to consider the concept of a "neutral country trial", his reply was that the Libyans "would never hand them over".

Change of government

Following the 1997 general election in the UK, the new foreign secretary, Robin Cook, while initially taking the line that a neutral country trial was not possible under Scots law, met our group and, with tremendous support from President Nelson Mandela, (who had been lobbying the UK Government during the Conservative years also), had the grace to agree to promote this solution.

How he and Prime Minister Tony Blair persuaded America to join them I do not know.

One piece was missing: the venue itself. That missing piece was supplied by the Netherlands.

The Dutch Government, in line with its magnificent past record in support of international justice, offered a choice of possible sites.

In the end Zeist was chosen to become Scottish territory for the duration of the criminal proceedings.

There remained the delicate task of clearing up remaining difficulties raised by the Libyan defence team.

'Fair verdict'

This was entrusted to the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and his team led by Hans Corell, legal counsel to the UN.

Our group has always worked for truth and justice and now we expect to see Scottish criminal justice deliver a fair verdict on the guilt or innocence of two individuals.

After that is done many questions will still remain unanswered.

In December 1998, for the first time since the disaster, a British prime minister (Tony Blair) met us to discuss these issues.

He supported the need to follow up any new avenues opened up by the trial.

He also said that "we had thought that the Lockerbie situation was set in stone and then we heard the voice of the relatives".

I think Flora would have been proud to hear that and that it goes some way to atone for the fearful price that this campaign has exacted from all of us.

That price for me includes the loss of my medical partnership together with much of my pension rights.

But it has also revealed the loyalty of my wife Jane, who has understood that this was something I had to do. Any alternative would have been infinitely worse.

Others in our group have suffered likewise Some have died from stress-related diseases.

Despite all that, we shall still be seeking truth and justice after this trial is over - those we loved were too important for their fate to be pushed under any political carpet.

'Criminal investigation'

The verdict of this court on the guilt or innocence of these two accused will however have removed one of the most potent weapons used to frustrate our search for the truth - the mantra: "You can't have an inquiry because it might impinge on the criminal investigation."

Other major international political issues also hang upon the verdict. Perhaps this unprecedented legal solution may help point the way for future victims of international crime.

Despite deliberations stretching all the way back to Nuremburg, there is still no satisfactory route for the trying of those accused of international terrorist crimes such as Lockerbie.

President Mandela has said that no one country should be complainant, prosecutor and judge.

I would be proud if this trial contributes to fair and just resolution of future terrorist cases.

'This is a sensible compromise solution, accept it'

[On this date in 1998 Dr Jim Swire and I had a meeting in Cairo with Dr Esmat Abdel-Meguid, the Secretary-General of the Arab League. What follows is a report on the meeting:]

The Scottish lawyer Robert Black said on the 16th of April in Cairo after the talks with Abdel Maguid, that his latest proposal to end a dispute between Libya, Britain and the United States over the trial of two Libyan suspects in a 1988 airliner bombing would be his last. Black gave no details on the modifications in the more recent proposal. But he said there was “fine-tuning” to make it more acceptable to the British and Americans.

“What we are hoping for is that continued pressure on these two governments will cause them to see the error of their ways,” Black said.

Robert Black told a news conference he was “51 percent sure” the Libyans would accept the modified proposal. He would not give details, but Black and Swire are suggesting the suspects be tried under Scottish law in a neutral venue by an international panel of judges, without a jury. But Robert Black, a legal expert advising the victims' families, said there was little hope the United States would accept the proposal, although international pressure might succeed in winning Britain's support. “One simply has to give up on the American government,” Black said. “They are unmovable.”

“It's now plain that the United States and the United Kingdom as far as I know are the only two nations in the civilised world which are not saying 'this is a sensible compromise solution, accept it',” Black said after meeting the head of the Cairo-based Arab League. “What I am hoping is that the United Kingdom can see the error of its ways if it is given an opportunity marginally to save face. They have to find a solution. If this proposal does not work, then I suspect that this may very well be the end of the line.

“I can't very well go on drafting scheme after scheme, that are accepted by one side but rejected outright by the other. All three are going to have to accept something with which they are not 100% happy in order for there to be a compromise,” he said. "If they are prepared to do that then there is a remote possibility of progress. But I wouldn't put it above saying there is a slight chance. But any chance is better than no chance."

Swire slammed the British government for not moving fast enough to end the crisis. “For six years, I have been waiting for the men charged with the brutal murder of my daughter to be put on trial but on March 20, the permanent representative of my country in the United Nations was busy telling the Security Council that the sanctions they imposed on Libya were not working.

“Why have you kept us waiting for six years when they are not working? They are demolishing the thing they invited us to depend on and if that doesn't make you angry, then it should.”

Jim Swire, who acted as representative for British victims of the bombing, said Abdel-Meguid would pass the new proposal to the Libyans.

[RB: Just over four months later the UK and US governments finally accepted the solution of a Scottish court sitting in a neutral country.]

UN sanctions against Libya

On this date in 1992 United Nations sanctions against came into effect against Libya for failing to hand over Megrahi and Fhimah for trial in the United Kingdom or the United States, as the Security Council had ordered in Resolution 731 (21 January 1992). The sanctions imposed pursuant to Resolution 748 (31 March 1992) required UN member states to 

(a) deny permission for any Libyan aircraft to take off from, land in or overfly their territory if it had taken off from Libyan territory, excluding cases of humanitarian need;

(b) prohibit the supply of aircraft or aircraft components or the provision or servicing of aircraft or aircraft components;

(c) prohibit the provision of weapons, ammunition or other military equipment to Libya and technical advice or training;

(d) withdraw officials present in Libya that advise the Libyan authorities on military matters;

(e) significantly reduce diplomatic and consular personnel in Libya;

(f) prevent the operation of all Libyan Airlines offices;

(g) deny entry or expel Libyan nationals who had been denied entry or expelled from other states for terrorist activities.

These sanctions were greatly extended by Security Council Resolution 883 (11 November 1993). The sanctions were suspended when the suspects arrived for trial in the Netherlands in April 1999 and were finally lifted in 2003 after the Libyan “acceptance of responsibility” letter and payment of compensation to the families of the victims.

Anniversary of US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi

It was on the night of 14 April 1986 that United States military aircraft took off from RAF Lakenheath and RAF Upper Heyford on a mission to bomb targets in Tripoli and Benghazi. Operation El Dorado Canyon was ordered by President Ronald Reagan in retaliation for the bombing of the La Belle discotheque in Berlin on 5 April in which two US servicemen were killed and 79 injured. Those who accept that Libya was responsible for the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie twenty months later regard this US operation as supplying the motivation.

The Wikipedia account of the La Belle disco bombing can be read here. Among those who question whether Libya was responsible are former Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky in his The Other Side of Deception (1994 -- the relevant passage can be read here) and William Blum in his Killing Hope (updated to 2008 -- the relevant chapter can be read here).

US hounds accusers over claims of Lockerbie crash cover-up

[This is the headline over an article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard that was published in issue 688 of the Electronic Telegraph on this date in 1997. As reproduced on the website DCDave.com it reads as follows:]

The US Justice Department appears to be waging a campaign of persecution against those who have challenged the official explanation of the Lockerbie disaster.

The FBI has used its immense power to sift through the background of whistle-blowers, investigators, and their employers, searching for vulnerabilities that could be exploited in a criminal prosecution.

The chief targets have been those who allege that the bombing of Pan Am 103, which took 270 lives on Dec 22, 1988, was an Iranian-Syrian plot that exploited a security breach in a bungled CIA operation. The US government says this is a conspiracy theory cooked up by the US Aviation Insurance Group (USAIG), the underwriters for Pan Am, to try to avoid liability for up to $500 million in damages for families of the victims. Both the US and British authorities insist that the bombing was the work of Libyan terrorists.

Insurance disputes of this kind are typically adjudicated in civil court. But the Justice Department began an extremely aggressive criminal investigation of Pan Am's lawyers and insurers. The investigation, begun in 1992, was unable to muster evidence of a conspiracy to obstruct justice in the Lockerbie case. But after broadening the scope of its inquiry the FBI managed to sustain a case of fraud against the former chairman of USAIG, John Brennan. This involved insurance claims over a 1987 crash of a USAir commuter plane. Brennan was convicted in July 1996. He is expected to be sentenced later this month. USAIG has accused the government of engaging in a malicious vendetta.

The Justice Department was less successful in its efforts to destroy Juval Aviv, an expert on terrorism employed by Pan Am's insurers to investigate the bombing. He was acquitted on federal charges of fraud last December after an ordeal lasting more than four years. Aviv, head of a New York security firm, Interfor, was indicted in 1995 for supposedly defrauding a client, General Electric, in a minor security contract involving a fee of $20,683.

But General Electric had never issued a complaint. FBI agents nevertheless visited Aviv's clients demanding files. They were the same agents, Chris Murray and David Edward, who had conducted the Lockerbie investigation. "The whole thing was obviously trumped up in revenge for his role in the Pan Am 103 disaster case," said a juror afterwards.

Aviv has now filed a claim alleging malicious prosecution, violation of constitutional rights, and the launch of a campaign to discredit him "in retaliation for his report to Pan Am".

It was Aviv's report in 1989 that first sketched the outlines of a cover-up. He claimed that a rogue CIA unit had allowed a Syrian drug ring to smuggle heroin on Pan Am flights from Frankfurt to New York. He said this was to gain help in the release of US hostages in Lebanon. But the operation was penetrated by Iranian-backed terrorists who exploited the Pan Am channel to plant a bomb on flight 103.

"Aviv stirred up a lot of trouble, playing on the emotions of the families," said Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of counter-intelligence for the CIA. "He goes around saying that he used to be a member of Mossad, but the office of the Israeli prime minister has written a letter denying it. The man's a fraud."

But documents introduced at his trial paint a more complex picture. An internal FBI memo, marked secret, confirmed his "past association with the Mossad". Other documents corroborated his claim to have served as a security consultant to the FBI, Secret Service and other US agencies. Aviv believes that he was indicted in 1995 to destroy his credibility just as claims of a Lockerbie cover-up were gathering momentum. A film that supported his theories, The Maltese Double Cross, was about to be shown in Britain for the first time. It was never broadcast, but families of the victims had a private screening.

The US embassy in London, joined by the Crown Office, went on the offensive, calling him a "fabricator ... recently arrested in the US for defrauding an American company".

The same treatment was meted out to another source for the film, Lester Coleman, who had worked for the US Defense Intelligence Agency. The embassy said he was "a fugitive from justice, wanted in the US for perjury related to the Lockerbie case and for passport fraud".

Coleman was indicted in 1993, four days before the British launch of his book, Trail of the Octopus - still unpublished in the US - confirming that the American government was indeed running "controlled" heroin deliveries from Lebanon on Pan Am flights out of Frankfurt.

He returned to the US from exile in Sweden last year to clear his name and now awaits trial in New York. The US government's actions clearly indicate that something is amiss in the Lockerbie case. Fabricators are usually ignored, so perhaps it is time to pay closer attention to the charges of Juval Aviv, Lester Coleman, and apostles of the "Syrian Connection".

"It is not us who did that"

[An article published yesterday on the Inquisitr website included a quotation about Lockerbie from Colonel Gaddafi that I was unfamiliar with. It comes from a November 2009 interview carried on the Turkish National Turk website. The exchange reads as follows:]

Q: I know that the Lockerbie case has come to a legal end, but there are people in the United States who would still say, in 2003, Libya accepted responsibility for its officials but it would be wonderful if it was a heartfelt expression of remorse and an apology for what happened. That might help thaw the ice.

A: It was always said that it is not us who did that and they don’t accept the fact that they have a responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing. And all the nonaligned nations used to support the Libyan claim. But we go through the resolutions adopted by … more than 150 countries, both of the resolutions of the Arab League, all of the resolutions adopted by the African Union, all of the organizations … conflict resolutions.

But of course, Americans, Libyans, the whole world express sympathy or regret over such tragedies. No one would be happy over such tragedies, no one would welcome such a tragedy, indeed, of course. Do the American people feel happy, are the American people happy over the killing of the Libyan citizens in 1986? And is the world happy about the Gaza massacre? By the same token none of us are happy over the tragedy of Lockerbie. Up to now, if you visit the house that was bombed in the American raid, you will find a picture of my daughter, a picture of the daughter of Jim Swire, in a frame there, and everybody goes there. Our children are all victims. I mean, these pictures, just to say the fact that we are all fathers of victims.

Moussa Koussa allowed to leave UK

[What follows is excerpted from a report in The Guardian on this date in 2011:]

Families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing have accused the British government of "betrayal" after it allowed Moussa Koussa, the former Libyan foreign minister, to leave the UK to attend an international conference.

Koussa, who defected to Britain at the end of last month, was en route to Doha in Qatar on Tuesday, where an international conference on the future of Libya is to be held with representatives from the Benghazi-based opposition.

He is expected to return to the UK after the conference, but is free to travel as he pleases.

Brian Flynn, the brother of JP Flynn, who died in the 1988 attack and now organises the Victims of Pan Am 103 Incorporated campaign group in New York, said the UK authorities had "crossed a line" by allowing Koussa to attend the conference and thereby suggest he is a peace negotiator rather than, as they believe, a key instigator of the bombing.

"I think the British are being played by him … he has convinced them he can be valuable in this process, but he is not the suave diplomat in the suit sitting on the sidelines, he is one of the key guys who mastermined [the bombing of] Pan Am flight 103," Flynn said.

"He is a stated enemy of the British government. Our feeling is that the British government gave a nod to Lockerbie by questioning him two days before this conference, but that feels disingenuous. The Scottish and American prosecutors on Lockerbie are being betrayed by the politicians and the diplomats. Cameron has been good on Libya, but this sounds an awful lot like Tony Blair is back in charge." (...)

It is understood Koussa spent a week being debriefed by MI6 at a safehouse before being allowed to go free. He was questioned by Dumfries and Galloway police about the 1988 bombing, in which 270 people died, though was he was not a suspect.

William Hague, the foreign secretary, had insisted that Koussa would not be given immunity from prosecution.

He was helped to defect by MI6 after leaving Tripoli for Tunisia on what was initially described as a private visit.

Jean Berkley, co-ordinator of the UK Families Flight 103 group, who lost her 29-year old son Alistair when the Pan Am flight was blown up in mid-air, said she was mystified by the decision to let Koussa travel.

"It is very unexpected," she said. "Is he the basis of a new Libyan opposition, or what? He doesn't seem a very suitable person. Our aim is always to get more of the truth and we want a full public inquiry. Koussa must have some interesting knowledge. It is hard to know what to make of it. We will wait and see and watch with interest." (...)

Koussa's links to the UK go back to the period when he was deputy foreign minister in the mid-1990s and was involved in talks that revealed the Gaddafi regime's past support for the IRA. He was head of Libya's foreign intelligence service in the 1990s – after the Lockerbie bombing. He was also involved in still inconclusive talks about the 1984 murder of Constable Fletcher.

In 2003 he played a pivotal role in talks about surrendering Libya's programme for weapons of mass destruction – the decision which paved the way for Gaddafi's temporary rehabilitation with the west. In 2009 he took part in negotiations over the controversial return home of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.