Confusion over Megrahi interview

[This is the headline over a report by Lucy Adams published this evening on the HeraldScotland website. It reads as follows:]

The Crown Office has written to relatives of victims of the Lockerbie tragedy about allegations the man convicted of the bombing has somehow admitted his guilt.

According to a Reuters interview at the start of the week, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi said: “The West exaggerated my name.” However, newspapers around the globe have quoted this to say that the West exaggerated his role. 

The Crown Office letter to relatives states: “We are aware that Megrahi is reported as having said that his role in the Lockerbie bombing was exaggerated. 

“Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary have been instructed to obtain the whole interview. The translation will be checked for accuracy. As always, we will provide you with more information as soon as it is appropriate to do so and answer as many of your questions as we can.” 

Megrahi, released more than two years ago on compassionate grounds, has consistently denied involvement in the bombing. 

An academic from the University of St Andrews told The Herald yesterday that the translation was different to that reported.

Dina Al Afranji, a teaching fellow at the Arabic department in the School of Modern Languages at the university, said: “In this extract, Megrahi says: ‘I am a very simple man, and the West made a great deal more of me’.”

Reuters stood by its translation of the interview.

Trial by fury…

[This is the heading over an item posted late last night on bensix's Back Towards The Locus blog. It reads as follows:]

It always surprises me how poorly headlines can reflect the facts they purport to digest. I guess it shouldn’t, though. That’s not always their purpose. In yesterday’s Telegraph, for example, I saw the reader-seizing  headline…

Lockerbie bomber: my role in attack has been exaggerated

The Independent plumped for…

My role was exaggerated, says Lockerbie bomber

The implication is that Megrahi admitted to a role in the attack but not as large a one as has been claimed. In its editorial the Scotsman ran with this…

"…what he apparently said was the West 'exaggerated' his involvement – if so, hardly the ringing denial some of his apologists would have hoped for or expected. As has long been suspected, it seems to confirm his involvement at the very least as part of a team rather than a mastermind."

This, however, is the quote we’re given to support this theory…

"The West exaggerated my name."

This sounds ambiguous but the idea that it’s an admission of guilt is premised on a huge assumption. It asserts that he’s been made to seem like somebody he’s not – that, alone, isn’t an admission of anything; it’s merely a denial. The fact that he’s consistently maintained his innocence leads me to feel that if he’d own up to the crime he’d do it less vaguely. (And, besides, if he was complicit I doubt he’d have had a minor role – obviously I don’t know how the man’s brain works but then he could have surely owned up and received a shorter sentence.)

This quote may be relevant…

"In a few months from now, you will see new facts that will be announced."

This might be a reference to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission report, which cast doubt on Megrahi’s prosecution and was set to be released last month.

I’m still drawing no conclusion as to what transpired in December 1988. Clearly, though, I’m a minority there.

'Labour connived to free Lockerbie bomber' says William Hague

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

William Hague has unleashed a fierce attack on the former Labour government, accusing it of "conniving" in the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

He also questioned its moral stance on the international stage, in an unusually harsh critique from a foreign secretary. (...)

Singling out the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, Mr Hague added: "They connived in the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Two years ago we said the decision to release al-Megrahi was wrong, and now the whole world can see that we were right." (...)

Mr Hague's direct attack at Labour's stance on the Lockerbie bomber follows a report written by the country's most senior civil servant, Sir Gus O'Donnell, which concluded that the Labour government did "all it could" to help facilitate the release of Megrahi in 2009.

While there was no evidence to show they had actively lobbied the Scottish Government to free him, Sir Gus concluded there was an "underlying desire" to see him return to Libya.

He said the information showed UK ministers had changed their position on the transfer of Libyan prisoners due to commercial considerations, including lobbying by oil firm BP.

The Libyans have subsequently claimed Megrahi's fate was "on the table" in the infamous "deal in the desert" conducted by Tony Blair and Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi in 2007.

In their defence, Mr Blair and former justice secretary Jack Straw have insisted that their dealings with the former Gaddafi regime helped to persuade him to end his weapons development programme.

He added: "As all the published documentation demonstrates, only the Scottish Government played with a straight bat on this matter."

Waite’s backing

[This is the headline over a short report published today on the HeraldScotland website.  It reads as follows:]

Terry Waite will put his name to Dr Jim Swire’s Justice for Megrahi petition calling for an inquiry into the Lockerbie case and Abdelbaset al Megrahi’s conviction.

The former hostage said the time is right for a case review. 

[The announcement was made in the course of Mr Waite's 2011 SACRO Lecture, delivered last night in Edinburgh.]

Lockerbie bomber’s confession ‘a translation error’

[This is the headline over a report published today (behind the paywall) on the website of The Times.  It reads in part:]

Scottish prosecutors are seeking a copy of an interview with the Lockerbie bomber, in which he appeared to admit that he had played a role in the atrocity.

A spokesman said last night: “We are aware of the interview with [Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi] which was partly broadcast on yesterday’s news. We are also aware that Megrahi is reported as having said in that interview that his role in the Lockerbie bombing was exaggerated.

“Dumfries and Galloway police have been instructed to obtain the whole interview. Once available the translation will be checked for accuracy.”

However, supporters of al-Megrahi claimed yesterday that his apparent admission was a mistranslation.

After the interview, conducted with Reuters news agency from his sickbed in Tripoli, al-Megrahi was widely quoted as saying that his role in the bombing had been “exaggerated”, a word that seemed to suggest that he had been involved in the atrocity. Hitherto he had always protested his innocence.

Robert Black, QC, Professor of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, maintained that the interview had not been translated correctly and that the Arabic word used by al-Megrahi was a different one, which meant to “invent or fabricate” rather than “exaggerate”. [RB: I myself speak no Arabic. I was informed by an Arabic speaker that the word used was "echtera" ( اخترع ) which means "invent, concoct, fabricate".]

Professor Black said: “Far from being a confession, this was actually a vehement denial of any involvement.”

The Reuters news agency, which carried out the interview at al-Megrahi’s home this week, stood by its translation.

The Times, which has studied the original Arabic quoted by Reuters, has established that al-Megrahi used the word “kabbirni” which literally means “made my name bigger” — that is, he meant that the West had made his role seem bigger than it was. Al-Megrahi’s Scottish-based lawyer, Tony Kelly, intervened to warn against interpreting the comments made in the interview as a confession. “He was clearly in some distress and he is on medication, therefore subjecting these comments to any great scrutiny is unfair,” Mr Kelly said.

Al-Megrahi used his first interview in two years to criticise his trial in The Hague, which ended with his conviction for the 1988 terrorist act. He described the proceedings held in the Dutch court under Scots law as a farce and branded prosecutors “liars”.

“The facts will become clear one day, and hopefully in the near future. In a few months from now, you will see new facts that will be announced. The West exaggerated my name. Please leave me alone. I only have a few more days, weeks or months. All my work was administrative. I never harmed Libyans. I didn’t harm anyone. I’ve never harmed anyone in my life,” he said. [RB: Even if "exaggerated" is an accurate translation of the Arabic, this passage does not, on any fair reading, amount to a confession of involvement in the destruction of Pan Am 103.]

Al-Megrahi’s lawyer said that the revelations that al-Megrahi referred to in the interview would be contained in the Libyan’s memoirs, which are due to be published in the near future. The Lockerbie bomber’s autobiography will contain details of the appeal he was planning to make against his conviction. (...)

Al-Megrahi also revealed that one of the relatives of a Lockerbie victim is helping him to secure powerful new drugs that could help prolong his life.

Jim Swire, who lost his daughter, Flora, in the bombing, believes that al-Megrahi is innocent and has offered to help him locate medicine that could help his condition. Dr Swire said: “I don’t believe this man murdered my daughter so I’m happy to help, and as a doctor I can’t discriminate — if someone needs help I must give it.”

[A letter headed The truth must be fearlessly pursued from Dr John Cameron in today's edition of The Scotsman contains the following:]

The performance of the Italian forensic team [in the Amanda Knox case] was deplorable and on a par with that seen in the prosecutions of Detective Constable Shirley McKie and Megrahi. Yet Italy can be proud that its system is self-righting while our judiciary still struggles to admit culpability in the manifestly unsafe verdicts on McKie and Megrahi.

[A letter from David Flett in the same newspaper reads as follows:]

Mr Megrahi promises us fresh new facts in the coming months that will add to his claim of innocence.

Could he perhaps be referring to publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) report?

It's ironic that while we lambast Westminster, Libya and the USA for not revealing all information in their possession we here in Scotland keep hidden the findings of a four-year independent investigation into the case.

It's obvious to me that all our politicians and our own justice system lack the stomach to pursue the Lockerbie truth.

So it was therefore further disappointing to see our very own Scotsman newspaper appear to misquote Megrahi and suggest a "confession" had taken place, adding yet another untruth to the mountain of untruths.

Police ask for a copy of Megrahi's television interview

[This is the headline over a report by David Cowan just published on the STV News website.  It reads as follows:]

Dumfries and Galloway Police will carry out their own translation of the interview carried out by Reuters.

Dumfries and Galloway Police have been instructed to obtain a copy of the first television interview given by the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi since his release from a Scottish jail more than two years ago.

The Reuters news agency reported that Megrahi told them "his role in the Lockerbie bombing had been exaggerated."

If the agency's interpretation of what was said was correct, it would have been the Libyan's first ever acknowledgement that he played any part at all in the bombing of Pan Am 103 and the murder of 270 people.

In the 20 years since Megrahi was first named as a suspect he has consistently denied any involvement.

But according to Reuters' own translation, Megrahi's actual words were only: "The West exaggerated my name."

In the rest of the interview, he denies having ever harmed anyone, and says the "facts" about the bombing will become clear "hopefully in the near future."

Some of Megrahi's supporters have disputed the agency's translation of the interview.

The Crown Office has told STV News it is seeking a copy of the full interview to establish exactly what was said.

A spokesman commented: "We are aware of the interview of Megrahi which was partly broadcast on yesterday's news.

"We are also aware that Megrahi is reported as having said in that interview that his role in the Lockerbie bombing was exaggerated.

"Dumfries and Galloway police have been instructed to obtain the whole interview. Once available the translation will be checked for accuracy."

The process could take some time. It's standard practise for British television stations to decline to hand over their footage unless ordered to do so by the courts.

Megrahi's death bed 'confession'

[This is the headline (which at least puts "confession" within quotation marks) over the report in today's edition of The Scotsman on Abdelbaset Megrahi's Reuters interview. It reads in part:]

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has for the first time appeared to admit that he did play some role in Britain's biggest mass murder.

After more than a decade protesting his innocence, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi said his role in the attack on Pan Am flight 103, which claimed 270 lives, had been "exaggerated". (...)

In his first public statement in more than two years, he indicated he knew more about the truth of the bombing when he said: "The facts will become clear one day, and hopefully in the near future. In a few months from now, you will see new facts that will be announced."

The remarks were seized upon by politicians in Scotland who said the former Libyan intelligence agent's comments showed he now "did not deny playing a part" in the 1988 attack.

Megrahi had previously described his conviction as a "miscarriage of justice" and described himself as an "innocent man", in a series of outright denials. (...)

In the interview, Megrahi attacked the proceedings of the trial, held in a Dutch court under Scots law, as a "farce" and branded prosecutors "liars". (...)

 He said: "The facts [about the Lockerbie bombing] will become clear one day, and hopefully in the near future. In a few months from now, you will see new facts that will be announced. The West exaggerated my name. Please leave me alone. I only have a few more days, weeks or months."

"All my work was administrative. I never harmed Libyans. I didn't harm anyone. I've never harmed anyone in my life."

Robert Black, QC, a Professor of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, said on a blog that part of the interview with Megrahi had not been translated correctly and that the Arabic word used translates not as "exaggerate", but as "invent, concoct, contrive, think up, manufacture, fabricate". Reuters, however, stood by its translation. [RB: This matter is easily resolved by any journalist with a measure of initiative. Was the Arabic word used by Megrahi in the sentence given in English as "The West exaggerated my name"  a form of

اخترع ? If so, is the correct translation of that word "exaggerate" as Reuters contend or "invent, concoct, contrive, think up, manufacture, fabricate" as I contend?]

Shadow justice minister Johann Lamont said Megrahi's statement that "the West exaggerated my name" was an admission of some involvement in the attack, as the interview re-opened the controversy over the SNP government's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds in August 2009.

Ms Lamont insisted Megrahi "was guilty of playing a part in the bombing" and suggested he knew more than he claimed. (...)

Dr [Jim] Swire repeated his view that Megrahi had been "framed" and said that what were likely to be the Libyan's final public comments showed he was a "decent chap" who had been in the "wrong place at the wrong time".

He went on: "There's nothing to suggest that he was linked to the attack and the evidence never held water.."

SNP MSP Christine Grahame said: "He was put up as a fall guy, who perhaps was expected to get off, but didn't. He was put in a position that suited Libya and suited everybody."

[Further articles in The Scotsman based on the false premiss that Megrahi said that his role had been "exaggerated" can be read here and here.

The coverage of this issue in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here.]

"I didn't harm anyone. I've never harmed anyone..."

[The following are excerpts from a Reuters news agency report published this afternoon:]

Al-Megrahi, released from a Scottish prison two years ago because he was suffering from terminal cancer, spoke to Reuters from a bed at his home in Tripoli. Looking frail and his breathing laboured, he said he had only a few months, at most, left to live.

"The facts (about the Lockerbie bombing) will become clear one day and hopefully in the near future. In a few months from now, you will see new facts that will be announced," he told Reuters Television over the pinging of medical monitors around his bed.

"The West exaggerated my name. Please leave me alone. I only have a few more days, weeks or months." (...)

Al-Megrahi, who had served as an intelligence agent during the rule of deposed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, denied any role in the human rights abuses committed by Gaddafi's administration.

"All my work was administrative. I never harmed Libyans," he said." I didn't harm anyone. I've never harmed anyone in my life."

He called the trial that led to his conviction a farce. The proceedings were held in a Dutch court under Scottish jurisdiction.

"Camp Zeist Court is the smallest place on earth that contains the largest number of liars. I suffered from the liars at Camp Zeist Court more than you can imagine," he said.

Al-Megrahi lay propped at a slight angle in a hospital-style bed. An oxygen tank stood nearby, but he did not use an oxygen mask during the interview. Members of his family were in the room with him.

Unshaven, he wore a checked shirt and had a white headdress wrapped loosely around his head.

He said that Jim Swire, a father of one of the victims of the bombing who has disputed the court's findings, maintained contact with him.

"The day before yesterday, Dr Swire sent me an email to tell me that there is a new medicine. He is trying to help me. He told me how to get this medicine."

He said had little knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Gaddafi's overthrow and that the armed groups which toppled Gaddafi had invaded his home and mistreated him.

"I don't know anything about February 17th...that's not a question for a sick person," he said, using the term by which many Libyans describe the anti-Gaddafi rebellion. "I hear airplanes overhead every day," he said, referring to NATO planes which have bombed sites in Libya.

"My house has been violated. They smashed the main door and stole my cars."

He said he was being denied medical treatment which he said was stipulated in the deal that saw him returned from Scotland to Libya.

"I was treated badly when I came back. During the latest incidents, especially in the last month, I have a shortage of all my medicines. My doctor tells me to look for medicine like anyone else despite the agreement between us and Britain," he said. "I have four pills left (of one of the medications)."

"I want to die in my house, among my family. I hope to God that I will see my country united, with no fighting or war. I hope the bloodshed will stop in Libya. I wish all the best for my country."

[It is annoying that the summary that introduces this report states that Megrahi told Reuters "his role in the attack had been exaggerated". This is not, of course, what he said.  But such is the laziness of the media, it is undoubtedly what will be headlined, as in this report on the BBC News website. (I see that the headline over the BBC News report has now -- 17.15 -- been changed.)

I am informed that the Arabic word used by Mr Megrahi in the interview was اخترع

which translates, not as "exaggerate", but as "invent, concoct, contrive, think up, manufacture, fabricate".

This blog post has been picked up by Newsnet Scotland in a report headlined Leading QC attacks BBC over ‘misleading’ Megrahi headline.]

Megrahi release sees trade treble

[This is the headline over a report (behind the paywall) published today on the website of The Sunday Times.  It reads in part:]

A significant growth in trade between the UK and Libya, following the Lockerbie bomber Megrahi’s release, suggest a government bargain

Politicians are facing fresh claims of a “trade for terrorist” deal over the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi after it emerged that the value of business between Scotland and Libya trebled in the year following his release.

Official government figures show the value of deals with Libya, which threatened to terminate energy and defence contracts with Britain unless Megrahi was freed, rose from £33m in 2008 to £104m in 2010.

The value of imports and exports with Qatar, which also lobbied Scottish ministers to free Megrahi on behalf of the 22 member states of the Arab League, more than doubled from £60m to £137m over the same period.

Britain’s trade with Qatar increased four-fold, from £802m to £3.2 billion, while the value of its deals with Libya rose 34% to £1.66 billion.

Declassified documents have previously shown that Gordon Brown’s government tried to help secure Megrahi’s release to safeguard trade with Libya.

The Scottish government insists its decision was based on compassionate grounds after Megrahi was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Megrahi is still alive, more than two years after his release. (...)

 A Labour spokesman said the trade figures were “extremely surprising” and raised questions for Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister. [RB: If the trade figures -- which relate to Britain, not Scotland -- raise questions, they are surely questions for the then Labour Government of the UK.  Perhaps realisation of this is the reason why the "Labour spokesman" hides behind a cloak of anonymity.

Addendum 
The print version of this report on page 5 of the Scottish edition of The Sunday Times identifies the Labour spokesman as James Kelly MSP. It ends with the following sentence: "Qatar officials denied offering the Scottish government any inducement to release Megrahi."]

Freeing Megrahi deepened mistrust of politicians, says Terry Waite

[This is part of the headline over a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday.  It reads in part:]

Kenny MacAskill's decision to free the Lockerbie bomber has deepened the public's mistrust of politicians, Terry Waite will say when he gives a lecture in Scotland this week.

 

The former envoy to the Archbishop of Canterbury will suggest that the public outcry over the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi has undermined the credibility of politicians.

Speaking before he travels north of the Border, Waite, who spent five years in captivity at the hands of Islamic Jihad, said he believed in compassionate release for terminally ill prisoners. (...)

Yesterday, Waite said he will address the Megrahi issue this week when he talks on "Compassion and Justice" at the annual SACRO lecture at Edinburgh University's Playfair Library.

"I don't believe in being soft on crime or criminals, but I hold to the principle of compassion," Waite told Scotland on Sunday.

"But the public outcry (over Megrahi] reveals a couple of things: what a complex and miserable issue it is, and it reveals a certain lack of confidence or trust by the general public in those who have been in a position to make decisions on these matters. Generally the public are not terribly trustful that they are being told the truth - that politicians are necessarily telling the truth."

An epistolary exchange (continued)

[On 6 September 2011 this blog featured a three-item correspondence between barrister and author David Wolchover and the Scottish Government under the heading An epistolary exchange. Here are two further items:]

4.  28 September 2011

Dear Mr Wolchover
‘Thank you for your further e-mails of 2 September and 12 September regarding earlier correspondence on the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

As we made clear in our earlier reply and you quoted in yours, "An independent judiciary is a cornerstone of Scottish justice. It would not be appropriate for Government to cast doubt on the decisions taken by judges who have listened to all the evidence and reached a decision in a case."

This should be taken to mean exactly what it says. The Scottish Government does not doubt the conviction of Mr al-Megrahi.

Insofar as Ministers have ever had a duty in respect of possible miscarriages of justice, that responsibility passed in 1999 to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. This development has been widely welcomed both for further removing Ministers from involvement in the decisions of the criminal courts and for allowing greater scrutiny of cases than was formerly possible. Since its inception the SCCRC has referred over 100 cases, including that of Mr al-Megrahi, to the High Court.

Thank you for writing to us with your views.’

Lockerbie Team
Scottish Government

5.  29 September 2011

Dear Mr [...]

I thank you for your message. It is gratifying to discover that it took a feature article by me in that internationally renowned weekly, the Jewish Chronicle - an article which has "gone viral" on the internet - to elicit a response to letters which I was led to suspect were deliberately and therefore discourteously going unanswered in the belief that I would not bother to pursue the correspondence. How wrong you would have been! In fact I was in the process of drafting a further chaser (by way of capitalising on the article) when your message came in and I note with some surprise that you make no mention of the article, as if your response was a pure coincidence.

It is with some justice therefore that I described the Scottish Government's position as "stonewalling." 

I do not wish to get caught up in semantics but I am afraid that I am bound to disagree with the implications of your reasoning.

With respect, contrary to what you aver the admittedly defensible (if pusillanimous) position that "[i]t would not be appropriate for Government to cast doubt on the decisions taken by judges who have listened to all the evidence and reached a decision in a case" does not equate to the statement that the Government "does not doubt the conviction of Mr al-Megrahi." 

Incidentally, I think you meant "the safety of Mr al-Megrahi's conviction." Few doubt he was convicted.

As I pointed out in my previous letter, there is a principled difference between on the one hand the executive studiously regarding itself as constitutionally debarred from making a public judgment on a judicial decision (whether to agree or disagree) and on the other hand collectively making a positive avowal of agreement with it. The statement "I do not doubt" a certain proposition unequivocally expresses a value judgment. 

However, I concede the possibility that such judgment may be arrived at either by a personal consideration of the facts or vicariously. Thus, you (and the unidentified earlier spokesperson/correspondent) may have been meaning to imply that the government have adopted the following position: "We as a cabinet implicitly trust the opinion of the judges on this matter. They have asserted such and such is the case, and by reason of our absolute confidence in their authority, expertise and wisdom we do not doubt they are right though we have not studied the facts ourselves."

So I modify my original questions to you. 

1. Have the cabinet considered the facts of the case in depth?

2. If not, have they collectively resolved to express a vicarious confidence in the judges' decision?

3. If the latter, when was that determination made?

4. If they have not made such a resolution was the decision to pronounce confidence in the verdict made on behalf of the government by certain cabinet members (eg the First Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Lord Advocate) without consulting the rest of the cabinet? 

5. Was there any discussion over the question whether to go beyond simply stating that it was not the cabinet's place to make a value judgment on the merits?

6. If the decision to pronounce confidence in the verdict was made by the cabinet collectively was there nonetheless any dissent?

Please forgive my inquisitiveness, but the destruction of Pan Am 103 is a matter of such considerable international importance and the trial verdict now so controversial, if not widely discredited, that it is surely right to seek an account of the process by which the Government of Scotland came to make a pronouncement of confidence in the verdict.
 

Perhaps when the Libyan National Transitional Council becomes a little more confident it will no longer feel the need to kowtow to official Scottish amour propre and may begin to apply the sort of pressures to which I referred in my article.

David Wolchover

Lockerbie: CIA made US State Department attorney ‘lie’ to UN Security Council

This is the headline over an article by Patrick Haseldine published today on Dr Christof Lehmann's NSNBC website.  It deals with the published views of Michael Sharf, the US State Department lawyer who drafted the UN Security Council resolutions that imposed economic sanctions on Libya following the refusal to extradite Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah after they were accused by the United States and the United Kingdom of being responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103. Mr Sharf (now a professor at Case Western Reserve Law School in Cleveland, Ohio) is reported as saying that the case was “so full of holes it was like Swiss cheese” and should never have gone to trial. The article can be read here.

Libya ready to probe possible other Lockerbie suspects

[This is the headline over a report published yesterday by the Reuters news agency.  It reads in part:]

Libya's interim justice minister Mohammed al-Alagi said on Wednesday he was ready to work with Scottish authorities to probe the possible involvement of others in the Lockerbie bombing apart from the sole Libyan convicted for the attack.

His remark at news conference reversed a position he took only on Monday, when he said that as far as Libya was concerned the case of the bombing of the U.S.-bound airliner over the Scottish village of Lockerbie with the loss of 270 lives was closed.

Scottish prosecutors had asked Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) to give them access to papers or witnesses that could implicate more suspects in the attack, possibly including deposed leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Asked on Wednesday about his response to this request, he said through an interpreter: "I'd like to confirm that we are accepting any facts that might arise in this regard, if there is any suspicion about any other person." 

He added: "We will cooperate in this regard with whoever has any other facts, according to international treaties." (...)

Alagi added on Wednesday that he welcomed the possibility of an investigation into the possibility of others' culpability because "this will lead to the acquittal of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, who has been unjustly convicted in this case". 

[Today's edition of The Scotsman contains a related report, as does The Herald which, for some reason, does not see fit in its report to mention the portion of Mr Alagi's statement that I have italicised above. This aspect is, however, stressed in the news item in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]

Lockerbie: time for us to reveal the true culprits

[This is the headline over an article by David Wolchover published today on the website of The Jewish Chronicle.  It reads as follows:]

The Arab Spring may have heightened tensions between Egypt and Israel but, on the upside, it also achieved Colonel Gaddafi's overthrow. Strangely, this could actually benefit the Jewish state - but only if Libya takes the initiative.

With Gaddafi gone, the world could recognise, finally, that the perpetrators of the Lockerbie bomb were not from the Libyan secret service, did not include the man who was ultimately convicted, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, and indeed had nothing to do with Libya. The world could learn that the culprits were the original suspects, a gang of Palestinian terrorists. 

As it takes its first steps, the new Libyan leadership will likely want to remove the stigma of Libya's association with the atrocity of December 1988 and seek international acceptance of al-Megrahi's innocence. A democratic Libya could wield a good deal of clout if it applied the sort of economic and diplomatic pressures Gaddafi used to secure al-Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds to urging the Scottish and British governments to declare him innocent. And they may be pushing at an open door. 

It is no conspiracy theory to claim that the case against al-Megrahi and Libya was manifestly absurd, or that the government knows that. Any study of the details of his trial, a decade ago at Camp van Zeist in Holland, will reveal that, unbelievable as it seems, the Scottish judges who convicted him and rejected his appeal made an utter hash of the evidence. Moreover, they actually missed a key piece of evidence which, alone, would have been enough to sink the prosecution.

The Scottish government say they "do not doubt the safety" of al-Megrahi's conviction, a statement which implies a rational consideration of the evidence. Yet they have stonewalled on revealing whether the cabinet ever actually deliberated on the issue. 

They know they are on weak ground. A little prodding from a powerful, influential, oil-rich country looking to restock its armoury and they will admit the obvious.

How do we know the true culprits were Palestinian terrorists? In July 1988, the battle cruiser USS Vincennes shot down IranAir flight 655 over the Straits of Hormuz. The Americans were steeled for a terrorist response and the Western intelligence community was tipped off, probably by Mossad, that a deal to carry out such an attack had been struck between Iran and Ahmed Jibril, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, "General Command". This was a Syrian-based ultra-extremist splinter group of the PFLP, with an active cell in West Germany. The deal was that Iran would pay them a bounty to destroy an American civil airliner departing from a European airport. 

As a result, the West German police set up the "Autumn Leaves" surveillance operation, whereby a CIA proxy double-agent named Marwen Khreesat, an expert bomb-maker from Jordan, was infiltrated into the cell. He built a number of similar improvised explosive devices (IEDs) one of which was virtually identical to that which brought down Pan Am flight 103 a mere two months later. 

The device was removed from under his nose and delivered to the cell's airport security expert, Abu Elias. Khreesat tipped off his control in Jordan and the police immediately swooped, rounding up members of the cell and seizing a second device, also virtually identical to the Lockerbie bomb.

"Abu Elias was never seized and the missing IED was never recovered, two facts enough in themselves to prompt the strongest suspicion. Combined with other compelling circumstantial evidence they plainly connected the cell with the bombing."

This is not conspiracy theory. It is non-contentious stuff, most of it given in evidence at Camp Zeist. Yet the judges turned a blind eye to the obvious and based their decision on a series of weak findings. What the Scottish judges did not appreciate was the utter horror Khreesat's CIA controllers must have felt in the aftermath of the Lockerbie tragedy: that a bomb made by their proxy in pursuance of his cover on their behalf was almost certainly used to bring down the Pan Am jet. 

Therein lies the clue to why attention was drawn away from Iran and the PFLP-GC and why Libya became the scapegoat. But Israel has no need to defer to the embarrassed sensibilities of a handful of long-retired CIA staffers. Nor need it wait for pressure to build up from the new Libyan leadership.

Benjamin Netanyahu's government might not want to be seen too openly pressing for al-Megrahi's vindication and the corresponding condemnation of Palestinian extremists. Yet behind the scenes they ought to be attempting to secure that outcome. It can do Israel no harm for the world to learn that her enemies were paid $4.5 million to murder 11 residents of Lockerbie, and 259 innocent passengers, of all religions.

"Embarrassing" Crown Office Pan Am 103 request rebuffed by Libya’s NTC

[This is the heading over a news item published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.  It reads as follows:]

A request from the Crown Office to the newly changed regime in Libya for documents and testimony to assist in an investigation into the Pan Am 103 airliner incident has been rebuffed.

Libya's interim justice minister Mohammed al-Alagi rejected the overture and said last night: “The case is closed."

The Crown Office asked for “any documentary evidence and witnesses, which could assist in the ongoing inquiries.”

Robert Forrester, Secretary of the Justice For Megrahi group, whose petition for an inquiry into the affair will be deliberated by the Parliament’s Justice Committee, said the Lord Advocate’s request was “highly embarrassing.”

“Firstly, we were treated to his proclamation that he was out to get Mr Fhimah under the new facility availed the Crown to persecute an individual to the grave with the lifting of the prohibition on double jeopardy. Now, we have him pleading with the NTC to cobble together some evidence for him since he clearly doesn't have any of his own to support his objective,” he said.

“Such behaviour, whilst highly embarrassing to the Scottish criminal justice system of course, also lends considerable credence to the view that the much trumpeted delegation representing the Crown and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary which met with Mr Koussa earlier in the year in the hope that he would provide the necessary goods with which to defend the indefensible, namely, a conviction supported by thin air, gleaned absolutely nothing from Colonel Gaddafi's former security services chief.” 

[For further consideration of this issue, see the blog post immediately below this one.]

Libya's NTC says Lockerbie case closed

[This is the headline over a report published this evening by the Reuters news agency.  It reads in part:]

The investigation into the 1988 bombing of a U.S.-bound airliner over Lockerbie in Scotland is closed and Tripoli will not release more evidence that could lead to others being charged, Libya's interim leaders said on Monday.

Scottish prosecutors had asked Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) to give them access to papers or witnesses that could implicate more suspects, possibly including deposed leader Muammar Gaddafi.

However, Libya's interim justice minister Mohammed al-Alagi turned them down, telling reporters: "The case is closed." (...)

Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter was among those killed in the attack, told Reuters in an emailed statement: "Suggesting that the Lockerbie case is closed is ludicrous.

"I am not surprised that the new interim government might want to avoid getting involved, but this is a miserable attempt to avoid a perfectly reasonable request for any information or evidence that there might be in Libya. Perhaps there is nothing."

No one at Scotland's public prosecution service was available to comment on the Libyan minister's statement. 

[A later edition of the same Reuters report contains the following:]

But the Foreign Office in London said it had talked with the NTC late on Monday and it had promised continued cooperation.

"NTC chairman Mustafa Abdul Jalil has already assured the prime minister that the Libyan authorities will cooperate with the UK in this and other ongoing investigations," a Foreign Office spokesman said.

"Having spoken with the NTC this evening, we understand that this remains the case. The police investigation into the Lockerbie bombing remains open and the police should follow the evidence wherever it leads them."

[A report published on Tuesday 27th on the website of The Wall Street Journal contains the following:]

Libyan Minister of Justice and Human Rights Mr. Mohammed Al-Alagi said at a news conference that he considered the case closed (...)

Mr. Alagi, the interim justice minister, said after the news conference that Libya would in fact consider cooperating on some aspects of the Lockerbie bombing, in a sign of further confusion within the ranks of the interim leadership.

A spokeswoman from the FCO said NTC Chairman Mustafa Abdul Jalil has already assured Prime Minister David Cameron that the new Libyan authorities will cooperate with the U.K. on Lockerbie and other ongoing investigations.

"Having spoken with the NTC this evening, we understand that this remains the case," the spokeswoman said.  

[The Chinese Xinhua news agency's account of the news conference contains the following:]

Also, the NTC said Monday the convict of the notorious December 1988 bombing of a plane over Lockerbie of Scotland was not to be put on trial again as the case is already closed.

Despite Britain's recent requests for assistance from the new Libyan authorities to re-open the Lockerbie investigation, Mohammed al-Allaqi, chief of justice and human rights issues of the NTC, told a press conference in Tripoli that, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, the main convict of Lockerbie bombing, was already tried, convicted and punished, and he was released with the consent of the British government on humanitarian basis. 

So the issue may not be tried twice, that is the basic rule of justice, said al-Allaqi.

Libya asked to find key papers on Lockerbie

[This is the headline over a report published (behind the paywall) in today's Scottish edition of The Times.  It reads in part:]

Scotland’s Lord Advocate has opened a dramatic new chapter in the Lockerbie saga by formally seeking evidence from the new Libyan authorities which could lead to a second trial for the atrocity, The Times has learnt.

Frank Mulholland, QC, has made the move in the growing belief that the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) in Tripoli will release key evidence and testimony relating to the blowing up of Pan Am Flight 103.

Scottish prosecutors believe that the co-operation of the NTC will provide them with the vital evidence they need to convict those who acted along with Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi in committing the terrorist act.

In particular, the Crown Office is keen to obtain further evidence against Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the man who originally stood trial for the terrorist atrocity alongside al-Megrahi, but was acquitted of any involvement.

Confirming the Lord Advocate’s approach to Libya’s new political leaders, a spokesman for the Crown Office said: “The Crown will continue to pursue lines of enquiry that become available and following recent events in Libya has asked the National Transitional Council, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for assistance with the investigation. In particular we have asked the NTC to make available to the Crown any documentary evidence and witnesses, which could assist in the ongoing enquiries.”

Mr Mulholland’s move reveals growing confidence within the Crown Office that it can secure further convictions over the Lockerbie bombing.

The Lord Advocate set up a specialist unit earlier this year charged with gathering evidence against Mr Fhimah, 55, after MSPs paved the way for a retrial by scrapping the country’s 800-year-old double-jeopardy law.

Mr Fhimah recently attempted to side publicly with the Libyan rebels as the Gaddafi regime fell, in what was seen as a desperate attempt to persuade them not to hand him over to the Scottish authorities.

As the Crown Office has stepped up efforts to secure evidence against him, Mr Fhimah also used an interview in a Swedish newspaper to deny any involvement in the Lockerbie bombing. (...)

Colonel Gaddafi’s former justice minister, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, who claimed to have evidence of Gaddafi’s involvement in the Lockerbie outrage, is now one of the leaders of the NTC.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said Mr Jalil pleged his full co-operation with the UK authorities when the two men met in London last month.

Although some members of the NTC have rejected calls for the suspect in the killing of PC Yvonne Fletcher to be handed over — or for Megrahi to be returned to jail — the Crown Office is hopeful that it will take a different approach in relation to the Lockerbie suspects, who have remained loyal to Gaddafi until the final days of his regime.

Mr Fhimah was given a hero’s welcome by Gaddafi when he returned to Libya following his acquittal at the trial in the Hague.

Al-Megrahi’s co-accused had been accused of helping to place the bomb in the baggage system of the New York-bound plane while it was at an airport in Malta.

However, Mr Fhimah’s defence argued that the case against him amounted to “inference upon inference upon inference upon inference ... leading to an inference”.

Earlier this year, Scottish police questioned the former Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa, who has defected from the Gaddafi regime and is believed to hold key information about the 1988 attack. Mr Fhimah is understood to have formed a central part of their questioning of Mr Koussa.

Other suspects in the case include Abdullah Senussi, Colonel Gadaffi’s brother-in-law who headed Libya’s intelligence services and was al-Megrahi’s immediate boss.

Ibrahim Nayili, Libya’s former head of airline security, is also on the list of potential suspects. He is said to have put al-Megrahi in contact with potential sources of arms and aircraft components.

However, Sa’id Rashid, who is suspected by US intelligence staff of being “the senior government official who orchestrated the attack”, is believed to have died during the current uprising.

Izz Aldin Hinshiri, a former Libyan minister said to have taken possession of timers that may have been used in the Lockerbie attack, may also be dead.

[This story has now been picked up on the BBC News website.  The first paragraph of a commentary on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm by the editor, Steven Raeburn, reads as follows:]

This morning’s announcement from the Crown Office that they have contacted Libya’s newly changed regime in an effort to seek “assistance with the investigation” into the Pan Am 103 atrocity is a dangerous, disgraceful and disrespectful charade.

The big lie

This is part of the title of the first instalment of a lengthy article (mainly in German) published today on the website Das Treiben der Lämmer.  It sets out, with useful references to published material (usually in English), the main gaps and deficiencies in the evidence that resulted in the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi.  For those with a reading knowledge of German, this is a helpful introduction to Lockerbie studies.

More on Hana Gaddafi

[The Sunday Telegraph is running a story headed Emails show British Government knew Hana Gaddafi was still alive. It reads in part:]

Documents found in the British embassy in Tripoli and seen by The Sunday Telegraph show that Hana Gaddafi, supposedly killed 25 years ago, was actually granted a two-year visa to come to Britain as recently as October last year. The UK even paid her application fee. 

For the relatives of the Lockerbie victims it is a terrible betrayal. Gaddafi had used Hana’s alleged death, aged 18 months, as a propaganda coup and to suggest to the British families that he too had suffered as they had.

Dr Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter Flora was blown up on Pan Am flight 103, was even shown — by Gaddafi himself — a photograph of Hana, covered in blood and on the verge of death, lying on a hospital trolley. That meeting took place in Tripoli 20 years ago and had a profound effect on Dr Swire and his attitude towards the Libyan dictator. 

That the British Government never bothered to inform Dr Swire and the other Lockerbie relatives what really happened to Hana has simply added to the sense of betrayal. 

“If the Government knew the story about Hana was phoney then it makes me angry,” said Dr Swire. “The Foreign Office has always kept me in the dark. In an ideal world the CIA and the people from MI6 should have sat down with relatives and said 'we cannot make this public, but this is what really happened’. But nothing of that sort ever happened. That is a source of considerable anger for me.” 

Dr Swire flew to Tripoli in 1991 to persuade Gaddafi to hand over Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for trial for the Lockerbie bombing – still the biggest single terrorist atrocity committed in the UK. Dr Swire, incidentally, no longer believes al-Megrahi is guilty and is convinced of his innocence. 

“It may well be Gaddafi was lying when he talked to me about Hana. The fable I was asked to believe was she was killed not outright but that she died of shrapnel injuries. I have no idea if it was true or false,” said Dr Swire. 

He had even taken with him on the trip a photograph of Flora at 18 months – the same age as Hana when she was purportedly killed – as a kind of emotional leverage in his appeal to Gaddafi to hand over Megrahi. With the photograph of Flora, he gave Gaddafi an inscription in English and Arabic which read: “The consequence of the use of violence is the death of innocent people” which was placed on a wall beside a photograph of Hana in what was said to be Hana’s bedroom. The inscription was still there when Dr Swire revisited Libya last year, though the picture of Hana had been replaced by one of Gaddafi’s mother. 

Pam Dix, whose brother died on the Pan Am flight, said: “If the British authorities knew Hana had not been killed it is yet another example of them creating a story to suit themselves. For some unknown reason they decided to allow this mystery to continue. Why was this kept a secret? 

 “The whole thing smells badly of a cover-up. It is deeply hurtful. The British Government has been buying into Gaddafi’s deceit.” (...)

A Foreign Office spokesman said yesterday: “There was no evidence to suggest Hana Gaddafi had not been killed and that the Hana Gaddafi in Tripoli was anything other than a different person. Gaddafi adopted many children and Hana was a common name.” 

[The same newspaper also publishes reports headlined Tony Blair's six secret visits to Gaddafi and Series of talks before Megrahi’s release about trips to Libya in the three years following Blair's departure from Downing Street.

The Mail on Sunday jumps on the bandwagon with a report headlined Blair had secret meeting with Gaddafi aide at his home... a month before Lockerbie bomber’s release.]

Prosecuting Gaddafi: ensuring justice in Libya

[This is the title of an article published two days ago on the University of Pittsburgh Law School's Jurist website by Charles Adeogun-Phillips a former international prosecutor and senior UN lawyer, who for over a decade led the prosecution of persons responsible for the Rwandan genocide. It reads in part:]

From all indications, it would seem as though the 42-year reign of Libyan leader and Pan African activist Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is finally over. Like Saddam Hussein, his ego is bound to get the better of him, and he will mostly likely remain on Libyan soil until he is captured by rebel forces. That is not necessarily a bad thing. 

At a minimum, it is clear that the preferred choice of the National Transitional Council (NTC) is that Gaddafi be tried at home on account of the fact that he presided over the brutal slaughter of Libyan civilians during the recent uprising. It may well be that, in an attempt to reflect the totality of Gaddafi's alleged criminal conduct, the NTC may decide that he face trial on international terrorism charges in connection with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland 23 years ago. Many international commentators have objected to this view on the premise that it is inconceivable that Gaddafi could receive justice at the hands of those whom he has repressed for so long. Consequently, they have argued that his fate should be left to the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague. 

Notable among those clamoring for a trial in the ICC is a leading international human rights lawyer and former president of the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, Geoffrey Robertson. In recent articles in The Sydney Morning Herald and the Guardian, he argues that as a matter of principle, the fate of the Gaddafis must not be left to Libyans. In that regard, Robertson identifies the massacre of 1,200 captives in a prison compound, the killing of 270 people in the Lockerbie bombing and almost as many in a passenger jet over Chad a few months later, as "the most egregious examples of Gaddafi's international crimes." He argues that it is essential for "Gaddafi [to] face justice in The Hague, not in Benghazi."

I am a little surprised and perhaps even more confused by Robertson's arguments in this regard, considering that the ICC does not have retrospective jurisdiction and is therefore unable to try Gaddafi for these particular crimes. All crimes within the jurisdiction of that court must have occurred after the entry into force of the Rome Statute on July 1, 2002. This is one key feature of proceedings before the ICC. That being the case, even with its best efforts, the ICC will be unable to try Gaddafi for these events.

Apart from lacking the temporal jurisdiction to try Gaddafi for these crimes, the ICC also lacks subject matter jurisdiction, at least so far as the Lockerbie and Chad bombings are concerned. These were acts of terrorism committed without any connection to an armed conflict and as such are outside the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute, even though they constitute international crimes. I fail to understand the logic in Robertson's suggestion that a court, which obviously lacks jurisdiction, provides Libyans with an appropriate forum to try Gaddafi for these crimes. Astonishingly, and still in favor of The Hague, Robertson argues that the fact that "liberation has come to the Libyans courtesy of international law, they have a reciprocal duty to abide by it." As evidence of this, Robertson cites the UN Security Council Resolution 1970 [PDF] of February 2011, which referred the situation in Libya to the ICC, and which has led to charges being filed by the ICC prosecutor against Muammar Gaddafi, his son, Saif al-Islam and Abdullah al-Senussi by the said court.

However, a close examination of UN Security Council Resolution 1970 will reveal that it has nothing whatsoever to do with either the Lockerbie or Chad bombings. In fact, ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has not indicted the Gaddafis for any of these crimes because he is quite simply barred by statute, thus raising one of the most unique and fascinating aspects of international criminal law. In that regard, although there is no statute of limitation for the prosecution of international crimes, several of the international penal institutions where such crimes can be prosecuted are often of limited temporal and subject matter jurisdiction. Such is the case here.

So, if the ICC prosecutor is statute barred from prosecuting Gaddafi at least in connection with the Lockerbie bombing, he is in effect devoid of the ability to reflect the totality of Gaddafi's alleged criminal conduct in court, especially as this particular crime was "international" in all its ramifications. That cannot be the right approach to seeking justice for both Libyans and the international community at large.

Robertson further cites UN Security Council Resolution 1973 mandating NATO's action in Libya to protect civilian lives, and concludes that no one can pretend that Gaddafi's regime could have been overthrown without the air, sea and logistical support provided by NATO forces. To be fair, he is not the only one that shares this view. It is the collective opinion of many in the "West." However, he likens it to a "duty" under international law, and that is what I have a problem with.

Having totally confused the temporal and subject matter jurisdiction of the ICC in relation to the events outlined above, I trust this renowned British human rights lawyer is not now suggesting that the Libyan people owe the super powers in control of NATO, immense gratitude for their "intervention" in saving the people of Libya and that the time has come for some sort of "payback," after all, as the saying goes, nothing goes for nothing. In all my years of practice as a distinguished member of the international bar, I have never come across such a notion under public international law — namely, one which imposes on a sovereign state, a "reciprocal duty to abide by international law."