Saturday, 7 September 2013

Outrageous behavior: bogus bluster from bigwigs hides Lockerbie truth

[This is the title of an article by Chris Floyd published exactly four years ago on the website Empire Burlesque: High Crimes and Low Comedy in the American Imperium. It reads as follows:]

If you need more proof that we are living in a masquerade, in a world of sham, show and deceit, in a veritable -- dare we say it? -- empire burlesque, look no further than the recent manufactured "scandal" over the release of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the bombing of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988.

Al-Megrahi, who is dying, was released on "compassionate grounds" by the Scottish government last week, and returned to a hero's welcome in his native land of Libya. As soon as he was freed, we heard howls of outrage from Washington: how could such a heinous killer be allowed to walk free? There were stern words from the UK government in London, which pretended that it had nothing to do with the Scots' decision. There was ponderous talk from various punditti about a breach in the "special relationship," even of boycotts of British goods.

All of this -- every bit of it -- was just shoddy theatrics, a puppet show for the rubes. You can bet that every single official trumpeting their moral outrage at al-Megrahi's release knew the truth of the matter: he was not released because he was dying, but because the slow-turning wheels of his appeals process was about to force the release of hundreds of pages of damning documents that would confirm, yet again, that he had been, as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission put it, the victim of a "miscarriage of justice" -- a frame job by the US and UK governments which has been covered up, in admirable bipartisan fashion, for years.

Why did they frame al-Megrahi, when they knew the real instigators of the bombing? Because they needed the support of the instigators to launch the wanton slaughterfest known as "Desert Storm."

John Pilger and William Blum lay out the details. First Pilger:

‘No one in authority has had the guts to state the truth about the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 above the Scottish village of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988 in which 270 people were killed. The governments in England and Scotland in effect blackmailed Megrahi into dropping his appeal as a condition of his immediate release. Of course there were oil and arms deals under way with Libya; but had Megrahi proceeded with his appeal, some 600 pages of new and deliberately suppressed evidence would have set the seal on his innocence and given us more than a glimpse of how and why he was stitched up for the benefit of "strategic interests."

‘"The endgame came down to damage limitation," said the former CIA officer Robert Baer, who took part in the original investigation, "because the evidence amassed by [Megrahi's] appeal is explosive and extremely damning to the system of justice." New witnesses would show that it was impossible for Megrahi to have bought clothes that were found in the wreckage of the Pan Am aircraft – he was convicted on the word of a Maltese shopowner who claimed to have sold him the clothes, then gave a false description of him in 19 separate statements and even failed to recognize him in the courtroom....

‘Megrahi was convicted by three Scottish judges sitting in a courtroom in "neutral" Holland. There was no jury. One of the few reporters to sit through the long and often farcical proceedings was the late Paul Foot, whose landmark investigation in Private Eye exposed it as a cacophony of blunders, deceptions and lies: a whitewash.

‘...Foot reported that most of the staff of the US embassy in Moscow who had reserved seats on Pan Am flights from Frankfurt canceled their bookings when they were alerted by US intelligence that a terrorist attack was planned. He named Margaret Thatcher the "architect" of the cover-up after revealing that she killed the independent inquiry her transport secretary Cecil Parkinson had promised the Lockerbie families; and in a phone call to President George Bush Sr on 11 January 1990, she agreed to "low-key" the disaster after their intelligence services had reported "beyond doubt" that the Lockerbie bomb had been placed by a Palestinian group contracted by Tehran as a reprisal for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by a US warship in Iranian territorial waters. Among the 290 dead were 66 children. In 1990, the ship’s captain was awarded the Legion of Merit by Bush Sr "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer."

‘Perversely, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, Bush needed Iran’s support as he built a "coalition" to expel his wayward client from an American oil colony. The only country that defied Bush and backed Iraq was Libya. "Like lazy and overfed fish," wrote Foot, "the British media jumped to the bait. In almost unanimous chorus, they engaged in furious vilification and op-ed warmongering against Libya." The framing of Libya for the Lockerbie crime was inevitable. Since then, a US defense intelligence agency report, obtained under Freedom of Information, has confirmed these truths and identified the likely bomber; it was to be centerpiece of Megrahi’s defense.

‘And that is the crux of the matter, and the reason for the release. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had referred the case for appeal. The intelligence agency reports would have been forced into the open by a new hearing. No one wanted that. The sacred "continuity" of the militarist oligarchies in America and Britain would have been shaken if the truth of how they really operate -- regardless of which party is in office -- came out.’

Here's Blum:

‘President Obama said that the jubilant welcome Megrahi received was "highly objectionable". His White House spokesman Robert Gibbs added that the welcoming scenes in Libya were "outrageous and disgusting". British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he was "angry and repulsed", while his foreign secretary, David Miliband, termed the celebratory images "deeply upsetting." Miliband warned: "How the Libyan government handles itself in the next few days will be very significant in the way the world views Libya's reentry into the civilized community of nations."

‘Ah yes, "the civilized community of nations", that place we so often hear about but so seldom get to actually see. American officials, British officials, and Scottish officials know that Megrahi is innocent. They know that Iran financed the PFLP-GC, a Palestinian group, to carry out the bombing with the cooperation of Syria, in retaliation for the American naval ship, the Vincennes, shooting down an Iranian passenger plane in July of the same year, which took the lives of more people than did the 103 bombing. And it should be pointed out that the Vincennes captain, plus the officer in command of air warfare, and the crew were all awarded medals or ribbons afterward. No one in the US government or media found this objectionable or outrageous, or disgusting or repulsive. The United States has always insisted that the shooting down of the Iranian plane was an "accident". Why then give awards to those responsible?

‘Today's oh-so-civilized officials have known of Megrahi's innocence since 1989. The Scottish judges who found Megrahi guilty know he's innocent. They admit as much in their written final opinion. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigated Megrahi's trial, knows it. They stated in 2007 that they had uncovered six separate grounds for believing the conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice, clearing the way for him to file a new appeal of his case.  The evidence for all this is considerable. And most importantly, there is no evidence that Megrahi was involved in the act of terror.

‘The first step of the alleged crime, sine qua non — loading the bomb into a suitcase at the Malta airport — for this there was no witness, no video, no document, no fingerprints, nothing to tie Megrahi to the particular brown Samsonite suitcase, no past history of terrorism, no forensic evidence of any kind linking him to such an act.

‘And the court admitted it: "The absence of any explanation of the method by which the primary suitcase might have been placed on board KM180 [Air Malta to Frankfurt] is a major difficulty for the Crown case."

‘The scenario implicating Iran, Syria, and the PFLP-GC was the Original Official Version, endorsed by the US, UK, Scotland, even West Germany — guaranteed, sworn to, scout's honor, case closed — until the buildup to the Gulf War came along in 1990 and the support of Iran and Syria was needed for the broad Middle East coalition the United States was readying for the ouster of Iraq's troops from Kuwait. Washington was also anxious to achieve the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by groups close to Iran. Thus it was that the scurrying sound of backtracking could be heard in the corridors of the White House. Suddenly, in October 1990, there was a New Official Version: it was Libya — the Arab state least supportive of the US build-up to the Gulf War and the sanctions imposed against Iraq — that was behind the bombing after all, declared Washington.

‘The two Libyans were formally indicted in the US and Scotland on Nov 14, 1991. Within the next 20 days, the remaining four American hostages were released in Lebanon along with the most prominent British hostage, Terry Waite.’

They overlooked hundreds of innocent people killed in a covert terrorist attack in revenge for hundreds of other innocent people killed in a celebrated, decorated state terrorist attack in order to ensure that they could kill thousands of innocent people in a pointless war to preserve the fortunes of the Bush family business partners and Western favorites, the repressive, undemocratic tyrants of Kuwait, who were having a financial and territorial dispute with the repressive, undemocratic tyrant of Iraq, who until he threatened the Bush partners had been a favorite of the West. This is the corrupt, blood-soaked reality that lies behind the trumpery of the "respectable" world.

You know what? Barack Obama was right, after all. The whole thing is a damnable "outrage."

Friday, 6 September 2013

Megrahi release "shows Scotland will not be bullied by superpowers"

[The following are extracts from an article by journalist (and former Taliban captive) Yvonne Ridley headlined Britain’s global influence threatened by Scottish independence which was published on Wednesday on the website of the US Foreign Policy Journal:]

Posh lad George Osborne headed north of the Border this week to tell the Scots how lucky they are to be ruled by Westminster. (...)

I can’t believe anyone was taken in by the nonsense which came tumbling out of Osborne’s mouth when he said Scots would be £2,000 better off if they voted ‘no’ in next year’s referendum. (...)

It’s little wonder the Scottish National Party has done so well. The formula is simple; the SNP puts Scots first and that is something none of the London-based politicians can do, or even promise to do.
Now we are being told we are better together. Does anyone seriously believe that? I don’t see any of the dominions, colonies, protectorates or other territories which cut themselves free from British rule queuing up to return to once the largest empire in history.
If Scots do cut themselves free from the yoke of Westminster rule it will mean an end to nuclear weapons and all that it costs the Scottish taxpayer to keep the British PM dining at the table of the G7 and G8 countries.
It would mean an end to legislation designed to extract more money from the pockets of the working classes and those who can least afford pernicious inventions like the divisive bedroom tax. Cutting off the ball and chain that is the UK, Scotland would be able to continue to maintain a free education system, free medical prescriptions and guarantee the survival of the National Health Service here at least.
Having already stood up to America on several issues in recent years, Scotland has shown it is prepared to punch above its weight and will not be bullied by superpowers or cajoled into foolish military adventures demanded through so-called special relationships.
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill stood firmly by his decision in August 2009 to release the terminally ill Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to Libya on compassionate grounds. US president Barack Obama reacted angrily at the time as did the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; this was further exacerbated when Scottish ministers later refused a demand to attend the US Senate hearing in July 2010.
Such a refreshing attitude might open doors rather than close them as Scotland extends its trading partners and business contacts around the world.
[I do not wish to start here a debate on the merits or otherwise of Scottish independence: this blog is not the place for that. The first six paragraphs from Yvonne Ridley’s article quoted above are reproduced merely to provide context for the last three.]

Thursday, 5 September 2013

A historical parallel of the Megrahi conviction?

[Today’s edition of The Herald contains a letter from K M Campbell headed There are modern parallels to the Appin murder case.  It reads in part:]

I was fascinated by your front-page picture and page four story of a suspected but unconvicted alleged assassin of the 18th century, the notorious Allan Breck Stewart ("Book hero at centre of historic murder mystery", The Herald, September 4).

While I accept that it is possible that the conviction of James Stewart of the Glen for the murder of the highly unpopular Colin Campbell of Glenure aka the Red Fox might have been a miscarriage of justice, such things have not been unknown in recent British judicial history. The Birmingham Six leap immediately to mind, as do Paddy Meehan and the Christie case. The fact is that juries do make mistakes.

The trial of James Stewart was conducted by the High Court of Justiciary on Circuit in its competent circuit location of Inverary and the jury randomly selected from the local populace, which comprised a substantial number of Campbells, as would be the case even today. The case was tried before the Lord Justice General himself who, as it happened before the abolition of heritable jurisdictions came into full effect, was the Duke of Argyll. The prosecutor was none other than the Lord Advocate, indicating the seriousness with which the matter was regarded by the authorities, as would be the case today if a senior government official were assassinated while engaged on official business. The Lord Advocate at the time was indeed a Campbell, which merely reflects the importance and respect in which Clan Campbell held the law.

It is apparent from the proceedings that if James Stewart did not actually fire the fatal shot he most certainly was guilty art and part. To paraphrase Robert Louis Stevenson, nae doobt he wis a worthy chiel but nane the waur o' a guid hingin.

Who can say that in similar circumstances the same result would not be achieved today? There is little doubt that the influence and pressures from the pro-Hanoverian government had their effect on the case. Would that be any different today, with the new Supreme Court in London picking over decisions in Scottish criminal law? And what of the case of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi? What external influences were there then on the senior judges who presided? What forensically skilled images are there of the other suspects?

Wednesday, 4 September 2013

A timely lesson for MacAskill and Mulholland

Yesterday the Inner House of the Court of Session delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Kevin Ruddy v The Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police & The Lord Advocate. It concerns what the law of Scotland and the European Convention on Human Rights require when a complaint is made against police officers: what should the nature of the investigation be and who should do the investigating?  Today’s edition of The Herald contains an editorial about the case headlined Guarding the guardians and a question of rights.  Here is a flavour:

“After nine years, the Court of Session has confirmed what has long been apparent to those applying common sense to the issue of police complaints: it is not just for officers of a police force to investigate complaints against members of the same force.

“By allowing fellow Strathclyde Police officers to investigate a complaint of assault against their colleagues in 2004, Strathclyde Police breached the rights of the complainant Kevin Ruddy. (...)

“It appears from this ruling that anything which prevents a proper independent investigation taking place risks putting the Government in breach of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“The provision, which bars inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, requires that a proper independent investigation needs to be available.

“The body introduced to provide such independent oversight of complaints in April this year, the office of the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, is designed to avoid such a breach. However aspects of initial complaints are still handled by police officers, which leads some lawyers to warn that the new set up may not yet be ECHR compliant.

“The Court of Session pointed out that structural independence cannot be guaranteed if a member of the same police force, ultimately answerable to the same chief constable, is involved in investigating complaints. (...)

“Police Scotland says it is confident that the current structures are robust and do not need to be reviewed.

“The Scottish Police Authority says it is confident that the correct checks and balances are in place.

“It is reassuring that both are content, but the ultimate confidence has to come from those they serve.

“The public wants to know that there is a system of redress which can fairly investigate serious complaints about the police, but which is also robust enough to resist spurious human rights claims. If not, Police Scotland could face its own bad days in court.”  

In October 2012, Justice for Megrahi delivered to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, a dossier containing serious allegations of criminal conduct in the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution by officers of Dumfries and Galloway Police, by members of the Crown Office prosecution team and by forensic scientists instructed by the Crown Office. Instead of convening an independent investigation of these allegations, as requested by JFM, Mr MacAskill advised JFM to submit them for investigation to Dumfries and Galloway Police (who, of course, report to and take instructions from the Crown Office).  Under protest, JFM did so.  When, on the establishment of Police Scotland, the Dumfries and Galloway force ceased to exist, the officer appointed to investigate JFM’s allegations was the former Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway (now a Police Scotland Deputy Chief Constable) Patrick Shearer.  In August 2013, Mr Shearer informed JFM that he had been instructed not to proceed with investigation of three of the allegations.

I would be interested to hear from Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, from the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland and from Police Scotland just how the proceedings outlined above conform with the law relating to independent investigation as so clearly set out by Lord Eassie in Ruddy v Strathclyde Police & The Lord Advocate.

Tuesday, 3 September 2013

Eyebrows raised as Crown orders Police Scotland to stop investigating Crown over Lockerbie

[This is the headline over an article just published on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm.  It reads as follows:]

Questions about the impartiality of the Crown have been raised by the Justice for Megrahi Committee (JFM) after the lead officer investigating was informed by the Crown office that three of the eight allegations that the JFM asked the Dumfries and Galloway police to investigate should not be pursued.

In the aftermath of the calls for an inquiry into Crown Agent Norman MacFadyen, the Justice for Megrahi Committee asked for the Dumfries and Galloway Police to launch a criminal investigation into what happened in the aftermath of that fateful night over the skies of Lockerbie. (See the FIRM’s previous articles here and here).

The JFM raised eight allegations of criminal misconduct against previous members of the Crown Office and the Dumfries and Galloway Police Force. The organization claims that this was necessary in order to ensure that each department of the criminal justice system had been given an opportunity to answer ‘questions about their integrity’ in the prosecution of Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi for causing Pan Am flight 103 to explode over Lockerbie, Scotland killing 270 people.

Last month members of the committee gave witness testimony to Pat Shearer, the former Chief Constable of the former Dumfries and Galloway Police, and current Deputy Chief Constable of the newly formed Police Scotland. Committee member Professor Robert Black QC told the FIRM that Shearer had informed the members that he had “been instructed not to investigate these allegations” as they might “impede the on-going investigation into other Libyans responsible for the Lockerbie disaster.”

Two of the charges that the JFM committee lodged involve criminal allegations of perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice by members of the prosecutorial team and the Dumfries and Galloway police force. The news that two of the most serious allegations would not be investigated was passed on by Deputy Chief Constable Pat Shearer.  Professor Black QC, who was present at the meeting with DCC Shearer, added that he was confused at how an investigation could have impeded any additional on-going inquiries:

“These allegations related to the timer fragment. The prosecutorial team hid from the defence the full forensic scientist’s report into the metal found in the timer fragment. They used a phrase from the actually submitted report: “similar in all respects” to describe the timer fragment. “In fact, the forensic scientist’s report stated that the timer fragment found was “different in a metallurgical sense”.

“We submitted in our allegations that members of the investigating team passed this information on knowing it to be false and the Crown, also aware that it was false, used it anyway.”

“I just don’t understand how seeking evidence against other Libyans with complicity in the Lockerbie bombing would ever result in a connection between the obstruction of justice and the perjury charges,” Professor Black QC added.

In the Lockerbie trial, evidence was led that stated that the timer fragment was of the kind unique to the types of timers imported into Libya at the time, something author John Ashton attempted to debunk in his book on the Lockerbie disaster.

Professor Black QC also hinted that further legal action may be forthcoming if the Crown does not accept that there is a case to answer on the remaining charges and halts investigations into further allegations. “If we have to go down that road, then we will consider Judicial Review”.

This leaves the JFM Committee no closer in its quest of forcing Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to exercise his powers under sections 1 and 28 of the 2005 Inquiries Act, which enable him to appoint a body independent of previous Lockerbie/Zeist investigatory bodies to look into their allegations.

However, it does raise significant questions about how the Crown handle investigations involving criminal allegations lodged against people who work within the Crown office and whether or not there current measures are sufficient and transparent in an open and democratic society.

Today, the FIRM made inquiries to the COPFS about the procedures involved in investigating “in-house” members of staff. The COPFS referred the FIRM to a Scottish government website which outlines procedures in two separate annexes (pp. 5-7 of the previous link).

If the Crown has instructed Police Scotland to stop investigating a former or current law official before the police can establish sufficiency of evidence, then it appears to have not followed these guidelines. One interpretation suggests that the Crown cannot instruct Police on the matter being investigated once the complaint has been made and the Crown cannot be involved with the decision to act on allegations against former or current members of the Crown Office staff until the police have made their report about sufficiency of evidence to the COPFS.

Kevin Bell, Communications Officer for the COPFS, added:  “The allegations made by JFM are being considered by DCC Shearer in accordance with due process and it would be inappropriate to offer further comment at this stage.”

The FIRM’s Archive on the Pan Am disaster can be found here.

Mueller's Megrahi outburst remembered as he leaves FBI

[A long appreciation of Robert Mueller on the website of the Washingtonian, on the day that he demits office as Director of the FBI, contains the following paragraph:]

In the summer of 2009, Mueller became the most vocal US opponent of the release by the Scottish government of Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the only person imprisoned for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 — a case Mueller had originally helped oversee at the Justice Department under President George H W Bush. Megrahi was greeted as a hero on the tarmac in Libya after being released on “compassionate grounds” by the Scots as part of health concerns that, based on newly released documents, seem to have been more about helping British firms access Libya’s oil reserves. Amid a series of tepid official condemnations — President Obama labeled it “highly objectionable” — Mueller’s letter to Scottish minister Kenny MacAskill stood out. Far from an official missive of the state to a fellow government official, Mueller’s letter was personal and heartfelt, written by a man not prone to public rebukes. As he wrote, “Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed, your action makes a mockery of the rule of law. Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world.”

[The full text of Mr Mueller’s foolish and intemperate letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice can be read here.]

Monday, 2 September 2013

Lockerbie and strikes against Syria

[It is interesting how many American commentators mention Lockerbie when discussing whether the United States should conduct “surgical strikes” against the Assad regime in Syria.  The following are excerpts from an article on the Capitol Hill Blue news website but it is just one amongst many:]

Syria is many things — a nation run by a despot, a country where freedom doesn’t exist and a nation that has on more than one occasion harbored our enemies — but the reason Obama wanted to use to launch a missile strike was retaliation for the nation using chemical weapons to gas its own people.

No American was harmed in the gassing of Syrians.   No American installation, ship or plane was assaulted.  While the wholesale slaughter of civilians within a nation’s own borders is despicable it is — and should remain — the business of that nation and not something that warrants military action by the United States — or any other country for that matter.

That fact that Obama even is even seriously considering such an attack is reason enough to doubt his credibility. (...)

Those who pay attention to acts and consequences also note that whenever America decides to take some unilateral — and usually unwarranted action — against a country in the Middle East, it results in serious problems down the road.  The bombing of Pan Am flight 103 and even the 9/11 terrorist attacks against America can all be traced back to the unwarranted use of American military power against a nation like Syria.

The problem, of course, is that America seldom learns from past mistakes. We made the same mistakes in Vietnam that cost the lives of American military personnel in Afghanistan.  It is a pattern that this nation, unfortunately, makes over and over.

We here at Capitol Hill Blue feel that Obama’s credibility isn’t at stake in the Syria decision because, in our opinion, he lacks credibility in the first place. If he attacks Syria, it brings serious questions more on the credibility of America — a nation that repeatedly commits hypocritical acts through its too often dangerous actions.

The English parliament [sic] rejected its own prime minister this week by turning down any involvement by that nation in an attack on Syria.

Congress should do the same thing with Obama’s incredibly outrageous plan.

Such action by a body that is supposed to be occupied by elected representatives of the people won’t restore the damaged credibility of America — but it will at least be a step in the right direction.

Sunday, 1 September 2013

Probe into Lockerbie shelved by the Crown

[This is the headline over a report by Greg Christison published today in the Scottish edition of the Sunday Express. It does not feature on the newspaper's website. It reads in part:]

A probe into the Lockerbie bombing investigation has been curbed by the Crown Office, the Sunday Express can reveal.

In a highly contentious move, prosecutors have ordered three of eight allegations -- which accuse Crown Office officials and police officers of wrongdoing -- to be shelved.

Campaign group Justice for Megrahi (JFM) -- which brought the claims -- yesterday branded the development "very disappointing".  The organisation believes the authorities deliberately misled judges in 2000 in a bid to "frame" Libyans Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah.

JFM initially called on Kenny MacAskill to launch an independent probe into its cocerns.

But shockingly, the Justice Secretary just told the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway Police officers to investigate themselves instead.  It is now understood that Police Scotland's Deputy Chief Constable Patrick Shearer -- who is heading the probe -- has been told not to investigate any complaints specifically relating to a timer fragment found at the scene.

JFM claims the firm which was found to have manufactured the timer did not have the capability to create that type of circuit board.

The campaigners accuse Dumfries and Galloway Police of failing to investigate this properly and say critical evidence was not disclosed at trial.

The group's secretary, Robert Forrester, said: "Patrick Shearer contacted the Crown Office and they established conflict between allegations five, six and seven [involving the timer] and their separate investigation which is trying to implicate other Libyans

"It is very disappointing indeed, and it remains to be seen if the allegations will be revisited in future.

"This absolutely supports our demands for an independent inquiry."

JFM believes that vital evidence suggesting that the bomb was planted at Heathrow Airport rather than in Malta -- as was found by the court --was intentionally overlooked.

Backed by evidence from a "wide variety of sources", JFM also claims that prosecutors passed on false information to the court and key statements were deliberately "buried".

Prominent Scots lawyers Ian Hamilton and Robert Black support the claims and insist an independent inquiry must be held into the Lockerbie case.

Megrahi, who died last year, is the only man ever convicted of the bombing (...)  Fhimah was acquitted.

He always maintained his innocence, and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ruled there may have been a miscarriage of justice in his trial.

A Crown Office spokesman failed to confirm or deny the allegations.

Police Scotland refused to respond to a request for comment.

[Justice for Megrahi's own comments on this matter can be found here and here.]

Thursday, 29 August 2013

Limited US strikes ... followed by major attacks on US

[This is the headline over a report on the website of the US National Public Radio. It reads in part:]

As President Obama weighs a possible limited military strike against Syria, he may want to consider the track record of his predecessors on this front. It's not encouraging.

The Obama administration and several before it have seen limited attacks as a way to send a tough message without drawing the US into a larger conflict.

But critics say such strikes rarely, if ever, inflict serious damage or change the behavior of those targeted. And worse, limited US military action has been followed by some of the deadliest attacks against American targets over the past three decades.

"If this is indeed the sort of attack on Syria that the president is contemplating, it is not likely to be very effective," writes Mark Katz, a professor at George Mason University and a frequent commentator on the Middle East. "Indeed, it may encourage [President Bashar Assad] to launch even more chemical weapons attacks due to the belief that while US retaliation may be annoying, it will not threaten the survival of his regime."

Here's a list of several limited US strikes in recent decades:

[Number 2 on that list reads:]

Libya, 1986: Libya was implicated in the deadly bombing of a disco in Berlin frequented by US servicemen. In response, Reagan ordered a one-night bombing raid on Libya, which targeted the compound of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

The Libyan leader survived, and two years later, in December 1988, a Pan Am plane was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people on the plane and the ground. Many of the dead were Americans. After a protracted international legal fight, Libya acknowledged involvement and paid compensation of $1.5 billion in 2008. Gadhafi remained in power until 2011, when a more sustained NATO air campaign helped rebels drive him from power.

[RB: Libya did not, of course, “acknowledge involvement” as a state. What it did acknowledge is set out here. Many commentators believe that the attack on Pan Am 103 was motivated by revenge, not for the Tripoli and Benghazi bombing, but for the shooting down of IR 655 over the Persian Gulf by the USS Vincennes.]

Monday, 26 August 2013

Insidious and frightening scandal

[The following are comments posted by Justice for Megrahi’s secretary, Robert Forrester, on the group’s Facebook page, following his recent report on, and the press release about, meetings with the police officers investigating JFM's complaints of criminal conduct in the Lockerbie investigation and in the subsequent prosecution and trial:]

I quote Len Murray, hailed as the greatest criminal solicitor of his generation: "This is the most insidious and most frightening scandal in the judicial process of Scotland in living memory. And that is not just a hysterical outburst. It is quite unbelievable that Crown Office should act this way." Need I say more?

What the hell, let's say more, why not? Here from Mr Ian Hamilton QC: "I think you [JFM] are doing a splendid job in exposing what is a running sore in the body politic of Scotland. The Lord Advocate must be seen to be independent of the government whom it is his duty to prosecute should it traverse any law. Parliament makes the law; not the government and the latter is bound by the law like the rest of us. Neither the Justice Minister nor the Lord Advocate have proved themselves fit to hold office and the sooner this is referred to the international body the better."

I ought to add that the international body that Ian Hamilton refers to is the UN's International Association of Prosecutors, whose tenets the Crown Office is only too keen to boast its adherence to. JFM is considering lodging a complaint against the COPFS with said body under sections 2 and 3 of the UN body's Standards of Professional Responsibilities and Statement of Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors. http://www.iap-association.org/ressources/Standards_English.pdf . See also:http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/report-on-meetings-with-investigators.html