Showing posts sorted by relevance for query compensation 2.7 billion. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query compensation 2.7 billion. Sort by date Show all posts

Friday 14 September 2012

Libyan newspaper report on Lockerbie compensation trial

[What follows is the text of a report published on the website of the Libya Herald:]

Libyan prosecutor says payout to Lockerbie victims “a waste of public money”

The trial of Mohamed Zway, the former secretary of the General People’s Congress, and Abdul-Ati Al-Obeidi, the secretary of the People’s Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation, opened in Tripoli on Monday.

The two, who have been held in  jail since they were arrested 14 months ago, are accused of poor performance of their duties while in office and of maladministration, specifically wasting of public funds in respect of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. The prosecution claims that it was wrong to organise a compensation deal of $2.7 billion to the victims’ families in return for getting Libya removed from the list of the states that sponsor terrorism.The judge said that the deal “was a waste of public money especially when there was no guarantee the charges in the Lockerbie case would be dropped if the compensation was made”.

The charges have surprised many observers as they imply that the two should have been more effective in serving the Qaddafi regime and that the Lockerbie deal should not have happened.


Both men denied the charges in court.

Their lawyer made several requests, the most important of which was a postponement of proceedings in order to give the defence time to examine all the documentary evidence. He also asked to see his clients in private and, pending a postponement, requested the court to release them on bail.

Bail was refused but the court permitted the lawyer to meet the defendents in private. It accepted the request to photocopy some of the evidence but none of the classified documents.


The trial was adjourned to 15 October 2012.

At a press conference on Sunday, former Justice Minister Mohamed Al-Alagy claimed that this trial and and those of other Qaddafi officials were “invalid” because the law was not being properly implemented.  He said that the prosecution was sidestepping due process whereby such cases must first go the Indictment Court to be processed.

[When I first met Mr Zway (or Zwai or al-Zwai) in 1994, he was himself Libya’s Minister of Justice.  He was one of the army officers who, with Muammar Gaddafi, mounted the 1969 coup against the king, Idris al-Senussi, and the only one still holding high office in the regime. Abdel Ati al-Obeidi was then Libyan ambassador to Morocco but subsequently held many other offices, including ambassador to Italy, Deputy Foreign Minister with responsibility for European relations, head of Gaddafi’s private office and Foreign Minister.  In all of these incarnations he remained as chairman of the Libyan Government committee on Lockerbie.]

Tuesday 11 December 2007

Senators call for Libya to complete payments to Lockerbie relatives

Agence France Presse has a story to the effect that Hillary Clinton and seven other US senators have written to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stressing that the process of normalization of US relations with Libya should not proceed further until Libya has fully compensated, amongst others, the relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie disaster. See
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jxda-5ybZ7Gzj3OtpbouZ7vpDeUg

The inference in the senators' letter that Libya has reneged on its compensation undertakings is unwarranted. The agreement that was reached between the Lockerbie relatives' lawyers and Libya involved staged payments on the occurrence of certain events within a specified time frame. One of those events, which it was within the power of the United States -- not Libya -- to bring about, did not take place within the specified period. The final compensation payment was accordingly never triggered.

For details of the compensation agreement, see
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/08/13/lockerbie/

The story has now been picked up by the Albany NY Times Union whose website runs the following:

"Pressuring Libya

Three years after it committed to compensate victims of the 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the Libyan government still hasn't paid all that was due. Ditto a 2006 promise to pay victims of a 1986 dance club bombing in Germany.

Now New York's U.S. senators want Libya to put its money where its mouth is. Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chuck Schumer are among eight senators who sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, calling on her to use an upcoming diplomatic visit to Libya to pressure that nation's longtime leader, Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi.

"Congress has made it clear that the U.S. is not ready for full normalization of relations with Libya," the senators wrote. "If you do decide to travel there, we assume this is because you are confident that the Libyan government will fulfill the settlement obligations it has made with American victims of Libyan terrorism."

Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, en route from London to New York City. The attack killed 270 people on the plane and on the ground, including 35 Syracuse University students, and several people with ties to the Capital Region.

The Libyan government assumed responsibility for the attack and agreed to pay $10 million to each family killed. Part of the $2.7 billion has been paid. A final $2 million installment to each family is outstanding.

In addition to Schumer and Clinton, the letter was signed by Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menedez of New Jersey, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Chris Dodd, all Democrats, and Republican Norm Coleman of Minnesota."

See http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=647150&category=REGIONOTHER&BCCode=LOCAL&newsdate=12/15/2007

And here is a slightly more balanced paragraph from US News and World Report of 15 December 2007:

"The two cases that have the Senate's attention are the 1988 downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people, and the 1986 bombing of the La Belle disco in West Berlin, which took the lives of two U.S. servicemen. The Pan Am families—some of whom find the U.S.-Libyan rapprochement scandalous—say Libya reneged on the last $2 million-per-family installment of a legal settlement. Libya says the United States missed a legal deadline for removing it from the list of state sponsors of terrorism—it did so later—thus freeing it from its obligation. On the La Belle case, Libya has not made any payments to American victims or their families, though a settlement was considered close last year."

See http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2007/12/13/libya-moves-back-into-circulation.html

Saturday 19 November 2022

Libyan official warns against raising the Lockerbie issue

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

Ibrahim Bushnaf, the Libyan National Security Adviser, warned against deliberately raising the issue of the Pan Am 103 plane that crashed over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988, and said that this issue “if it was raised again and became the subject of a criminal investigation, Libya would enter into decades of lawlessness. Only God knows its end.”

This warning comes amid current allegations that there is a [move] inside the country to hand over the Libyan citizen Abu Ajila Masoud, who is suspected of participating in the bombing of the plane, to the Americans, but [these] allegations remain against the backdrop of a political division between the two fronts in western and eastern Libya.

On February 6, 2021, statements were attributed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the interim “unity” government, Najla al-Manqoush, in which she expressed her cooperation with the possibility of her country working with the United States to extradite Abu Ajila, but she quickly retracted it at the time, and said that she “did not mention that text.” But she was answering a question about the Lockerbie case.

Bushnaf said, in a statement today (Friday), that “before US President Donald Trump left the White House, the Attorney General during his reign, William Barr, raised the (Lockerbie) case, what was reported at the time that he was calling on the Libyan authorities to extradite the Libyan citizen Abu Aguila Masoud, allegedly related to this case.

Bushnaf said, “Because we are aware of the details of the agreement that ended the conflict with the United States, we formed a legal and political team at the time, affiliated with the office of the Libyan Minister of Interior at the time, to follow up on the developments of the request.”

He explained: “The basis for the work of this team is that the Libyan state at the time of the previous regime insisted that the basis of the settlement is limited only to its civil liability for the actions of its subordinates without criminal liability. The settlement also included that any claims after the date of signing are directed to the United States government.”

Bushnaf pointed out that “statements attributed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs circulated last year on this issue, so the Prime Minister (Abdul Hamid al-Dabaiba) addressed us with a [text] that did not deviate from the content of this speech.”

Bushnaq went on to warn against raising the Lockerbie issue, calling on “all patriots and political entities in the country to line up to prevent this, away from the political conflict.”

And in December 2021, the US Department of Justice had previously charged the Libyan, Abu Ageila, with his “involvement in planning and manufacturing the bomb” that brought down the plane over Lockerbie during its flight from London to New York, killing 270 people, including 189 Americans.

At the time, William Barr demanded that the Libyan authorities in Tripoli quickly extradite Abu Ageila, who is under arrest, to be brought to trial in the United States. US officials said that Abu Ageila made confessions to the Libyan authorities in 2012 of his involvement in the Lockerbie bombing, and that these confessions were handed over to the Scottish authorities.

Abu Ageila is a former Libyan intelligence official, who is currently being held in a prison in the capital, Tripoli, on charges not related to the Lockerbie case. In 2003, Muammar Gaddafi’s regime officially acknowledged its responsibility for the Lockerbie attack and agreed to pay $2.7 billion in compensation to the families of the victims. Al-Megrahi, who was sentenced to 27 years, was released for health reasons in 2009, but he died in 2012 at the age of 60 in Libya. [RB: What Libya acknowledged was "responsibility for the acts of its officials". The regime did not admit that it had ordered the bombing: http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/08/libyan-august-2003-acceptance-of.html]

The Libyan intelligence officer, Abd al-Basit al-Megrahi, was considered the main suspect in the bombing of the plane, and he was sentenced to 27 years in prison, but he was released in 2009 after he was diagnosed with the last stage of prostate cancer. Following an indication from the Daily Mail newspaper that Iran might be involved in the case, al-Megrahi’s family demanded compensation for the period he spent in prison, while several parallel demands arose in Libyan cities, talking about “the possibility of recovering the compensation paid by Muammar Gaddafi’s regime to the families of the Lockerbie victims.”

Sunday 29 May 2016

Lockerbie deals

[29 May is an important date in the Lockerbie saga. Here are two BBC News reports relating to events on that date:]

Libya has offered $2.7 billion to compensate families of the 270 victims of the Lockerbie air disaster, a law firm representing the families said.

Each victim's family would receive $10m, but the money would only be handed over piecemeal, as sanctions on Libya were lifted. (...)

The UK Foreign Office welcomed the offer, if genuine, as "a sign that Libya wishes to respond to the requirements of the UN resolutions".

However, a Foreign Office spokesman said Libya had yet to meet all the UN's demands.

The New York law firm of Kriendler and Kriendler gave relatives details of the Libyan offer, which gives a breakdown of how the compensation would be paid.

When UN sanctions are lifted, 40% of the total will be disbursed, and another 40% when the US sanctions are removed.

The remaining 20% will be paid when Libya is removed from the US State Department's list of sponsors of international terrorism. (...)

Relatives said that compensation would close one chapter of the case, but they would still press for an independent inquiry.

The UK Government has published details of a deal struck with Libya on prisoner exchange, which it insists does not cover the Lockerbie bomber's case.

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond had voiced concern at Holyrood that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi could be transferred back to a jail in Libya.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said no deal had been signed over the future of al-Megrahi. (...)

The memorandum of understanding with Libya was signed last week by Mr Blair during a trip to the country. It was created on 29 May [2007].

It states that the two sides will shortly "commence negotiations" on prisoner transfer, extradition and mutual assistance in criminal law, with a final deal signed within 12 months. (...)

Addressing MSPs, [Alex Salmond] said: "I have today written to the prime minister expressing my concern that it was felt appropriate for the UK government to sign such a memorandum on matters clearly devolved to Scotland, without any opportunity for this government and indeed this parliament to contribute." (...)

He added that while the Scottish Executive supported the UK Government's desire for better relations with Libya, the lack of consultation with Holyrood over the memorandum was "clearly unacceptable".

"This government is determined that decisions on any individual case will continue to be made following the due process of Scots law," the first minister said.

Wednesday 31 December 2014

"Accepting responsibility" contrasted with admitting guilt

[What follows is an article published on this date in 2009 on Adam Larson (Caustic Logic)’s blog The 12/7-9/11 Treadmill and Beyond (and referred to on this blog here):] 

I recently started an interesting discussion thread at the JREF forum, fishing for thoughts on why people believe the official line on the Lockerbie bombing so fervently. I hadn't yet encountered any serious questions in the course of previous brilliant and provocative discussions - just a few drive-by statements supporting Megrahi's and Col Gaddafy's absolute guilt, but never accompanied by evidence of any real knowledge. Among the questions and counter-points I suggested people could offer, if they knew anything, was "Libya admitted responsibility and paid out billions of dollars!" And if they had asked, I would answer like this: 

There is no doubt that the Libyan government did issue a statement admitting responsibility, and agreed to pay compensation, among other measures, in 2003. It was an explicit pre-condition, inssted by Washington, to having broad UN sanctions lifted. Tripoli has always defended its innocence of Lockerbie, but to function in the global economy, they had to do something. Here they managed to not explicitly break the rule, and using careful (cynical?) wordplay, managed to accept responsibility without admitting guilt. Sanctions were lifted. 

There’s been much oxymoronic harping on this in the West as both an admission of guilt and an arrogant refusal to admit their guilt. The BBC’s 2008 Conspiracy Files episode on Lockerbie is a brilliant example. “For those that believe al Megrahi was framed,” snarls the narrator, Carolyn Katz, “one fact remains hard to explain away. Libya agreed to award substantial compensation for Lockerbie. Sanctions were then lifted.” Well, ignoring that they just answered their own stumper of a question, it’s a good question, and they continue: “Tripoli accepted responsibility for what it called ‘the Lockerbie incident.’ But does it admit guilt?” Of course not, and by pretending there’s some disconnect, they’ve primed the audience to see the darkest of cynicism at work. Oops, how did that happen?

Under Prolonged Duress
Following he indictment of Libyan agents al Megrahi and Fhimah in late 1991, a process itself twisted with political machinations and riddled with a million broken questions marks, the Security Council moved to enforce the official truth with sanctions. Resolution 748 of 31 March 1992 imposed an arms and air embargo, diplomatic restrictions, and establishment of a sanctions committee. The committee’s work led to Resolution 883 of 11 November 1993, toughening sanctions. This measure “approved the freezing of Libyan funds and financial resources in other countries,” reports globalpolicy.org, “and banned the provision to Libya of equipment for oil refining and transportation.” 

By late August 1998 the framework of a trial was established, and used as the measure of Resolution 1192, agreeing to suspend sanctions once the suspects were handed over to the special Scottish court in the Nehterlands at Camp Zeist. Tripoli made it happen, with help from luminaries like Prince Sultan of Saudi Arabia and Nelson Mandela of Africa. Megrahi and Fhimah were flown on a special flight to the Netherlands in early April, and on the 5th were official arrested at Camp Zeist and set to await their trial. Sanctions were immediately suspended, under threat of re-enforcement (that never did materialize). 

Many suspect this was never “supposed” to happen, as the evidence behind the indictment was too weak to stand up at Trial. The Crown's prosecutors managed to swing it somehow, but it took nearly two years from the handover, and a display of mental gymnastics worthy of the Realpolitik Olympics in the scale and skill of it. On January 31 2001, the three-judge panel made it official – Megrahi was legally guilty for the plot, and Fhimah was not guilty. 

From there, many insisted sanctions should be lifted to reflect Libya’s good faith through this process. But Bush and Blair balked, demanding an admission of responsibility and compensation to victims’ families before they went past suspension. It was a letter, dated 15 August 2003, from Libya’s Permanent Representative to the President of the Council Ahmed A Own, that paved the way. Own's letter explains “the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,” as Libya calls itself, “has sought to cooperate in good faith throughout the past years” on solving the problems made theirs “resulting from the Lockerbie incident.” It was in this spirit that they “facilitated the bringing to justice of the two suspects charged with the bombing of Pan Am 103 and accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials.”

The letter also pledged Libya to cooperate with any further investigations, and to settle all compensation claims with haste, and to join the international “War on Terrorism.” It was widely (and reservedly) hailed as a bold… statement. But still evasive. It doesn’t clearly state anywhere the suspects or any Libyans were in any way actually guilty of the “incident.” Nonetheless, after a month of discussion in the Security Council, sanctions were lifted on Sept 12 2003. France and the US insisted on abstaining, but it was otherwise a unanimous vote of 13. (source) The United States’ own sanctions would remain in full force due to the general evilness of Col Gaddafy, US officials made clear. (Additional normalizations did happen in 2007). 

The Blood Libel Edits
Despite his portrayals as a crazed prophet of death, Moammar Gadaffi proved a shrewd and patient pragmatist in all this. He can't have ever believed his nation actually did the crime, but against "guilty" as a legal truth, he accepted they had no choice but to do “the time.” It’s a type of bind known to breed passive-aggressive tendencies. The Colonel’s son and likely successor Saif al Islam al Gaddafi seemed to understand it, when he was interviewed at home for the Conspiracy Files programme.
Q - Does Libya accept responsibility for the attack on Lockerbie?
A - Yes. We wrote a letter to the Security Council, saying that we are responsible for the acts of our employees, or people. But it doesn’t mean that we did it, in fact.
Q - So to be very clear on this, what you’re saying is that you accept responsibility, but you’re not admitting that you did it.
A - Of course.
(edit)
Q - That’s… to many people will sound like a very cynical way to conduct your relationship with the outside world.
A - What can you do? Without writing that letter, you will not be able to get out of the sanction.
Q - So this statement was just word play. It wasn’t an admission of guilt.
A - No. I admit that we play with the words. And we had to. We had to. There was no other… solution.

The BBC are masters, among others, of careful editing, and it helped bolster their whole “you don’t admit you’re guilty” thing where people have to explain there’s nothing to “admit” (or fail to explain that, as happened here). Thus he could, with a little imagination, appear to be saying “we don’t admit it, buuuuut of course we did it, you already know that.” Note the cut that removed some of his words from the middle of the exchange, unlikely to have been irrelevant. Thus is clearly established a cynical payout ($2.7 billion) and bit of semantics to buy up and slough off their non-admitted guilt so they could resume trade. They got away with Lockerbie using money and words and are laughing at us and making more money! 

Immediately after “there was no other solution,” the video cuts right to the interviewer asking “so it was like blood money if you like,” which seems to be referring to what was just shown. But really it refers to the American victims' families, whose “money, money, money, money” attitude (well-known and spearheaded by Victims of PA103 Inc) was “materialistic,” “greedy,” and amounted to “trading with the blood of their sons and daughters.” But with the magic of editing, it can seem to mean so much more!

Monday 6 May 2013

Libya delays Lockerbie verdict on Gaddafi ministers

[This is the headline over a report published today by the Agence France Presse news agency.  It reads as follows:]

A Libyan court on Monday postponed its verdict in the case of two officials from ousted dictator Moamer Kadhafi's regime accused of "financial crimes" connected to compensation for the 1988 Lockerbie plane bombing.

Abdelati al-Obeidi, a former foreign minister, and Mohamed Belgassem al-Zwai, ex-speaker of parliament [RB: and ambassador in London], were accused of mismanaging public funds in compensating families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing, according to charges read by the judge.

The criminal court in Tripoli postponed the verdict until June 17 "to allow more time to study the file," the judge said.

At a hearing in September, the jailed pair pleaded not guilty to the charges. Their lawyer argued that they had not made any personal gain and had negotiated on behalf of the authorities.

The prosecution has said Obeidi and Zwai were responsible for negotiating settlements with the Lockerbie families and had paid out double the amount originally planned in return for Libya's removal from a US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

In 2003, the Kadhafi regime officially acknowledged responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 that killed 270 people. [RB: No, Libya didn’t. Here is what it actually acknowledged.]  Libya paid 2.7 billion dollars (2.1 billion euros) in compensation to victims' families.

[This blog’s coverage of the proceedings against Messrs Zwai and Obeidi who, in my assessment -- and I met them on many occasions --, were two of the good guys in the Gaddafi regime, can be found here. I am shocked at their appearance in a photograph (last in the series) on the BBC News website.]

Friday 20 April 2012

Search for justice

[This is the headline over a section in the Embassy Row column on the website of The Washington Times.  It reads in part:]

Relatives of the victims of a Libyan bomb attack on an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, more than 20 years ago told Libya’s ambassador Thursday that they want more answers, not more money, in their “search for justice.”
Frank Duggan, president of the Victims of Pan Am 103, tried to reassure Ambassador Ali Suleiman Aujali* that the families of the 270 victims of the bombing support British authorities in their efforts to open a fresh investigation with the help of the new government in Libya.
“I want to assure you that the families of the US victims of this bombing have no intention of seeking monetary compensation. Our efforts were never about money but instead were a search for justice,” Mr Duggan wrote in a letter to the ambassador.
British Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt this week informed Parliament of “apprehension in some parts” of Libya’s National Transitional Council that London is after more compensation.
He insisted that the British effort is “about finding out the truth of the matter.”
Only one man was convicted of the bombing, but authorities always have suspected more Libyans were involved. (…)
Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, who was killed last year in the uprising that toppled his regime, never admitted responsibility for the bombing. However, he paid relatives of the victims $2.7 billion in restitution.



*[Here, from an article in the Caledonian Mercury, are some of Ambassador Aujali’s previous statements about Libya and Lockerbie:]



In 2007, Aujali is in Washington, telling The Washington Diplomat that Libya’s decision to accept responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing was a “calculated economic decision” because Western sanctions were crippling the country to the tune of $5 billion a year by depriving Libya of technology. (...)

In 2009 Aujali wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the fact that “a large and growing body of evidence that casts serious doubt on [Abdel Baset al-Megrahi’s] conviction and suggests that an innocent man may have been languishing in prison” had been widely under-reported by the US media. “

“The Scottish flags they flew alongside Libyan flags were not an endorsement of the terrible deeds of which [the then recently released Megrahi] was accused,” he said. “They were a powerful sign of solidarity between two very different nations that nonetheless share the value of compassion”.
[UK relatives of Lockerbie victims are also continuing their search for truth and justice, but along lines very different from Mr Duggan’s.]

Sunday 30 April 2017

Agreement reached on damages for Lockerbie victims’ families

[What follows is excerpted from an Agence France Presse news agency report published on the Arab News website on this date in 2003:]

Libya will pay $10 million to each of the 270 victims of the 1988 Lockerbie airliner bombing after accepting civil responsibility for the blast, Foreign Minister Abdel Rahman Shalgham told AFP yesterday. “My country has accepted civil responsibility for the actions of its officials in the Lockerbie affair, in conformity with international civil law and the agreement reached in London in March by Libyan, American and British officials,” he said.

Shalgham said full payment was conditional on UN sanctions against Libya being lifted after payment of an initial installment of four million dollars to each victim, and US sanctions after a similar payment.

After payment of the final installment of two million dollars, Libya would ask to be removed from the US list of countries supporting terrorism, he added. Saying that Libyan businessmen had already set up a fund, Shalgham went on, “I hope that the damages will be paid as quickly as possible, perhaps in the coming weeks.”

The total sum of $2.7 billion was the same as US officials said on March 12 Libya had offered as compensation in talks with the United States and Britain. They also said Tripoli was prepared to assume limited responsibility for the downing of Pan Am flight 103, something it has previously refused to do.

Dan Cohen, whose daughter Theodora died in the crash, stressed after a meeting with US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns that Washington was insisting that a statement of responsibility came from the Libyan government itself.

He said Libya’s payment was also contingent on individual lawsuits filed against the Libyan government by the families of the victims being dropped, as well as the United Nations and the United States ending sanctions. (...)

United Nations sanctions against Libya were suspended but not lifted after Tripoli handed over the two suspects in the case. The United States has said that UN sanctions cannot be lifted until Libya satisfies all of its requirements under UN Security Council resolutions, including the payment of compensation, an admission of responsibility for the bombing, the disclosure of all relevant information about it and a renunciation of terrorism.

US sanctions, imposed under different terms, would require those steps in addition to moves from Tripoli.

[RB: The Libyan letter acknowledging responsibility (which I played a part in drafting) can be read here.]

Wednesday 28 May 2014

Libyan settlement terms for Pan Am 103 families

[This is a quiet period as far as public developments in the Lockerbie saga are concerned. Quite a lot is going on behind the scenes and will come into the public domain in the near future. In the meantime, here is some more history.

Twelve years ago today it was announced by US lawyers representing the families of Lockerbie victims that Libya had made an offer to settle their compensation claims.  A contemporaneous report on the CNN website reads in part:]

Libya has offered $2.7 billion to settle claims by the families of those killed in the Pan Am 103 bombing, with payments tied to the lifting of US and UN sanctions, according to lawyers representing some families.

The proposed settlement would work out to $10 million per family, according to a letter from the families' lawyer detailing the offer. It includes relatives of those killed on the ground in the Scottish town of Lockerbie. But compensation would be paid piecemeal, with installments tied to the lifting of sanctions.

The letter says 40 percent of the money would be released when UN sanctions are lifted; another 40 percent when US commercial sanctions are lifted; and the remaining 20 percent when Libya is removed from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Tuesday 22 November 2022

"Lockerbie cover up still haunts Libyans to this day"

[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined Lockerbie FBI cover up still haunts Libyans to this day, agent missing published today on the Meghrabi.org website:]

The Libyans are worried that the Lockerbie case against the country could be re-opened which could have financial implications towards the state and possibly even individuals.

News of the disappearance of former Libyan intelligence officer Abu Agila Mohammad Masud Kheir al-Marimi raised fears in Libya that there would be attempts to reopen the Lockerbie case, which had been closed under a legal settlement between United States and Libya.

Marimi is accused by Washington of involvement in the 1988 bombing of a US passenger plane over Scotland. A bomb on board Pan-Am flight 103 killed all 259 people on board as it flew over the small Scottish town of Lockerbie in December 1988. Another eleven people were killed on the ground by falling wreckage.

In 1991, two Libyan nationals were charged in the bombing: Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah.

Megrahi was found guilty in Scotland of the Lockerbie bombing in 2001 and freed in 2009 on compassionate release grounds before dying of cancer in 2012. Subsequent to his death though a tome of evidence has been produced to show that the Scottish court in the [Netherlands] had acted improperly in [convicting] him.

Moreover, both their cases have since proved by a number of leading journalists to be a travesty of justice and in all respects the two were ‘fall guys’ to a bigger plot yet to be exposed by mainstream media. The FBI, the Scottish police and the British government were all intent on putting the case together towards the two Libyans as America badly wanted to frame Gaddafi and so the fundamental flaw in the case – clothes in the suitcase supposedly coming from Malta – became the red herring which fingered the two Libyan agents. In reality, the bomb was placed on the flight in London by Syrian-linked Palestinian terrorists who were paid via third parties from Tehran.

The initiative by the Americans, just two years ago, to pursue this third man is part of a greater cover up which started in the late 80s to frame the Libyans in preference to accusing Iran and Syria which US presidents still to this day fear, to more recently to deter American families of the victims to pursue compensation claims against the US government for both its culpability in the cover up but also its own hand in Lockerbie.

Almost 34 years after Lockerbie, there is now ample evidence both from journalists, investigators and whistle blowers for those families to see the truth about Lockerbie. In short, Pan Am 103 was a ‘controlled flight’ which was carrying drugs placed on board by terrorist groups which Reagan needed to keep happy, while negotiating the freedom of US hostages in Beirut. Iran discovered this arrangement and decided to seek revenge for the US downing of Iranian airliner 655 in the Persian Gulf in July of 1988 by placing a bomb on the flight.

Libya was always an easy target to frame as western media had been priming its readers with a barrage of beguiling stories about Gaddafi’s terror attacks in the west, in most cases entirely falsifying evidence and framing him for many which were in fact carried out by other groups, the best example being the Berlin disco bombing of April 1986, which was in fact carried out by Iranian groups based in Lebanon. It suited Ronald Reagen very well to shy away from tackling Iran and Syria head on and cultivate the myth of Gaddafi as the ‘mad dog’ of the region and subsequent US presidents like Bush senior. But in reality the American public were being cheated on a grand scale, even to this day.

But it’s not only the American public who are being fooled.

The Lockerbie case cost the Libyans great financial losses during the rule of Muammar Gadhafi, as Libya paid compensation to the families of the victims estimated at $2.7 billion. Libyans fear the case could be reopened, leading to more financial losses.

Libyan media reported the news of Marimi’s disappearance in unexplained circumstances from inside the prison where he had been held since 2011, in the capital, Tripoli, which is controlled by the outgoing Government National Unity Government (GNU), amid suspicions that he had been handed over to the United States.

Marimi was an official in the intelligence apparatus during the era of the former regime of the late Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. He was charged at the end of 2020 on several counts in the United States regarding “his involvement in planning and manufacturing the bomb” that brought down the plane over the Lockerbie area and of committing crimes related to terrorism.

The State Council called on the outgoing GNU to clarify the circumstances of Marimi’s mysterious disappearance, warning that this might be related to the investigations into the Lockerbie case.

Tuesday 8 January 2013

Trial of Obeidi & Zwai over Lockerbie compensation adjourned

[What follows is an excerpt from a report published yesterday on the website of the Libya Herald:]

Court proceedings against former Foreign Minister Abdulati Ibrahim Al-Obeidi and former Secretary General of the General People’s Congress Mohammed Zwai have been adjourned yet again, for the fourth time.

The two were in court today, Monday, accused in connection with the $2.7 billion in compensation payments for families of those killed in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, charges they both deny.  However, after the court heard defense witnesses the judge decided to adjourn the trial until 4 February.

[Previous related blogposts can be found here and here and here.]

Tuesday 29 December 2015

Lockerbie trial is an historic miscarriage of justice

[This is the headline over an article by Hugh Miles published on this date in 2008 on The Cutting Edge website. It reads in part:]

December 2008 has had more than its share of stories about miscarriages of justice. But little has been said the victim of what many see as the biggest miscarriage of justice in Scottish legal history: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the man convicted of blowing up Pan Am Flight 103 en route from London to New York on December 21, 1988.
For many years, it looked as if there would be no trial over Lockerbie. British and US governments believed Colonel Gaddafi would never hand over the two Libyan intelligence officers accused of the bombings, which some regarded as fortunate, as they believed the evidence against Libya would not stand up in a court of law.
But thanks largely to the persistence of Nelson Mandela, 12 years after the bombing a trial did take place. In exchange for the lifting of sanctions, Gaddafi handed over the two accused men and the Scottish court swallowed almost the whole improbable story. On January 31, 2001, Megrahi was convicted of the mass murder of 259 passengers and crew, as well as 11 people on the ground in the village of Lockerbie. He is now serving a life sentence in a Scottish jail. His co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was acquitted.
Megrahi's conviction was a shocker. No material evidence was presented linking him to the bombing, let alone any evidence that he put the bomb on the plane or that he handled any explosives. Even the prosecution subsequently questioned the credibility of its star witness.
Nevertheless, keen to move on, Libya accepted responsibility for the bombing although it never accepted guilt. Gaddafi paid $2.7 billion (£1.8 billion) in compensation to the victims' families  $10 million for every victim. The final payment was made in 2008. US lawyers took approximately a third of the final amount. But the economic and humanitarian price for Libya was far higher: UN sanctions over an 11-year period inflicted billions of dollars' worth of economic damage on Libya and prevented thousands of Libyan citizens from traveling abroad.
The central pillar of the prosecution's case was that Megrahi wrapped the bomb in clothes before checking it onto a plane in Malta without boarding it himself. The bomb, the prosecution alleged, was subsequently transferred at Frankfurt onto the flight to London, and then loaded onto the flight to New York. Two years after the bombing, Granada TV in Britain ran a program about the bombing featuring a dramatic reconstruction, in which a bag containing a bomb was loaded onto an Air Malta flight by a sinister-looking Arab, who then sloped off without boarding. Upset by the damage to its reputation, Air Malta sued Granada TV. The airline's solicitors compiled a dossier of evidence demonstrating that all the bags checked onto that flight were accompanied by passengers and none traveled on to London. The evidence was so convincing that Granada TV settled out of court.
Since the British Crown never had much of a case against Megrahi, it was no surprise when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) found prima facie evidence in June 2007 that Megrahi had suffered a miscarriage of justice and recommended that he be granted a second appeal.
For 11 years, while legal proceedings were pending and throughout the trial, the British Government argued that a public inquiry into Lockerbie was not appropriate as it would prejudice legal proceedings. After the conviction, it switched tack, arguing instead that no public inquiry was necessary. But if the conviction were overturned, there would no longer be a reason to hold back. For Megrahi, this cannot come soon enough. In September, he was diagnosed with advanced terminal prostate cancer.
The British Government is preparing for Megrahi to be transferred to Libya for the rest of his sentence. This would eliminate the risk of an acquittal and lessen the chance of a subsequent inquiry. Applications for a transfer cannot be submitted while an appeal is pending, which for the Government raises the convenient prospect that Megrahi will abandon his appeal so he can die at home. But letting Megrahi die a condemned man reduces the chance of Scottish prosecutors, the police, various British intelligence services plus many American and other foreign bodies being asked a lot of difficult questions. In November 2008, a general agreement on the exchange of prisoners was signed between Libya and Britain paving the way for such a transfer. The agreement will be ratified in January 2009.
"The Crown and the prosecution are using every delaying tactic in the book to close off every route available to Megrahi except prisoner transfer, as this means he has to abandon his appeal," commented Professor Robert Black QC, the Scottish lawyer who was the architect of the original trial who feels partly responsible for the miscarriage that occurred. "It is an absolute disgrace. It was June 27, 2007 when the SCCRC released its report and sent its case back to the criminal appeal court, and here we are 18 months later and the Crown has still not handed over all of the material that the law requires it to hand over and it is still making every objection conceivable."
There are, however, two obstacles to the British plan. Firstly, the decision to transfer Megrahi lies with the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond. Upset that the Government reached an agreement over Megrahi without consulting him first, Salmond has ruled out any transfer.
Secondly, whether Megrahi dies in jail in Scotland or Libya, under Scottish law his appeal can still go ahead without him. "Any interested person can continue the case. In this case one of Megrahi's children could continue with the appeal to clear their father's name," says Professor Black.
If Megrahi didn't do it, who did?