Eleven years since removal of UN sanctions against Libya

[Today marks the eleventh anniversary of the removal by the United Nations Security Council of the sanctions against Libya imposed in the wake of Lockerbie. Here are some extracts from the report published at the time by the United Nations News Centre:]

After several delays in recent weeks, the United Nations Security Council today finally lifted decade-old sanctions imposed against Libya over the deadly bombing in 1988 of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, after Tripoli agreed to pay up to $10 million each to the families of the 270 victims.

The vote on the resolution, adopted by 13 in favour with two abstentions – France and the United States – had been postponed repeatedly while Paris negotiated with Libya to improve a settlement of $34 million it had already reached over the similar bombing of a French UTA plane over Niger in 1989, which killed 170 people.

Welcoming the vote, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a statement he hoped this "important step, along with the settlement arrangements agreed following many years of intensive negotiations, will help bring some comfort to the families of the victims of the tragic events" over Scotland and Niger "as the international community strives to bring this tragic chapter to a close."

The sanctions, which included a ban on military sales, air communications and certain oil equipment, had already been suspended by the Council in 1999 after Libya agreed to hand over two nationals for trial before a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands in connection with the bombing. One of them, Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi, was convicted and jailed for his role.

The United Kingdom and Bulgaria cosponsored the resolution after Libya told the Council in August of its readiness to cooperate in the international fight against terrorism and compensate the families of those killed at Lockerbie, as demanded by Council resolutions 748 of 1992 and 883 of 1993.

Earlier this week, UK Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, who is Council President for the month of September, said Libya’s current compliance with the terms of the earlier resolutions could allow it to move back into the international community.

[A flavour of the current situation in Libya, eleven years after the removal of sanctions and approaching three years after the death of Muammar Gaddafi, can be gleaned here and here and here.]

High Court orders further disclosure

At the eleventh procedural hearing held on 18 to 20 February, Abdelbaset Megrahi's legal team sought disclosure from the Crown of further documents relevant to his appeal. In delivering its judgment today, the High Court acceded to this request. The following extracts are from the BBC News website:

'Judges have ordered prosecutors to hand over more undisclosed documents they may have concerning a crucial witness at the trial of the Lockerbie bomber.

'Abdel Baset Al Megrahi's lawyers went to the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh seeking further material for the appeal against his conviction. (...)

'The Crown said it believed it had already handed over all the documents sought by the defence.

'The material being sought includes records, logs, notes and police computer entries concerning a sighting by Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci of a clothes buyer in September 1989. (...)

'The material wanted by defence lawyers also includes any documents on a meeting between police and Mr Gauci and an interview held with him.

'It further includes material over aspects of an ID parade held at Zeist in April 1999, attended by Mr Gauci, at which Megrahi was paraded.

'In the grounds of appeal lodged on behalf of Megrahi, those relating to the evidence of Mr Gauci run to almost 150 pages.

'More documentation is also sought of contact between police and other investigators with a potential witness, David Wright.

'Mr Wright did not give evidence at Megrahi's trial but it is said he "may have material evidence to give bearing on the identification of the appellant as the purchaser of goods associated with the Lockerbie incident".

'The Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton, said: "Without expressing any view on the adequacy of the steps already taken by the Crown to satisfy the claims for recovery, we consider that the appropriate course at this stage is to identify the classes of document which, if they exist, the appellant is in our judgement entitled to recover."

'Lord Hamilton, sitting with Lord Kingarth and Lord Eassie, said: "The Advocate General has not yet scrutinised all the material on behalf of the United Kingdom Government.

'"It is possible that objections, based on legal privilege, might yet be made on the part of other governments or agencies.

'"The order which we shall pronounce will be subject to due consideration of any such objections."'

The full report can be read here.

Eleventh anniversary of Libyan settlement offer to Lockerbie families

[From CNN’s report Libya offers $2.7 billion Pan Am 103 settlement:]

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.

Jim Kreindler, of Kreindler & Kreindler, the firm representing 118 victims' families said the families are "seriously considering" the Libyan offer.

[From the Compensation from Libya section of the Wikipedia

article Pan Am Flight 103:]

On 29 May 2002, Libya offered up to US$2.7 billion to settle claims by the families of the 270 killed in the Lockerbie bombing, representing US$10 million per family. The Libyan offer was that:

• 40% of the money would be released when United Nations sanctions, suspended in 1999, were cancelled;
• another 40% when US trade sanctions were lifted; and
• the final 20% when the US State Department removed Libya from its list of states sponsoring terrorism. (...)

Compensation for the families of the PA103 victims was among the steps set by the UN for lifting its sanctions against Libya. Other requirements included a formal denunciation of terrorism—which Libya said it had already made—and "accepting responsibility for the actions of its officials".

On 15 August 2003, Libya's UN ambassador, Ahmed Own, submitted a letter to the UN Security Council formally accepting "responsibility for the actions of its officials" in relation to the Lockerbie bombing. The Libyan government then proceeded to pay compensation to each family of US$8 million (from which legal fees of about US$2.5 million were deducted) and, as a result, the UN cancelled the sanctions that had been suspended four years earlier, and US trade sanctions were lifted. A further US$2 million would have gone to each family had the US State Department removed Libya from its list of states regarded as supporting international terrorism, but as this did not happen by the deadline set by Libya, the Libyan Central Bank withdrew the remaining US$540 million in April 2005 from the escrow account in Switzerland through which the earlier US$2.16 billion compensation for the victims' families had been paid. The United States announced resumption of full diplomatic relations with Libya after deciding to remove it from its list of countries that support terrorism on 15 May 2006.

On 24 February 2004, Libyan Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem stated in a BBC Radio 4 interview that his country had paid the compensation as the "price for peace" and to secure the lifting of sanctions. Asked if Libya did not accept guilt, he said, "I agree with that." He also said there was no evidence to link Libya with the April 1984 shooting of police officer Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in London. Gaddafi later retracted Ghanem's comments, under pressure from Washington and London.

[It is for negotiating this compensation settlement that former Foreign Minister Abdel Ati al-Obeidi and former London ambassador Mohammed Belqasem al-Zwai are awaiting trial in Tripoli for wasting state funds.]

Eleventh procedural hearing: day three

As far as I can discover, the only newspaper that provides a report on the third day of the procedural hearing is The Herald. The following are excerpts:

'The Crown yesterday insisted further investigations over undisclosed documents relating to the key witness in the Lockerbie trial, to be carried out ahead of an appeal into the case, were "unnecessary".

'Lawyers for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the atrocity, this week began a challenge to demand undisclosed material they believe will help free their terminally ill client at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

'The Crown Office and the Advocate General are opposing this, claiming that in some cases the evidence does not exist. (...)

'Ronnie Clancy, QC, advocate-depute acting for the Crown, said searches had already been undertaken voluntarily by police since the defence's move was launched last year and referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's three-year investigation into the case.

'He argued the SCCCR's investigation - which referred Megrahi for a fresh appeal - was sufficient. (...)

'A delegation from the Crown Office is also to travel to Malta and "one of the tasks in hand is to actively seek consent for disclosure" of documents.

'It will also approach other foreign sources as some material could have security issues in their own jurisdiction should it be made public.

'Mr Clancy said an answer will be sought within 28 days and the defence team given the 170 documents or reasons why they should not be disclosed. (...)

'He also said the wide scope of the information sought was restrictive and said it indicated the call for disclosure was a "grand fishing expedition".

'Elements of the broad scope search could be narrowed down, Ms Scott suggested.

'She added: "What has taken place in terms of this voluntary exercise is not a proper search at all."

'Lord Hamilton, the Lord Justice General, Lord Kingarth and Lord Eassie will give their decision at a later date. Megrahi's appeal is due to start on April 27.'

International pressure led UK and USA to agree to neutral venue trial

[What follows is an item headed Libya Sanction Hearings Sought in the UN Security Council posted on this date in 1998 on The Pan Am 103 Crash Website:]

Arab and African countries are urging an open Security Council debate to pressure Britain and Washington to ease sanctions imposed on Libya after the 1988 Pan Am bombing. The 15 council members had been scheduled to review -- and presumably renew -- the sanctions for another 120 days this week. Such reviews are routinely done in closed sessions.

But Arab and African members of the Security Council are urging the current president, Abdoulie Momodou Saleh of Gambia, to postpone the review and schedule an open debate, diplomatic sources said Wednesday on condition of anonymity. That would enable any UN member state to join the discussions.

The United States and Britain could block any decision to lift or ease the sanctions, which were imposed in 1992 to pressure Libyan revolutionary leader Moammar Gadhafi to extradite two suspects in the fatal bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The bombing killed 270 people. Still, an open debate would draw attention to calls by the Arab League and the Organization of African Unity to lift the sanctions. Libya has proposed sending the two Libyan suspects to a third country for trial. Washington and London insist they be tried in Scotland or the United States.

But a growing number of council members, including Russia, have urged the council to consider Gadhafi's offer. The use of sanctions as a means of pressuring governments has lost favor among many of the 185 UN member states, in part because they cause suffering among populations who often have little influence on their governments' policies. In an attempt to head off the debate, Britain and the United States have asked UN legal officers for a ruling on whether the review must be completed by the end of the week, the sources said.

If so, there would not be enough time under UN rules to organize an open debate.

[RB: Apart from the Arab League and the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement were losing patience with the intransigence of the United Kingdom and the United States in the face of Libyan willingness to countenance a trial of Megrahi and Fhimah in a neutral country. Here is the text of a communiqué issued on 25 September 1997 at the conclusion of a meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation of the Non-Aligned Movement:] 

73. The Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation reconfirmed the position of the Movement as contained in paragraph 163 of the Final Document of the Eleventh Summit in Cartagena. They expressed concern at the non-acceptance by the three Western countries of the appeals of regional and international organizations and their efforts to reach a peaceful settlement based on the principles of international law. They also affirmed that the measures imposed on Libya are no longer justifiable, and urged the Security Council to expeditiously review the air embargo and the other measures imposed on Libya with a view to lifting them. They further underlined that the escalation of the crisis, the threat to impose additional sanctions and the use of force as a means of conducting relations among States are a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement. They reiterated their support for the proposals submitted jointly by the Organization of African Unity and the League of Arab States, as contained in the declaration of the 65th regular session of the Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity held in Tripoli from 24-28 February 1997. These proposals are as follows:

Option 1: To hold the trial of the two suspects in a third and neutral country to be determined by the Security Council.

Option 2: To have the two suspects tried by Scottish judges at the International Court of Justice ICJ at the Hague, in accordance with Scottish law.

Option 3: To establish a special criminal tribunal at the ICJ headquarters in the Hague to try the two suspects.

They called for refraining from resorting to the imposition of sanctions unless a real threat to international peace and security exists and only after all other peaceful means for settling the dispute have been exhausted. They also called for the refraining from adopting measures in the economic, financial, transportation and communication fields, due to their serious and inhumane effects on the people and should reflect the views of the General Assembly. The General Assembly is the only forum that reflects the position of all Member states. Where the imposition of sanctions is inevitable, they should be limited in their duration. After which, a decision should be made whether a consensus for their renewal exists and also serious consideration should be given to lift similar sanctions that are in place.

[RB: It was this erosion of international support for continuation of sanctions against Libya that motivated the UK and USA reluctantly to agree to a neutral venue trial in August 1998, some four years and seven months after my proposal had been accepted by the Libyan Government and the suspects’ defence team.]

Crown fights to keep 48 pieces of Lockerbie trial evidence secret

This is the headline over an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald, reporting on the (eleventh) procedural hearing in Abdelbaset Megrahi's current appeal held yesterday. The article reads in part:

'Prosecutors are trying to keep secret 48 pieces of evidence relating to the Lockerbie trial, including a secret fax that could discredit a key Crown witness.

'Lawyers for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 bombing, yesterday began a challenge over material they believe will free their terminally ill client.

'But the Crown Office and the UK Advocate General are fighting against disclosure, claiming that in some cases the evidence does not exist.

'The Herald can today reveal that the first item on the list is a fax which, the Libyan's defence team claims, places a fundamental question mark against the original trial testimony of Tony Gauci, who sold clothes later found in the wreckage of PanAm 103 at Lockerbie.

'Judges at Camp Zeist were told that the first "photoshow" with Mr Gauci took place on September 14, 1989, while the fax at the centre of yesterday's proceedings is allegedly dated six days earlier.

'Megrahi's team believes that confusion and disparity further compromises the integrity of a man described as an "important witness" at the trial. (...)

'Another previously unseen fax from the Joint Intelligence Group (JIG) or committee, which was set up after Lockerbie to investigate the case and included representatives from Scottish forces and the security services, refers to a meeting between Mr Gauci and FBI agents when Scottish police were not present. However, no record or statement has been shared with the defence.

'Another JIG fax referred to yesterday indicates that there are other missing statements in relation to Mr Gauci, saying he saw the key clothes purchaser the day afterwards, and identified him as someone other than Megrahi.

'That document refers to concerns among the Scottish police at the time that "the witness was trying to please them".

'The defence also claims that the Crown pre-trial precognition of Mr Gauci was missing and was only recently discovered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defence is also seeking "undisclosed information about discussion of reward money".

'This is thought to relate to undisclosed discussions that Mr Gauci and his brother, Paul, could be influenced by the rumour of financial remuneration.

'Ms [Maggie] Scott [QC for Megrahi] warned that there was a "reasonable" or "real" possibility that the Crown's failure to hand over the material could constitute a breach of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, relating to a person's right to a fair trial.

'She explained that, in its written responses to the defence, the Crown had argued that in some cases the calls for information were too wide, in others that the information does not exist and/or that it is not relevant. The hearing continues until at least tomorrow.'

In the course of her submissions to the court Ms Scott referred to the "wholesale opposition" by the Crown to the defence team's requests for disclosure.

In an accompanying article, Lucy Adams writes:

'The trial and world's media was told that the first "photoshow" with Mr Gauci took place on September 14, 1989. However, new evidence yesterday revealed that it actually took place on September 8, yet no record of this meeting or what it uncovered has been shared with the defence team.

'A new document unearthed during the three-and-a-half-year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, and not previously discussed in public, alerted commission members and defence lawyers to the fact this photoshow had taken place.

'Maggie Scott, Megrahi's QC, said yesterday: "This is part of the history of what happened, which goes to the centre of the reliability of evidence."

'Ms Scott said: "No further information in relation to this photoshow has been disclosed. All we know is that is that he does not make a positive identification but that there is a reference to hairstyles and features.

'"The whole process of selection is important and that is why this background history is so necessary."

'She also revealed that the commission's report said it was a "matter of some concern" that a police statement about the September 8 event had never been recorded.

'Despite the inconsistencies in his 19 statements to the police, even the appeal court described Mr Gauci as reliable.

'However, the commission found that just four days before an ID parade at which he picked out Megrahi, Mr Gauci saw a photograph of the Libyan in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.'

Fragments of truth

[The Forensic Institute in Glasgow is hosting this year’s FORREST conference. On the Institute’s website it is described as follows:]

FORensic RESearch and Teaching (FORREST) is an annual international academic conference now in its eleventh year, of interest to academics, lawyers, law enforcement, and forensic practitioners, organised by The Forensic Institute Research Network (FIRN) in the UK.

FORREST 2015 will be held in Glasgow, UK, from 30th June to 2nd July 2015.

The purpose of FORREST is to present the latest and most relevant work in forensic research and teaching. It is the only conference to deal specifically with the ever-increasing topic of forensic education. Reviews, case studies, applications, and research programmes are delivered by lectures and workshops that allow every delegate to find and explore something of interest and value to them. The conference also provides excellent opportunities for informal networking and sharing of ideas with a social programme and conference dinner.

[Details of speakers and booking information are set out here. The paper that I shall be delivering on 2 July is described as follows:]

The Lockerbie bombing: fragments of truth

The conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi of the murder of the 270 people who died aboard Pan Am flight 103 was based entirely upon circumstantial evidence. This paper considers that evidence, how it was obtained, how it has been undermined and how other available evidence was withheld.

Eleventh procedural hearing: day two

Three newspapers have today published reports on the second day's proceedings in the current procedural hearing in which Mr Megrahi's legal team is seeking disclosure of documents which the Crown claims either do not exist or are not disclosable.

The report in The Times can be read here; that in The Herald here; and that in the Glasgow Evening Times here.

At the end of the third day of submissions today (Friday, 20 February) the court made avizandum, ie announced that it would take time to consider and prepare its judgment on the issues raised. If tomorrow's newspapers report on the submissions made during the third day's proceedings, I shall provide links on this blog.

American Cassandra - Susan Lindauer’s Story

The fascinating story of Susan Lindauer and her connection to the Lockerbie case, as told by Michael Collins in Scoop Independent News at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0710/S00266.htm

By Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, D.C.

Above all, you must realize that if you go ahead with this invasion, Osama bin Laden will triumph, rising from his grave or seclusion. His network will be swollen with fresh recruits, and other charismatic individuals will seek to build upon his model, multiplying those networks. And the United States will have delivered the death blow to itself. Using your own act of war, Osama and his cohort will irrevocably divide the hearts and minds of the Arab Street from moderate governments in Islamic countries that have been holding back the tide. Power to the people, what we call “democracy,” will secure the rise of fundamentalists. Susan Lindauer’s last letter to Andrew Card, January 6, 2003*

Susan Lindauer sent her eleventh and last letter on the Iraqi political situation to then Bush chief of staff Andrew Card on January 6, 2003, just two months before General Franks gave the command to invade on March 20, 2003. She’d sent ten other letters on Iraq to Card, her second cousin, over a two year period.

In her final letter she made a prophetic plea to head off the war. Through Lindauer’s back channel contacts at the Iraqi United Nations mission, Lindauer said that she’d gathered a great deal of information. She had good reasons to believe that the Iraqis were ready to offer huge concessions on inspectors and on other United States demands.

As the opening quotation shows, she correctly predicted what other knowledgeable observers believed. While the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan had al Qaeda on its knees, an Iraqi military defeat would lead to a civil chaos. This would provide the basis for a resurrection of bin Laden’s operation and then revive the al Qaeda terrorist risk to the United States.

Lindauer was arrested on March 17, 2004, fifteen months after the last letter to Andy Card and two years after the trip to Baghdad referenced in the indictment. She was charged with “conspiring to act and acting as an unregistered agent of the government of Iraq” and “forbidden financial transactions” with Iraq totaling $10,000 relating to those acts. The charges cover the period of October, 1999 through February 2004.

She denies acting as an Iraqi agent and says that she’d been recruited by the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency to open a back channel for contact with Middle Eastern nations that lacked formal diplomatic ties the U.S. She asserts that CIA was overseeing her contacts with Iraq and that the U.S. government was fully informed of her activities.

She was very specific when she said that she had no knowledge of or contact with the two Iraqis named in her indictment. In his final ruling on the case, Judge Mukasey observed that:

It bears emphasis here that it was never the government's theory that Lindauer participated in such conduct, or indeed that she even knew the Al-Anbuke brothers. Rather, she and they were charged together only because both allegedly conspired with IIS. Judge Michael B. Mukasey, Opinion and Order, September 6, 2006.

At her preliminary hearing, she was remanded for trial in federal court, Southern District, New York, and placed on $500,000 bail

Another 18 months passed without action until the prosecution requested that Lindauer undergo a psychiatric evaluation. The prosecution argued that she was unfit to stand trial for two reasons: she believed that she was not guilty and she was therefore unable to contribute to her defense since she didn’t understand that she might be convicted. Her failure to accept guilt by denying what the prosecution called delusions somehow proved mental incompetence.

Based on the psychiatric evaluation, Judge Mukasey ordered Lindauer to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Federal Medical Center (Carswell FMC), Ft. Worth, located on the grounds of Carswell Air Force Base. Lindauer reports considerable distress at confinement and the condition of her fellow female inmates.

Lindauer has consistently maintained her innocence throughout this entire affair. After seven months at FMC Carswell, she had a hearing with Judge Mukasey in early May 2006. The psychiatrists at the federal prison facility wanted to force her to take psychotropic medication, a position strongly supported by the U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case. She vigorously objected to this, which was the basis for the May hearing. The government’s rationale for forced medication and the treatment at Carswell FMC will be discussed in more depth in the second part of this series.

Rather than being sent back to the prison facility, she spent four months at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. Finally, on Sept. 8, 2006 she was released by order of Judge Mukasey. He flatly denied the U.S. Attorney’s request for forced medication, noting contradictory opinions on diagnosis and poor support for the efficacy of the medication recommended by court appointed and prosecution experts.

His opinion and order implied that there was not much of case against her: “There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have.” Opinion and Order, Judge Michael B. Mukasey, Sept. 6, 2006

The Judge ordered that Lindauer be released from jail. She remains free to this day. Through former U.S. Attorney Brian Schaunnessy of Washington, D.C., she is seeking a trial on the charges levied and sees that as a public forum to verify her story and clear her name.

Susan Lindauer’s Story

After seeing an article I wrote on Attorney General nominee Mukasey, Susan Lindauer emailed Jeff Tiedrich, publisher of the political web site that carried the story. She complimented my analysis of Mukasey, which had mentioned her case. I received the email, contacted her, and requested an interview. She agreed.

Susan Lindauer and I met on two occasions for a total of about six hours. In addition, there was an additional two hours of phone contact to assure that I accurately represented her story. She says this is the first time anyone contacted her for an in depth interview on her story and experience.

She was engaging, articulate, and energetic during the interviews and follow up calls. In this article, I present her story as she told it to me. In part two of the series, I cover her confinement at FMC Carswell, examine how the initial round of her case was handled, including Judge Mukasey’s dismissive remarks about the merits of the case against her. I will also present information from individuals who support her character and knowledge of Lockerbie and Iraq and offer some speculation on motives and handling of her arrest.

What follows is neither a brief in favor of her case, nor is it a fishing expedition to generate cheap shots regarding her claims. It’s simply her story.

Susan Lindauer seeks a trial on the charges to prove her innocence.

She says that:

• She worked for United States intelligence to create back channel communication with key Middle Eastern states and all of her actions were under the supervision of U.S. intelligence.
• She was recruited by U.S. intelligence to perform this function in 1994 due to her anti sanctions position and the belief that the targeted states would find someone with her position and contacts appealing.
• She made significant contributions through her U.N. diplomatic contacts with Libya for the hand over of accused Lockerbie bombers to Scottish authorities. After Lockerbie, she worked as a back channel to Iraq on resuming weapons inspection.
• She is innocent of all charges filed.

Lindauer reports that her role as a back channel operative for the U.S. resulted from a 1994 meeting with Dr. Richard Fuisz in Chantilly, Virginia. He approached Lindauer who was then on the staff of Representative Ron Wyden (D-OR), now a U.S. Senator. She says that Fuisz, reportedly a CIA operative, wanted to get out information on terrorist threats from Syria and its proxies who he said were responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. Fuisz claimed that he could identify the specific culprits behind the Lockerbie – Pan Am 103 bombing.

She noted that her knowledge of Arab culture and her positions as an anti sanction, pro peace advocate positioned her for service as a conduit to nations hostile to United States. This put her in a position, “to open a back channel to receive terrorism information from those nations under sanctions.”

Lockerbie, Scotland and the Bombing of Pan Am 103

The Clinton administration was interested in using her as an entrée to communicate with Libya officials, according to Lindauer. Her specific task was to help obtain the hand over of two suspects in the Lockerbie bombing to stand trial for the destruction of the Pan Am flight and deaths of 259 passengers and 11 Lockerbie citizens

Lindauer described playing an instrumental role in negotiating the handover of the two suspected bombers from Libya through her Libyan contacts at the U.N. mission. She performed the liaison role through the Libyan mission at the U.N. As a result of her work and other efforts, she reports that Libya turned over two male suspects, al-Megrahi and Fhimah, to Scottish authorities. They were indicted and tried for the bombing and 270 deaths. Scottish prosecutors convicted Al Megrahi but not Fhimah.

During the lead up to the trial, Lindauer had serious questions about the guilt of the Libyans that she helped secure for trial. She says, “Other Arab contacts told me that Mohammed Abu Talb, Abu Nidal, in addition to Ahmed Jibril were the key to this awful crime.”

In 1998, she provided U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan with a deposition containing information that she obtained from Dr. Richard Fuisz. This was prior to Annan’s visit to Libya which Lindauer says was for a meeting to discuss the Lockerbie trial with Gadaffi. In the deposition, she offered this: “(Fuisz) says freely that he knows first hand that Libya was not involved in any capacity whatsoever. It's my understanding that he can provide further details regarding his part in the investigation, or details identifying the true criminals in this case.”

However, Fuisz was the subject of a 1990’s gag order and required specific permission from the U.S. in order to give a sealed deposition for the Lockerbie trial.

Lindauer’s statement on Lockerbie caught the attention of the Scotland’s Sunday Herald:

[In 1994] One month before a court order was served on him (Fuisz) by the US government gagging him from speaking on the grounds of national security, he spoke to US congressional aide Susan Lindauer, telling her he knew the identities of the Lockerbie bombers and claiming they were not Libyan. Sunday Herald May 28, 2000

The Herald discussed her role in negotiations with Libya:

Congressional aide Lindauer, who was involved in early negotiations over the Lockerbie trial, claims Fuisz made "unequivocal statements to me that he has first-hand knowledge about the Lockerbie case". In her affidavit, she goes on: "Dr Fuisz has told me that he can identify who orchestrated and executed the bombing. Dr Fuisz has said that he can confirm absolutely that no Libyan national was involved in planning or executing the bombing of Pan Am 103, either in any technical or advisory capacity whatsoever.” Sunday Herald May 28, 2000

Her position was not that different than an analysis offered in Time Magazine in 2002. Both she and Time speculate that Ahmed Jibril, a Palestinian resistance leader allied with Syria, was responsible for the bombing. Time magazine even suggested that the terrorist act was a “hit” on a special U.S. military group seeking to free American hostages held in Lebanon.

Just recently, Time ran another article on findings by investigators raising factual questions that cast doubt on the guilty verdict of the one suspect actually convicted in the case.

On June 28, 2007, Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) made a referral of the al Megrahi conviction for further review due to a critical flaw in the case. Evidence from a Maltese shopkeeper that helped convict al Megrahi was accepted by trial judges without a “reasonable basis”. The SCCRC is empowered to refer flawed decisions to Scotland’s Supreme Court, which must hear the case.

Just recently, October 2, 2007, The Scotsman reported that “Fresh doubt has been cast over the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber after it emerged a document containing vital evidence about the bomb timer has never been shown to the defense.”

In addition, The Scotsman, Oct. 6, 2007, reported that two key witnesses, the Maltese shopkeeper and the head of the company that manufactured the timing devise for the bomb, were offered $2 million and $4 million respectively by U.S. officials to tilt their testimony for a conviction of al Megrahi.

Lindauer said that her work on Lockerbie started in 1995, “I was being used aggressively at this point for positive things.” She didn’t see any inconsistency between her activism and her work with the intelligence community. She opposed both sanctions by the United States and violence by terrorist states.

Thus, by her logic, her work for U.S. intelligence was no different than her activism – the goals were the same. She said, “From the perspective of my life, I was able to work against sanctions” and also work against terrorism emanating from rogue states. Noting the global reach of the events and the stakes, she now says, “This work makes you know how small you are.”

An Opening to Iraq

After Lockerbie, Lindauer says her work focused exclusively on Iraq, although she’d started contact with Iraqi diplomats at the U.N. in August, 1996. She followed her previous approach and sought out diplomats at the Iraq mission to the U.N. Her assignment was to help gain a resumption of weapons inspections based on the rigorous standards outlined by the U.S. She also made a trip to Iraq one year before the U.S. invasion.

During 2000, Lindauer began her efforts to cultivate Iraqi contacts for better relations with the U.S. She described an extraordinary opportunity that might have changed the entire direction of U.S. - Iraq relations. As the secular dictator of an Arab state, Hussein was not fond of Islamic terrorists. Lindauer reported to her U.S. contacts that the Iraq government would welcome an F.B.I. taskforce into Baghdad. She reported further, that “The F.B.I. would be able to interview witnesses and make arrests.” Further, she says that:

Iraq also offered banking records and proof of financial transfers that would prove Middle Eastern involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing and the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.

The program met with a frosty reception from the newly installed Bush administration. Lindauer said, “I was told that the new administration was evaluating its position on Iraq, in light of collapsing international support for sanctions.” There was no action on the plan. In fact, based on what we know now, improved relations with Iraq were not on the agenda from the beginning of the Bush-Cheney era.

This leads to the second phase of her activities regarding Iraq, the events that ended with Lindauer’s arrest, indictment, and incarceration at FMC Carswell, Ft. Worth, Texas.

Cassandra

A year before the invasion, in March 2002, Lindauer took a trip to Iraq to meet with government officials. She smiled broadly as she affirmed the value of that mission: “It would be regrettable if the US government lied about its knowledge of this trip.” She paused and smiled again, “We can prove their total awareness.”

Lindauer sent 11 letters to Card staring in 2001 leading her to pose this question: “If he wanted to discourage me to stop talking to the Iraqis, all he had to do was say so.”

In the final letter sent to Card, Lindauer delivered her accurate prediction of the results of the invasion she worked to avoid – a disaster in Iraq fueling resistance groups hostile to the U.S. along with a revival of al Qaeda.

She accurately estimated the true value of the exile groups cultivated by the Bush administration and, in the case of Ahmed Chalabi, used almost exclusively by New York Times writer Judith Miller as the basis for her discredited claims in New York Times that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Once U.S. bombing starts, the Iraqi exiles will have no credibility as leaders. None whatsoever. They will be hated as pawns of the United States, and my God, let me tell you Arabs can hate. A U.S. victory will never be sweet for long. Lindauer letter to Card, January 6, 2003*

She argued passionately, with dramatic emphasis, that there was a deep well of hostility towards the U.S. as a result of deaths caused by U.S. supported U.N. sanctions from 1990 through March 22, 2003. This is a story not well covered in the U.S. press but one with palpable results for the people of Iraq.

That hatred has kindled deeply because of the sanctions, Andy. Sanctions have killed 1.7 million human beings, including almost one million little children. Stop and think. What would an American father do to the man who killed three of his children, once that father could finally lay hands on the aggressor? Would he throw candy in the streets? No, he’d beat him to death and stab him 100 times until his arms were sore. And then he’d look for the next man, stalking until the right moment. In Baghdad, I met a man who lost 8 members of his immediate family in one year. That’s right, eight dead in ONE year. Multiply that by 20 million people.” Lindauer letter to Card, January 6, 2003*

While the Department of Justice questions Lindauer’s role as a cooperator with U.S. Intelligence and a question was raised about her ability to “influence anybody,” there can be little doubt about her analysis and predictions concerning post-war Iraq. Just in this final letter, she nailed down the myth of the exiles and their role in building a new Iraq, the extreme hostility of Iraqis toward the U.S. presence and personnel, and the resurrection of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Whatever her sources and inspiration, Susan Lindauer is truly an American Cassandra.

Note by RB: The Judge Michael B Mukasey mentioned above is President George Bush's nominee for the position of Attorney General of the United States to replace Alberto Gonzales. He is currently undergoing nomination hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7003532,00.html
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7047261,00.html
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-7053610,00.html
He has now been confirmed as Attorney General by the US Senate:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mukasey9nov09,1,3685347.story?coll=la-headlines-nation