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.]

FBI chief cannot grasp the Christian ethos

[This is the headline over an opinion piece by Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows.]

The United States has no provision in its justice system for compassion for those found guilty. As a result, it must be difficult for the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, to understand that Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, was acting in keeping with an established precedent under Scots law to sanction release when the death of a prisoner is imminent.

It is unprecedented for Mr Mueller, the FBI chief, to castigate the Justice Secretary of another sovereign nation for an action which complied with Scotland's law, taking account of humanity and mercy.

That Scotland does not have the death penalty, unlike the US, was one of the spurs that propelled me to visit Colonel Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, after the indictments on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and his co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, were issued to ask him to allow his citizens to attend trial under Scots law. I feel vindicated that Megrahi is at least back home with his family, alive

My country, Scotland, is Christian and I believe Mr MacAskill's decision chimed with the Christian principle of attempting to extend love and mercy, even to one's presumed enemies. It is a tough doctrine to embrace if you believe the man to have been guilty, but easier for those of us who suspect the verdict was wrong. The Church of Scotland has publicly supported Megrahi's return to his family, whether guilty or not. And Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow says showing mercy is not a sign of weakness. To be honest, I cannot be sure I would have the compassion to do that if I believed him guilty. Mr MacAskill's was by far the harder choice.

By a humbler standard, I cannot understand how forcing Megrahi to die in prison when there was provision to extend him mercy could make anyone feel better. Since when have two wrongs made a right?

It is clear that Mr MacAskill, contrary to Mr Mueller's allegations, acted with great care in talking to and listening to those directly affected by the Lockerbie atrocity, including the American families. It is also untrue to state, as Mr Mueller does, that the Justice Secretary's action "makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy".

I regret deeply that continuing our search for the truth endangers the "certainty" so many relatives, especially in the US, have concerning Megrahi's conviction. But to search for the truth over so grave a matter does not constitute mockery.

It is clear that Mr Mueller has an interest in defending the evidence which his agency and his country's CIA played so great a part in garnering after the bombing. Mr Mueller should realise that a number of open-minded and observant relatives, as well as many others who have studied the evidence, have come to the conclusion that the verdict should not have been reached.

We welcomed Megrahi's second appeal and were aware that many feared its outcome. Yet in the shadow of death, Megrahi, who wants above all else to clear his name, decided to withdraw his appeal. He hoped this would increase the likelihood of his return to his family to die. What would you, dear reader, have done?

As relatives, we want to find the truth of why our families were not protected, despite timely warnings, and who killed them. I would be grateful if Mr Mueller could answer me this question: if it turns out that the verdict is wrong and that the real terrorists are not only free but aware that the evidence for a Libyan crime was fatally flawed, does that cause more harm to the "fight against terror" than freeing a dying man to spend his last days with his family?

We must wait to see what Megrahi's defence can produce. Let us hope it doesn't take another 12 years for the answers. The search for the truth will not go away. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has found grounds for suspecting there might have been a miscarriage of justice. Compassion for Megrahi is welcome in some quarters. It might be that withdrawal of Megrahi's second appeal, which had proceeded at a glacially slow pace, will actually speed up the search for the truth. That is my hope.

[The New York Times today carries a report on the subject of Mr Megrahi's compassionate release headlined "Fury grows over release of Lockerbie convict". It can be read here.]

Where, I ask, is the justice?

[What follows is excerpted from an article published today on the CNN Politics website:]

[Robert] Mueller, now 73, began his Department of Justice career in 1976 as an assistant US attorney in San Francisco, and during the decades that followed took only two breaks to try out the private sector, each lasting no more than a couple of years.

The stints were so short-lived because of a simple fact, according to Graff: Mueller couldn't stand defending those he felt were guilty. (...)

That black-and-white outlook served Mueller well at the Department of Justice, where he oversaw some of the highest-profile cases of the last few decades including the prosecution of mobster John Gotti and Panamanian Dictator Manuel Noriega. But it was his investigation into the 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland that would most profoundly affect him.

"It was a very personal and a pivotal investigation of his career," according to Lisa Monaco, who served as Mueller's chief of staff when he was FBI director. "It is something that has stuck with him, and I think it was because he was so affected by walking the ground in Lockerbie after that plane went down, seeing the remnants of that plane, seeing the piecing together of the plane and the Christmas presents the passengers on that plane were carrying home to their family members, and seeing that all literally get pieced together in a warehouse in Scotland at the beginning of the investigation."

For years after the trial of the two Libyan terrorists, Mueller would quietly attend the annual December memorial service organized by the families, consoling those he had come to know well. When Scottish authorities announced in 2009 that they were releasing the one terrorist convicted in the case, Mueller was outraged.

"That did not sit well with him. He thought it was an injustice, a fundamental injustice for the families, and he did something very out-of-the-ordinary for him," Monaco said.

Mueller wrote a scathing letter to the Scottish authorities, saying in part, "your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own. ... Where, I ask, is the justice?"

It was an unusual outpouring of emotion for a man who, according to those closest to him, regularly keeps to himself.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel

[What follows is an excerpt from an article headed Alex Salmond is in the US schmoozing away. But Americans won't forget in a hurry that he freed the Lockerbie bomber by Professor Tom Gallagher, a virulently anti-SNP commentator, published today on The Telegraph website:]

Whether a coincidence or not, at the start of Alex Salmond’s five-day visit to the United States, the Scottish National Party has suddenly launched a peace offensive after a bruising referendum campaign that has raised fears that society will be polarised for years to come. Party sources have told a Scottish newspaper that they intend to concentrate their energies on healing political wounds if Scotland votes Yes.

But to those who recall SNP rhetoric about the party preserving the best of Britishness in a social union, it needs to be taken with a hefty pinch of salt. It smacks too much of a serial wife-beater turning round to his family after a traumatic night and saying that from now on life will be totally different.

It remains to be seen if the era of good tidings will last beyond the conclusion of Salmond’s trip which includes a speaking engagement at the IMF in Washington DC. He can turn from being a political bruiser to acting as a charmer in a matter of seconds. Unfortunately for him, plenty of Americans, both influential folk and everyday citizens, have seen both sides of the coin.

It is not only relatives of the 180 US citizens killed when a bomb blew up a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988 who were astonished when his government released the man convicted by a Scottish court, in 2001, for the attack on the grounds that he had little time left to live. The release of the Libyan national Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was announced with much fanfare on 20 August 2009. Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s justice minister, read a long statement insisting that the decision was based on "the values, beliefs, and common humanity that defines us as Scots". Hillary Clinton, then the US Secretary of State, twice spoke to MacAskill in the hope that he would reconsider the release of al-Megrahi who, instead of dying within weeks, enjoyed a comfortable life in a Tripoli suburb until 2012. [RB: It requires a really quite special sensibility to describe taking over two years to die of cancer in a war-ravaged and militia-ridden locality as enjoying a comfortable life in a Tripoli suburb.]

On 15 August 2009, Robert Mueller III, director of the FBI for nearly a decade, wrote to MacAskill in terms which had rarely been used between a senior US official and a friendly government:

"I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors. Your decision to release al-Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice… I do so because I am familiar with the facts of the law , having been the assistant Attorney general in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991. And I do so because I am outraged by your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of “compassion”’. [RB: More details about Robert Mueller’s “foolish and intemperate letter” (as I described it) can be found here. I commented: “In civilised countries decisions regarding liberation of prisoners are not placed in the hands of policemen and prosecutors, nor are they accorded a veto over those decisions. Mr Mueller (and Mr Marquise) would probably wish that this were otherwise. The rest of us can be grateful that it is not.”]

The British lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson, the first president of the UN war crimes court [RB: Not so. He sat as an appeal judge in the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone, something rather different.], observed that the decision taken was ‘lacking in compassion to every victim of terrorism and made an absurdity of the principle of punishment as a deterrent' ". [RB: Geoffrey Robertson’s idiosyncratic views on the Lockerbie case and Megrahi’s release can be followed here.]

The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee opened hearings on the affair but Salmond refused point-blank to cooperate. [RB: this is tendentious in the extreme. A more accurate account of the episode can be found here and here.]

It is hard to imagine such a scenario being played out if the Pan Am flight had exploded over Irish, Danish or even French territory. It is likely that the authorities of each of these countries would have avoided such a rupture in bilateral relations with an allied country.

The culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain

[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined Robert Mueller's Questionable Past that appeared yesterday on the American Free Press website:]

During his tenure with the Justice Department under President George H W Bush, Mueller supervised the prosecutions of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, the Lockerbie bombing (Pan Am Flight 103) case, and Gambino crime boss John Gotti. In the Noriega case, Mueller ignored the ties to the Bush family that Victor Thorn illustrated in Hillary (and Bill): The Drugs Volume: Part Two of the Clinton Trilogy. Noriega had long been associated with CIA operations that involved drug smuggling, money laundering, and arms running. Thorn significantly links Noriega to Bush family involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal.

Regarding Pan Am Flight 103, the culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain. Pro-Palestinian activists, Libyans, and Iranians have all officially been blamed when US intelligence and the mainstream mass media needed to paint each as the antagonist to American freedom. Mueller toed the line, publicly ignoring rumors that agents onboard were said to have learned that a CIA drug-smuggling operation was afoot in conjunction with Pan Am flights. According to the theory, the agents were going to take their questions to Congress upon landing. The flight blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Ministers defend Megrahi release

The Scottish government has defended its decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, amid mounting criticism on both sides of the Atlantic.

It follows an attack by the head of the FBI, who said freeing Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi made a "mockery of justice". (...)

The Scottish Government said last night the Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill had reached his conclusions on the basis of Scotland's "due process, clear evidence, and the recommendations from the parole board and prison governor".

The comments came in response to a letter from Robert Mueller, chief of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, who said the action made a "mockery of the rule of law" and "gave comfort to terrorists".

Mr Mueller is a former prosecutor who played a key role in investigating the 1988 Lockerbie bombing which killed 270 people. (...)

But in its statement, the Scottish government said: "The US authorities indicated although they were opposed to both prisoner transfer and compassionate release, they made it clear they regarded compassionate release as far preferable to the transfer agreement, and Mr Mueller should be aware of that.

"Mr Mueller was involved in the Lockerbie case, and therefore has strong views, but he should also be aware that while many families have opposed Mr MacAskill's decision many others have supported it."

[The above are excerpts from a report on the BBC News website.]

Stark double standard

[This is the heading over an article in Online Journal by specialist writer on Middle East affairs, Linda S Heard. It reads in part:]

The repatriation to Libya on compassionate grounds of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi has caused a firestorm in Britain and the US.

President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and leader of Britain’s Conservative Party David Cameron have all expressed their displeasure at the Scottish justice minister’s decision to release the only individual to have been convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. Even FBI Director Robert Mueller couldn’t resist adding his two cents. He has characterized the release as an act that brings “comfort to terrorists” everywhere and “a mockery of the rule of law.”

Complicating matters further are accusations that Al-Megrahi’s release was a condition for Britain being awarded lucrative oil, gas and hotel contracts, which Prime Minister Gordon Brown denies. Yet, the Libyan president’s son Seif Al-Islam says the decision to free this terminally ill individual was always tied to trade, while a leaked letter from Downing Street to the Libyan leader makes clear that Al-Megrahi’s homecoming has been brewing ever since the G8 summit held in Italy early in July.

Many Scots believe that their government was set up by Westminster to be Britain’s patsy and are angry that so much enmity is coming their way from across the Atlantic. They may have a point...

... the Libyan authorities are being heavily criticized for giving the returnee a warm welcome. Western politicians and many families of Lockerbie victims consider this shameful, yet Libya has always protested Al-Megrahi’s innocence while ordinary Libyans view him as a loyal son of the soil who sacrificed his freedom for the good of his country. Al-Megrahi has consistently said there has been a miscarriage of justice and says he will release documentation to the British public to prove it now that his appeal has been quashed. If the appeal was heard “there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that the prosecution case will survive,” said Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died on Pan Am 103.

Those who are incensed that Al-Megrahi gets to spend his last days with his wife and five children might at least contemplate the possibility that there was, indeed, a miscarriage of justice. Firstly, the case against him was circumstantial and relied heavily upon the testimony of Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, who said he recognized Al-Megrahi as the man who bought clothing in his shop, fragments of which were later found in the incendiary suitcase.

Yet, Gauci was allegedly shown photographs of Al-Megrahi and others prior to the line-up when he failed to identify him. He was then instructed to focus on Al-Megrahi’s picture when he insisted that the person who bought his clothes was much older than the man in the photo. He is also said to have been coached by prosecutors prior to giving testimony and is thought to have been offered millions of dollars in bribes to testify at trial.

When Gauci was first called to Amsterdam for the identification parade he initially said that Al-Megrahi was “not exactly the man I saw in the shop . . .” He also claimed that his buyer was over 6 feet tall whereas Al-Megrahi is much shorter at 5 feet eight inches. (...)

Moreover, a timer, a key piece of the prosecution’s material evidence, is believed to be a fake after Ulrich Lumpert, a Swiss engineer, admitted that he lied about its origins. Lumpert also said that the first time he had viewed the timer it had a brown circuit board whereas his former Zurich employer MEBO had only exported green circuit boards to Libya. Yet when the board was produced during the trial Lumpert noticed it was carbonized indicating it had subsequently been tampered with.

Last October, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission announced that “a miscarriage of justice may have occurred” and identified six grounds for an appeal. One of these grounds may be the fact that some 18 hours prior to the New York bound Pan Am flight taking off, there had been a break-in at Heathrow’s restricted baggage area, which security officials described as a “very deliberate act” by professionals. This evidence of baggage tampering was not disclosed to the defense team prior to Al-Megrahi’s trial.

Surely, even those who doggedly insist upon Al-Megrahi’s culpability must accept that there are certainly strong reasons for doubt. And if justice hasn’t been served, this wouldn’t be the first time that British courts got it wrong. In 1991, the so-called Birmingham Six were released on appeal after serving 16 years in prison while the Guildford Four were jailed for 15 years on a false conviction.

Lastly, if Robert Mueller considers Al-Megrahi’s release “a mockery of the rule of law,” what does he say about another 1988 civil aviation tragedy?

On July 3 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air flight 655 while flying within Iranian air space en route to Dubai. On that day, all 290 passengers and crew were killed, including 66 children. Ship’s Capt William C. Rogers III later said he had mistaken the Airbus A300 for an F-14 Tomcat Fighter (as though there is any resemblance), yet there was no Lockerbie-style trial for him. Instead, he became the commanding officer of the United States Navy Tactical Training Group.

The US government issued notes of regret but never admitted wrongdoing or gave Iran an apology. To add insult to injury, then US Vice President George H W Bush told the UN that the Vincennes had acted appropriately and dismissed the tragedy as a wartime incident although Tehran and Washington were not at war. And US Ambassador to Britain Charles H Price II actually sent Capt Rogers a congratulatory message, which read “I join other Americans in congratulating you for having done your duty.”

The US did, however, shell out $61.8 million to victim’s families, which is a far cry from the $1.5 billion that Libya was pressured to pay to the Lockerbie families.

The double standard here is extraordinary. Al-Megrahi, who may or may not be responsible for Lockerbie, served years behind bars, is nearing the end, and may never get the opportunity to clear his name. But Capt Rogers, who is definitely culpable for the death of 290 innocents, whether wittingly or unwittingly, was allowed to pursue his career with honor. Where is the international outrage about that?

The search for justice goes on and William Barr's actions are unlikely to help

[This is part of the headline over a long article by Kim Sengupta in The Independent. It reads in part:]

With great fanfare, on the anniversary of the Lockerbie bombing, the US has announced charges against the supposed bomb maker who blew up Pan Am flight 103, the worst act of terrorism in this country, with 270 lives lost.  

One of William Barr’s final acts as Donald Trump’s Attorney General, a deeply controversial tenure, is supposed to fit one of the final pieces of the jigsaw in the hunt for the killers.  

There are historic links between the Lockerbie investigation and the current, turbulent chapter of American politics. Barr was also the Attorney General in 1991, in the George W Bush administration, when charges were laid against two Libyans, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, and Lamin Khalifa Fhimah, over the bombing. The inquiry was led at the time by Robert Mueller, the head of the Department of Justice’s criminal division.  

Mueller, of course, became the Special Counsel who examined if Trump was the Muscovian candidate for the White House. Barr was the Attorney General, in his second term in the post, accused of distorting the findings of Mueller’s report to protect Trump from accusations of obstruction of justice, which he denies.  

The charges which have been laid against Abu Agila Mohammad Masud, another Libyan, are intrinsically connected to Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who is the only person to have been found guilty by a court of the bombing.  

Megrahi is now dead. There are good reasons to hold that the investigation, trial and verdict which brought his conviction were flawed and a miscarriage of justice has taken place. This is a view shared by bereaved families, international jurists, intelligence officers and journalists who had followed the case.  

Last month, an appeal hearing began at the High Court in Edinburgh to posthumously clear Megrahi’s name. This was the third appeal in the attempt to prove that the verdict against him was unsound, with his legal team focusing on the veracity of the prosecution evidence at his trial. 

Much of the case against Masud, a former Libyan intelligence officer, now charged, comes from an alleged confession he made in jail, where he had ended up after the fall of the regime of Muammar Gaddafi. Masud, according to the FBI, named Megrahi and Fhimah as co-conspirators, who had together manufactured an explosive device using Semtex during a trip to Malta. Masud has said that he had bought the clothing which had been wrapped around the bomb, hidden in a radio-cassette player, before being placed in a Samsonite suitcase which was put on the flight.  

There are two points which are immediately relevant. The same trial which convicted Megrahi had acquitted Fhimah of all charges. And one of the key allegations against Megrahi, which the judges said made them decide on the verdict of guilt, was that it was he who had bought the clothing put around the explosive device.  

These contradictions are among many, big and small, which have marked the official narrative presented by the US and UK authorities of what lay behind the downing of the airliner.  

I went to Lockerbie on the night of the bombing, attended the trial of the two Libyan defendants, and met Megrahi at his home in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, where he had been allowed to return after suffering from cancer. I have followed the twists and turns of the case throughout.   

Soon after the downing of the Pan Am flight, American and British security officials began laying the blame on an Iran-Syria axis. The scenario was that Tehran had taken out a contract in revenge for the destruction of an Iranian civilian airliner, Iran Air Flight 655, which had been shot down by missiles fired from an American warship, the USS Vincennes, a few months earlier. The theory went that the contract had been taken up by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), which specialised in such operations.  

But the blame switched to Libya, then very much a pariah state, around the time Iran and Syria joined the US-led coalition against Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War. Robert Baer, the former American intelligence officer and author, was among those who held that the Iranian sponsored hit was the only plausible explanation for the attack. This was the firm belief held “to a man”, he stated, by his former colleagues in the CIA.  

After years of wrangling, Megrahi, the former head of security at Libyan Airlines and allegedly in the Libyan security service, and Fhimah, allegedly a fellow intelligence officer, were finally extradited in 1999. (...)

The two men were charged with joint enterprise and conspiracy. Yet only Megrahi was found guilty. (...)

So, deprived of finding a partner in crime for Megrahi, the prosecutor switched to claiming, and the judges accepting, that he had conspired with himself.  

The prosecution evidence was circumstantial; details of the bomb timer on the plane were contradictory; and the testimony of a key witness, a Maltese shopkeeper, extremely shaky under cross-examination. Five years on from the trial, the former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmville – who had been responsible for initiating the Lockerbie prosecution – described the witness, Tony Gauci, as “an apple short of a picnic” and “not quite the full shilling”. Gauci was, however, flush in dollars: the Americans paid him for his testimony.  

The performance and evidence of a supposedly prime “CIA intelligence asset”, Abdul Majid Giaka, codenamed “Puzzle Piece” who turned up in a Shirley Bassey wig, was widely viewed as risible. It emerged later that important evidence had not been passed on to the defence lawyers. Ulrich Lumpert, an engineer who testified to the validity of a key piece of evidence, admitted later in an affidavit of lying to the court.  

It has also emerged that Giaka had been described by his CIA handler, John Holt, in an official report as someone who had a “history of making up stories”.

Holt was denied permission to appear at court. Earlier this month he reiterated in an interview that, like his CIA colleagues, he believes the Libyan connection was a concocted red herring and culpability lay with PFLP (GC). "I would start by asking the current Attorney General, William Barr, why he suddenly switched focus in 1991, when he was also Attorney General, from where clear evidence was leading, toward a much less likely scenario involving Libyans”, he said.  

The observer for the UN at the trial, Hans Kochler severely criticised the verdict. Writing later in The Independent, he described a case based on “circumstantial evidence”; the “lack of credibility” of key prosecution witnesses who “had incentives to bear false witness against Megrahi”; the fact that one was paid cash by the Americans; and that “so much key information was withheld from the trial”.    

Robert Black, a law professor born in Lockerbie, who played an important role in organising the Camp Zeist proceedings, later became convinced that a great injustice had taken place, as have many other eminent jurists.  

Some who were in Lockerbie on that terrible night and dealt with the aftermath also felt the same way. Father Patrick Keegans, the parish priest at the time, joined the “Justice for Megrahi” campaign after meeting the convicted man’s family and has backed appeals to clear his name.  

Many members of the bereaved families feel that justice has not been done, among them Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the bombing and became a spokesman for “UK Families 103”.  

When there were objections to the severely ill Megrahi being allowed to return to Tripoli, he pointed out “the scandal around Megrahi is not that a sick man was released, but that he was even convicted in the first place. All I have ever wanted to see is that the people who murdered my daughter are brought to justice.”  

After the charging of Masud, Dr Swire said: “I'm all in favour of whatever he's got to tell us being examined in a court, of course I am. The more people who look at the materials we have available the better.”  

He wanted to stress: “There are only two things that we seek, really. One is the question of why those lives were not protected in view of all the warnings and the second is: what does our government and the American government really know about who is responsible for murdering them.”  

Some bereaved families have criticised the presentation and motivation of the US move. The State Department had sent an invitation for livestreaming of the event.  

Reverend John Mosey, who lost his 19-year-old daughter Helga in the bombing, said the “timing and particularly the choice of this specific day, which is special to many of us, to be bizarre, disrespectful, insensitive and extremely ill considered”. He added: “Why exactly, when the Attorney General is about to leave office, has he waited 32 years to bring charges?”  

Behind the controversy over who carried out the attack, the political manoeuvres and legal actions, lay the human tragedy of Lockerbie, a scene which is difficult to forget, even after three decades, for many of us who went there.  (...)

There is also the memory of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, at his home in Tripoli in 2012. He lay in his bed attached to a drip, on red sheets stained by dark splashes of blood he had coughed up. An oxygen mask covered his skeletal face; his body twitched as he drifted in and out of consciousness. He was in the advanced stages of cancer: medicine he desperately needed had been plundered by looters; the doctors who had been treating him had fled. He died a few months later.  

The bitter accusations and recriminations over Lockerbie are unlikely to cease. But the search for justice for this terrible act of violence which took so many lives, and caused so much pain and grief, continues to remain elusive among the secrets and lies. 

Barack Obama orders Lockerbie bomber al-Megrahi be seized

[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of the Sunday Mirror. It reads as follows:]

Barack Obama will ­demand the Lockerbie bomber as the price of supporting a new government in Libya.

The US President says the ­deportation of freed Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi is a condition of him backing the rebels if they win power.

Mr Obama wants ­Megrahi to be tried in the States for putting a bomb on the New York-bound jet that blew up over Lockerbie, ­Scotland, in 1988, a crime for which he was convicted by a Scottish court.

Cancer-stricken Megrahi has disappeared in Libya where he has been living after being released from jail because he supposedly had only months to live.

Intelligence sources fear he has been taken into ruler Colonel Muhamar Gaddafi’s own compound - and that Libyan leader would rather kill him than let his Lockerbie secrets be revealed.

Megrahi is believed to know the full story of the bombing in which 270 died and can name everyone involved - including Gaddafi.

The Sunday Mirror understands that top US officials have held talks with rebel leaders and demanded Megrahi be handed over.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a conference on Wednesday with FBI Director Robert Mueller and Attorney-General Eric Holder about how bring Megrahi and Gaddafi to justice.

A Washington source said: “This is seen as a real chance to get hold of the bomber who killed 189 American citizens.

“He may have spent a few years in a Scottish prison but in the eyes of the American people he has never faced justice.

"The US Justice Department said the indictment of Megrahi and another suspect remained pending and the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 remains open.”

Democratic Senator Robert Menendez said the deportation of al-Megrahi should be a condition of the US recognising a new Libyan government.

[The United States Government, along with that of the United Kingdom, proposed the UN Security Council resolutions that set up the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist. Both governments thereby undertook internationally binding obligations to comply with the legal processes thus set in motion. The United States cannot lawfully renounce those obligations either unilaterally or in conjunction with whatever new government it chooses to recognise in Libya. To have Abdelbaset Megrahi lawfully handed over to the US would require a further UN Security Council resolution. The United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council could, of course, propose such a resolution. But would the other members support it? The US could also, naturally, simply ignore international legality (as it did, with the UK's supine support, in launching the invasion of Iraq) and seize Megrahi by force (with or without the connivance of a new Libyan regime).

The IntelliBriefs website yesterday published an interesting article entitled Libya, Kaddafi and Lockerbie. It incorporates articles from Tam Dalyell, Robert Fisk and others.

An article by Susan Lindauer on Lockerbie and Libya can be read here on The People's Voice website.]

A mosaic of supposition and surmise

[What follows is a short excerpt from a profile of special prosecutor Robert Mueller published in today's edition of the Sunday Herald:]

In 1982, he became an assistant US attorney in Boston, investigating and prosecuting major cases that ranged from terrorist to public corruption. He then had spells as partner in law firms or in public service. In July 1990, he took over the criminal division of the US Department of Justice.

In his book Enemies: A History of the FBI, author Tim Weiner says FBI agents “instinctively liked [Mueller], despite his aristocratic demeanour ... [He] had a sharp mind, a first-rate temperament, and a high regard for well-crafted cases ... [He] was a born leader”.

One of the cases that fell to him was the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. Weiner says that at that time, the investigation was “a mosaic of supposition and surmise ... Someone needed to take charge”. Mueller quickly put FBI Special Agent Richard Marquise, who had been involved with the case from the outset, in full charge of it now, tasking him with turning intelligence into evidence.

Intelligence began to be shared much more widely and diligently, and Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was charged and convicted.

Victims group continues search for answers in Pan Am 103 bombing

[This is the headline over a report published earlier this week in The Daily Orange, the newspaper of Syracuse University, New York, which lost 35 students in the Lockerbie disaster.  It reads in part:]

In the late-December days following the Pan Am Flight 103 explosion over Lockerbie, Scotland, friends and family of the 259 passengers boarded their own flights across the Atlantic.

“Victims’ family members went to Lockerbie because they just wanted to be there,” said Frank Duggan, president of Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Inc. “They were still bringing bodies in from the field.” (...)

The group formally organized in February 1989 to discover the truth about the bombing, said Duggan, who said he did not know anyone on the plane. The founding members advocated for airline safety and created a support network for grieving family and friends. While the passage of various air safety and victims advocacy legislation speak to the weighty influence of the victims’ group, current board members say the group continues to be an active political force working toward its founding goals. (...)

Aside from airline security, the Pan Am victims have played a significant role in shaping the way the US government deals with victims of disasters, said Richard Marquise, a retired FBI agent who worked on the investigation from the day of the crash.

“We did not have a lot of experience in dealing with victims,” Marquise said. “This was the first big one where we had to deal with 189 American victims and you actually had a cohesive group that came together and started asking questions of investigators.”

Marquise said he remembered the first time he addressed the victims group in Albany, NY, in early 1991 and the painful experience of hearing the family members say they felt the FBI wasn’t making any progress in the investigation.

“In terms of dealing with victims, it’s something that we did not do very well in the late 80s and 90s,” Marquise said.

But since then, he said, Congress has passed legislation to give victims more rights and ultimately deal with victims in a more proactive manner. “I won’t say they came out of Lockerbie, but part of the Lockerbie experience fed into how it’s in the government today,” he said.

The relationship between the victims group and the government continues to develop, said Duggan, president of the group, considering the investigation into the bombing is still open despite the indictment of Libyan Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi.

“To this day, 25 years later, they convicted one guy and we know that he didn’t do it himself,” Duggan said.

He said the group met with former FBI Director Robert Mueller for a briefing on the investigation before Mueller’s retirement in September. At the briefing, nearly 25 years after the actual bombing, Duggan said, Mueller promised to find who else was involved in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing.

Said Duggan: “We’ve been promised that by the US government and I believe the US government is going to do the best they can to get to the bottom of that.”

[If the US government, like the Scottish police and Crown Office, are looking only in Libya they are unlikely to get anywhere.  But that, of course, may be the whole point.  

An interview with Frank Duggan has today been posted on the Syracuse website of The Post-Standard.]

Doubts over witness led to fears Lockerbie trial would collapse

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

Prosecutors in Edinburgh and Washington feared the case against the Lockerbie bomber would collapse if their concerns over the integrity of the star witness were made public, declassified documents have revealed.

The papers show that senior Scottish and US officials privately raised doubts over his reliability and are set to trigger fresh claims of a miscarriage of justice.

Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer, was sentenced to 27 years by a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands after being found guilty of masterminding the 1988 atrocity in which 270 people were killed.

The testimony of Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper who claimed he sold clothing — believed to have been wrapped around the bomb — to a man resembling al-Megrahi, proved pivotal to securing his conviction in 2001. However, concerns were raised about the “soundness of Gauci’s identification” and the UK and US feared the case would founder if this became known.

The new information, disclosed last night, on the 33rd anniversary of the terrorist attack, has renewed calls for an appeal against al-Megrahi’s conviction.

Hans Koechler, who served as the UN’s independent observer at his trial, said: “I am even more convinced that a miscarriage of justice occurred.”

A report of a meeting between Alan Rodger, then Scotland’s lord advocate, and Robert Mueller, US assistant attorney-general, in Washington in 1992, states: “If it became known we or the US were sending people to check on the soundness of Gauci’s identification that would signal that we did not have a case on which we could confidently go to trial. The US Department of Justice maintained that they could not go to trial on the present identification.”

Gauci was the sole witness to link al-Megrahi directly to the bombing of Pan Am 103, over the town of Lockerbie.

In 2000 he told a panel of judges that al-Megrahi “resembled a lot” a man who bought clothes from his shop. But in 1992 a letter from the Crown Office to Mueller raised doubt. “Further inquiries concerning the identification made by the shopkeeper Gauci could be seized upon by those in Malta, Libya and elsewhere hostile to the conclusions of the investigation.” In 2007 it emerged that the US had paid $2 million to Gauci.

Robert Black, professor emeritus of Scots Law at Edinburgh University, who masterminded the trial, said: “It is now more obvious than ever that the Megrahi conviction is built on sand. An independent inquiry should be instituted into the case by the Scottish government, the UK government or both.”

The Crown Office said it would be inappropriate to comment further while leave to appeal (by al-Megrahi’s son Ali) is being considered by the UK Supreme Court. Police Scotland have confirmed that their investigation remains live. (...)

The confidential documents also show that British officials threatened to veto Malta’s application to join the EU if they did not back their demands over the Lockerbie bombing.

The UK and US insisted that the bomb which exploded over Scotland 33 years ago was loaded on to Air Malta flight KM-180, which left the island for Frankfurt on December 21. They contended it was then taken to London and transferred to Pan Am Flight 103, which blew up over Lockerbie with the loss of 270 lives. The Maltese authorities strongly disputed this version of events, insisting it was technically impossible.

Their stance provoked considerable anxiety. A March 1992 memo to the Foreign Office from diplomatic staff in New York states: “We understand that the Maltese government is considering stating publicly that the allegation that the bomb was planted in Malta was not proven and instructed their ambassador to the UN to explain this to non-aligned members of the Security Council. We hope the Maltese government will think carefully on this and reconsider its position. The US embassy here have told us that their embassy in Valletta has been instructed to take action at the highest level.”

The Maltese were then told the UK would not support their attempt to join the European Community (EC), the precursor to the EU. (...)

The following month British officials noted with satisfaction: “Malta will now comply with mandatory sanctions, while not agreeing with them.”

Guido de Marco, Malta’s justice minister at the time of the bombing, wrote in 2010 shortly before his death that there had been “so much room for error” in the British version of events.

Officials ordered to monitor ‘troublesome’ relatives of victims

An independent investigation into the Lockerbie atrocity launched by bereaved family members posed “great potential for trouble” and should be carefully monitored, government officials were told. (...)

In 2018 relatives of the Lockerbie bomb victims told The Times they had been repeatedly bugged by the security services after official documents suggested that they needed “careful watching”.

The Rev John Mosey, a church minister who lost his teenage daughter, Helga, in the bombing, said that after speaking publicly his phone calls were often disrupted and documents relating to the bombing had gone missing from his computer.

Jim Swire, a GP who became the public face of the campaign to secure an independent inquiry into the atrocity, reported similar intrusions and deliberately included false information in private correspondence, only for it to appear in the press days later.

Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed, said: “I cannot believe that a supposedly decent country could behave in such a way towards grieving people whose only crime was to seek the truth.”

[RB: It is no surprise that those at the top of the Lockerbie prosecution team in both Scotland and the United States were gravely concerned about the quality of the evidence that Tony Gauci would give at Camp Zeist. What is surprising is that the prosecution was prepared to proceed to trial in reliance on that evidence, and that the judges at the trial found that Gauci's evidence amounted to an identification of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and that it was credible and reliable. Had they not done so, there was insufficient evidence in law for Megrahi to be convicted. 

The most rigorous analysis of Gauci's statements before and during the trial has been provided by Dr Kevin Bannon: https://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-centrepiece-of-case-against-megrahi.html. Here is part of what he found:

"The development of Tony Gauci’s statements from his first police interviews in September 1989 through to his testimony in court, reveal his recollections systematically developing in favour of the Crown narrative, in increasing contradiction of all his freshest recollections.

"... it is not merely the case (as has often been stated) that Gauci’s evidence was contradictory, but that in every aspect, it changed in favour of the Crown narrative, in some instances quite drastically. Gauci’s original, freshest recollections about the appearance of the Libyan purchaser and the time of his visit, would have, and should have, categorically eliminated al-Megrahi from suspicion.

"Gauci’s testimony, the centrepiece of the case against al-Megrahi and, by implication, the principal Libyan connection to the crime, simply has no integrity whatsoever - nevertheless he was given a substantial financial reward for his latter evidence. These discrepancies render the entire case against al-Megrahi invalid."

Had the newly released documents been available before the most recent appeal, it is possible that the Megrahi family's lawyers could have made use of them in their case. But I see no realistic prospect of a further posthumous appeal. It is now more than ever obvious that the Megrahi conviction is built on sand. What should now happen is that an independent inquiry should be instituted into the Lockerbie case by the Scottish Government, the UK Government or both in tandem. There is much evidence now available that has not been considered in any of the Scottish Lockerbie appeals, in part because of the highly restrictive rules governing what material can be made use of in Scottish criminal appeals. Only with an independent inquiry is there a possibility that the false narrative supported by the shameful conviction of Megrahi can be rectified.]

Lockerbie bombing: Scottish police to visit Libya

[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website.  It reads in part:]

Police officers investigating the 1988 Lockerbie bombing are to visit Libya, Prime Minister David Cameron has announced.

The new Libyan government indicated in December it was prepared to open all files relating to the bombing. (...)

Megrahi was released by the Scottish government on compassionate grounds, suffering from terminal prostate cancer.

He remains the only person ever convicted of the bombing, but Scottish police hope to pursue other suspects in Libya following the country's revolution and downfall of Colonel Gaddafi in 2011.

Mr Cameron announced at a joint news conference in Tripoli with his Libyan counterpart Ali Zeidan that officers from Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary had been granted permission to visit the country.

He said: "I am delighted that the Dumfries and Galloway police team will be able to visit your country to look into the issues around the Lockerbie bombing."

The officers are expected to travel to Libya in March.

A spokesman for the police force said: "Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary welcomes the support of the Libyan authorities for the ongoing investigation.

"Travel details and dates cannot be released for security reasons, and to protect the integrity of the investigation."

The father of one of the victims of the bombing welcomed the news but said officers must travel "with an open mind".

Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora, believes that Megrahi was wrongly convicted.

Scotland's top prosecutor had previously written to the new Libyan prime minister for help and the UK government had said it was pressing Tripoli "for swift progress and co-operation" on the Lockerbie case.

In April last year, Scotland's Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland travelled to Tripoli with the director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, requesting co-operation after the fall of Gaddafi.

This was followed in May by a meeting with Libya's interim prime minister in London to discuss further inquires into the bombing.

A statement from the Crown Office in Scotland said it welcomed Libyan support for the ongoing investigation.

A Crown Office spokesperson said: "The investigation into the involvement of others with Megrahi in the Lockerbie bombing remains open and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary continues to work with Crown Office and US authorities to pursue available lines of enquiry."

[A similar report on the STV News website can be read here.

The Herald’s report on David Cameron’s statement contains the following perceptive comment from Justice for Megrahi‘s secretary:]

Robert Forrester, secretary of the Justice for Megrahi campaign group, which wants an independent inquiry to look again at the conviction, said: "As far as I am concerned, the conviction was a gross miscarriage of justice and the efforts the police and Crown Office are making to locate other Libyans who may have colluded in the bringing down of Pan Am flight 103 amount to little more than eye-wash.

"In other words, I think it's a thoroughly cynical attempt to deceive the public into thinking the conviction was justified."

Lockerbie bombing: Libyan government set to release files

[This is the headline over a report published this morning on the BBC News website.  It reads as follows:]

The new Libyan government in Tripoli is prepared to open all files relating to the Lockerbie bombing, the country's ambassador to the UK has confirmed.

However, Mahmud Nacua said it would be at least another year before Libya was in a position to release whatever information it holds.

The move comes on the 24th anniversary of the of bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland, which killed 270 people.

Bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi died this year after being released in 2009.

Megrahi, a Libyan agent, was released by the Scottish government on compassionate grounds, suffering from terminal prostate cancer.

He remains the only person ever convicted of the bombing, but Scottish police hope to pursue other suspects in Libya following the country's revolution and downfall of Colonel Gaddafi in 2011.

Scotland's top prosecutor recently wrote to the new Libyan prime minister for help and the UK government has said it was pressing Tripoli "for swift progress and co-operation" on the Lockerbie case.

Mr Nacua told the BBC no formal agreement had yet been reached, but that Libya would open the files it holds on the case.

He said that would only come when his government had fully established security and stability - a process he believes will take at least a year.

In April of this year, Scotland's Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland travelled to Tripoli with the director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, requesting co-operation after the fall of Gaddafi.

This was followed in May by a meeting with Libya's interim prime minister in London to discuss further inquires into the bombing.

At the time, a Crown Office spokesman said: "The prime minister asked for clarification on a number of issues relating to the conduct of the proposed investigation in Libya and the lord advocate has undertaken to provide this.

"The prime minister made it clear that he recognised the seriousness of this crime and following the clarification he would take this forward as a priority." 

[A report just published on the Telegraph website contains the following:]

Dr Jim Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter Flora died in the atrocity, welcomed the development but said the truth would not be discovered until “the nonsense of the case against Megrahi” had been exposed.

Dr Swire, the former spokesman for the British relatives of Lockerbie group, said: “Where Libya is concerned, we may discover some mischief from the Gaddafi days but the more urgent matter is showing Megrahi was not involved.”

Referring to Megrahi’s conviction, he said: “It is de facto protecting those responsible from investigation. Anything that might reveal something about the truth is welcome but Scotland is the first place to look.”

Robert Forrester, secretary of the Justice for Megrahi campaign group, said: "It is excellent news on the grounds that more openness on the part of all governments involved in this, not just Libya but Scotland, the UK and the US, is to be welcomed.”