Here is the report on the outcome of the procedural hearing which appears on the website of the Libyan Jamahiriya Broadcasting Corporation:
“Scotland's top Judge called on the British government to provide him with two documents related to bombing of the Pan Am plane over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988, which the government says are secret.
“The call came within the Scotland's appeal court to review the previous verdict against the political hostage, the Libyan national Abdel Basset Al-Maghrahi.
“Scotland's top judge Lord Hamilton and two appeal court judges in Edinburgh, said the lawyer representing the British government should produce for the court the documents in question within a week, subject to appropriate security measures.
“He said the judges would consider the documents, which Foreign Secretary David Milliband has declared secret.
“Advocate General, representing the British government in the hearing, conceded that under Scottish law, which is different from the British, the final decision on whether the documents were produced in open court lay with the court of appeal.
“An open session of the appeal court will be held on 17-18 June to review the new documents.”
Saturday 31 May 2008
Libya to resolve claims with US
This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. After talks held in London between Libya and the United States, a mechanism has been agreed for resolving outstanding compensation claims, including the final payment to the families of the Lockerbie victims. The report reads in part:
"The US and Libya have agreed to work together to resolve compensation claims from the Lockerbie bombing and other 1980s attacks blamed on Libyan agents.
"Libya has already paid out $8m (£4m) to each Lockerbie victim's family but has not made final payments of $2m amid a dispute over America's obligations.
"A US court ruling that Libya should pay billions of dollars to Americans killed by another bomb incensed the Libyans.
"They are hoping for an all-in-one deal to cover that and the other attacks."
ABC News's coverage of the story can be read here and the Daily Express's here.
"The US and Libya have agreed to work together to resolve compensation claims from the Lockerbie bombing and other 1980s attacks blamed on Libyan agents.
"Libya has already paid out $8m (£4m) to each Lockerbie victim's family but has not made final payments of $2m amid a dispute over America's obligations.
"A US court ruling that Libya should pay billions of dollars to Americans killed by another bomb incensed the Libyans.
"They are hoping for an all-in-one deal to cover that and the other attacks."
ABC News's coverage of the story can be read here and the Daily Express's here.
Friday 30 May 2008
Newspaper reports on day three of procedural hearing
The Herald has a lengthy report on the third day of the procedural hearing. The last three paragraphs read:
'The Advocate General has put forward a plan for a special security-vetted advocate to be appointed to replace the defence in the hearings which will address the issue of public interest immunity.
'He has also suggested that the special advocate could play a role in the appeal itself, a proposal which was criticised by the defence.
'Margaret Scott QC, for the defence, said: "It is a radical departure and an unprecedented use of special representatives. It involves the improper use of special advocates. The result would be... to deny the appellant to a fair hearing in his appeal."'
The full article can be seen here.
The Scotsman's very short report can be read here.
'The Advocate General has put forward a plan for a special security-vetted advocate to be appointed to replace the defence in the hearings which will address the issue of public interest immunity.
'He has also suggested that the special advocate could play a role in the appeal itself, a proposal which was criticised by the defence.
'Margaret Scott QC, for the defence, said: "It is a radical departure and an unprecedented use of special representatives. It involves the improper use of special advocates. The result would be... to deny the appellant to a fair hearing in his appeal."'
The full article can be seen here.
The Scotsman's very short report can be read here.
The mysterious document identified?
In his latest article in OhMyNews International, Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer says that he is convinced that he has identified the document that is the subject of the UK Government's PII claim in the new Lockerbie appeal. He states:
"Very little is known about this document. We know that it was obtained from a foreign country, which is not the United States or one of its agencies. The document is rumored to obliterate the thesis of the bomb being activated by a MST-13 timer and the Thurman fragment. The government argues that the PII is needed, surprisingly not for National Security reasons, but to safeguard the good relation of the UK with the country that provided the document. Lastly, the document was passed to the UK in 1996.
"Yesterday, I was informed that the document was delivered on Sept. 13, 1996. The date leaves me with little doubt that the document is the testimony of Iranian defector Abolghasem Mesbahi who alleged that Tehran, not Tripoli, had ordered the bombing of Pan Am 103."
The complete article can be read here.
"Very little is known about this document. We know that it was obtained from a foreign country, which is not the United States or one of its agencies. The document is rumored to obliterate the thesis of the bomb being activated by a MST-13 timer and the Thurman fragment. The government argues that the PII is needed, surprisingly not for National Security reasons, but to safeguard the good relation of the UK with the country that provided the document. Lastly, the document was passed to the UK in 1996.
"Yesterday, I was informed that the document was delivered on Sept. 13, 1996. The date leaves me with little doubt that the document is the testimony of Iranian defector Abolghasem Mesbahi who alleged that Tehran, not Tripoli, had ordered the bombing of Pan Am 103."
The complete article can be read here.
Thursday 29 May 2008
Procedural hearing: third day
The only report that I have been able to find on the internet about day three of the procedural hearing comes from Reuters Africa. It reads in part:
“Scotland's top judge called on the British government on Thursday to provide him with two secret documents relating to the bombing of a Pan Am airliner over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988.
“Lord [Justice General] Hamilton, sitting with two other appeal court judges in Edinburgh, said the lawyer representing the government should ‘produce for the court the documents in question ... subject to appropriate security measures being in place within seven days.’
“He said the judges would consider the documents, which British Foreign Secretary David Milliband has declared secret under a Public Interest Immunity (PII) order.
“Lord Hamilton said the judges would weigh up how important it was that the appeal be heard in a closed court, to which not even the defence team could be admitted for security reasons.”
There is, I am sure, no question of the appeal being heard behind closed doors. What is at issue is whether the question of disclosure of the documents should be decided in camera.
That this is, in fact, the position seems clear from the BBC News report that has just been posted. There will be a closed session after the documents have been produced to the judges, who will then decide what further disclosure (if any), and to whom, should be made.
“Scotland's top judge called on the British government on Thursday to provide him with two secret documents relating to the bombing of a Pan Am airliner over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988.
“Lord [Justice General] Hamilton, sitting with two other appeal court judges in Edinburgh, said the lawyer representing the government should ‘produce for the court the documents in question ... subject to appropriate security measures being in place within seven days.’
“He said the judges would consider the documents, which British Foreign Secretary David Milliband has declared secret under a Public Interest Immunity (PII) order.
“Lord Hamilton said the judges would weigh up how important it was that the appeal be heard in a closed court, to which not even the defence team could be admitted for security reasons.”
There is, I am sure, no question of the appeal being heard behind closed doors. What is at issue is whether the question of disclosure of the documents should be decided in camera.
That this is, in fact, the position seems clear from the BBC News report that has just been posted. There will be a closed session after the documents have been produced to the judges, who will then decide what further disclosure (if any), and to whom, should be made.
Newspaper reports on day two of procedural hearing
The Herald's report on yesterday's proceedings at the procedural hearing contains the following passage: "Margaret Scott, QC, for the defence, told the court that she did not object in principle to a closed hearing nor to the appointment of a special advocate. The hearing continues today."
Similarly, the short report in The Scotsman states: "Lawyers for the Lockerbie bomber accepted yesterday that there could be a private hearing in his appeal, but voiced misgivings about a lack of detail."
This seeming acceptance of the possibility of a closed hearing and special counsel strikes me as mildly surprising. But I suspect that it is simply a very reluctant fall-back position from the defence's strong primary submission that disclosure of the document should be ordered by the court to Megrahi's legal team without restrictions.
The report in The Times makes no mention of the defence concession.
Similarly, the short report in The Scotsman states: "Lawyers for the Lockerbie bomber accepted yesterday that there could be a private hearing in his appeal, but voiced misgivings about a lack of detail."
This seeming acceptance of the possibility of a closed hearing and special counsel strikes me as mildly surprising. But I suspect that it is simply a very reluctant fall-back position from the defence's strong primary submission that disclosure of the document should be ordered by the court to Megrahi's legal team without restrictions.
The report in The Times makes no mention of the defence concession.
Wednesday 28 May 2008
Former Iranian President blames Tehran for Lockerbie
This is the headline over a lengthy and detailed article today in OhMyNews International by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer. The President in question is Abolhassan Bani-Sadr and the statement about Iran's ordering the destruction of Pan Am 103 (in retaliation for the shooting down of an Iranian Airbus by the USS Vincennes) came during an interview with Dr De Braeckeleer on 16th May.
The full article can be read here.
The full article can be read here.
Procedural hearing: second day
It appears that the Lord Advocate does not agree with the Advocate General’s suggestion that the solution to the impasse over the disclosure of the mysterious foreign document would be for it to be disclosed to special (security-vetted) counsel rather than to Megrahi’s regular legal team.
Ronnie Clancy QC, appearing for the Lord Advocate, suggested that the way forward might be for limited disclosure – perhaps by way of a summary of the document – to be made to Megrahi and his lawyers. He is reported as saying, “The principle about involving the defence to the maximum extent looms large here. The Lord Advocate is mindful of the difficulty that the petitioner [Megrahi] would have in bringing a ground of appeal without even limited disclosure." He acknowledged that the Advocate General, who represents the UK Government in legal matters north of the border, may be "less enthusiastic" about the idea. "I don't understand the Advocate General to have ruled out limited disclosure at this stage," he added.
As might be expected, Megrahi’s counsel are strongly opposed to the Advocate General’s proposal and to anything less than full disclosure of the document to Megrahi’s current legal representatives.
Maggie Scott QC, senior counsel for the Libyan, is reported as saying: "Megrahi's position here is that he wants disclosure of these documents in order to exercise his right of appeal. My main concern is any proposed procedure which determines the substance of the appeal taking part in the absence of Megrahi or his defence counsel."
The report on the BBC News website can be read here.
[Reports on the first day of the hearing by Scotland's two daily "heavies", The Herald and The Scotsman, can be seen here and here.]
Ronnie Clancy QC, appearing for the Lord Advocate, suggested that the way forward might be for limited disclosure – perhaps by way of a summary of the document – to be made to Megrahi and his lawyers. He is reported as saying, “The principle about involving the defence to the maximum extent looms large here. The Lord Advocate is mindful of the difficulty that the petitioner [Megrahi] would have in bringing a ground of appeal without even limited disclosure." He acknowledged that the Advocate General, who represents the UK Government in legal matters north of the border, may be "less enthusiastic" about the idea. "I don't understand the Advocate General to have ruled out limited disclosure at this stage," he added.
As might be expected, Megrahi’s counsel are strongly opposed to the Advocate General’s proposal and to anything less than full disclosure of the document to Megrahi’s current legal representatives.
Maggie Scott QC, senior counsel for the Libyan, is reported as saying: "Megrahi's position here is that he wants disclosure of these documents in order to exercise his right of appeal. My main concern is any proposed procedure which determines the substance of the appeal taking part in the absence of Megrahi or his defence counsel."
The report on the BBC News website can be read here.
[Reports on the first day of the hearing by Scotland's two daily "heavies", The Herald and The Scotsman, can be seen here and here.]
Tuesday 27 May 2008
Today's procedural hearing
The BBC News website reports today's procedural hearing under the headline "Lockerbie documents security plea" and indicates that, as anticipated, the Advocate General for Scotland representing the United Kingdom Government wishes the substantive issue to be argued behind closed doors, with specially vetted counsel (rather than Megrahi's regular legal representatives) being appointed to protect Megrahi's interests at the hearing.
The Sun has a somewhat longer report of the proceedings, which can be read here.
Megrahi's counsel have not yet been heard in reply to the Advocate General's proposals. The hearing is scheduled to continue on Wednesday and Thursday.
The Sun has a somewhat longer report of the proceedings, which can be read here.
Megrahi's counsel have not yet been heard in reply to the Advocate General's proposals. The hearing is scheduled to continue on Wednesday and Thursday.
Zeist appeal must be seen to be fair
This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's issue of The Herald, in reply to the recent letter from the Crown Office. It reads:
"The Crown Office is quite right in saying that the Westminster Government is responsible for the imposition of a Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate over this "document from a Foreign Power".
"The Westminster decision over the PII certificate followed representations to it from Scotland's Advocate General, after discussions in the High Court in Edinburgh: that is what he is there for, rightly or wrongly, under the rules of devolution.
"The information in the document, whether important or not to the case, appears to have influenced the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) into declaring that the Zeist Lockerbie bombing trial might not have been fair. So long as that information continues to be available to the prosecution, but not the defence, the whole process will continue to be seen as unfairly biased towards the prosecution.
"The Crown Office does not mention that it is opposing, in the High Court, the defence request to widen the grounds for this appeal to include all material now available, rather than simply the grounds presented by the SCCRC. Nor does it mention that it opposes in the High Court the defence's request for full access to all the material from Zeist, for forensic and other purposes.
"Can any of these three issues be denied to the defence, if the appeal is to be seen as fair?
"There is no way that such obstruction from Westminster via a PII certificate can be seen as in the interests of the Scottish public, but the High Court will hold diets on all three issues, two out of the three are opposed by the Crown Office, not Westminster."
"The Crown Office is quite right in saying that the Westminster Government is responsible for the imposition of a Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate over this "document from a Foreign Power".
"The Westminster decision over the PII certificate followed representations to it from Scotland's Advocate General, after discussions in the High Court in Edinburgh: that is what he is there for, rightly or wrongly, under the rules of devolution.
"The information in the document, whether important or not to the case, appears to have influenced the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) into declaring that the Zeist Lockerbie bombing trial might not have been fair. So long as that information continues to be available to the prosecution, but not the defence, the whole process will continue to be seen as unfairly biased towards the prosecution.
"The Crown Office does not mention that it is opposing, in the High Court, the defence request to widen the grounds for this appeal to include all material now available, rather than simply the grounds presented by the SCCRC. Nor does it mention that it opposes in the High Court the defence's request for full access to all the material from Zeist, for forensic and other purposes.
"Can any of these three issues be denied to the defence, if the appeal is to be seen as fair?
"There is no way that such obstruction from Westminster via a PII certificate can be seen as in the interests of the Scottish public, but the High Court will hold diets on all three issues, two out of the three are opposed by the Crown Office, not Westminster."
Sunday 25 May 2008
Public interest immunity
The purpose of the hearing that is due to begin in the Criminal Appeal Court on Tuesday, 27 May is to decide whether to uphold or reject the United Kingdom Government’s assertion of public interest immunity (PII) in respect of a document, emanating from a foreign country (not the United States of America), that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission regarded as of such significance that the Crown’s failure to disclose it at the Lockerbie trial may have given rise to a miscarriage of justice.
As a distinguished Scottish judge said in 1968 in a case in the House of Lords: “It is universally recognised that there are two kinds of public interest which may clash. There is the public interest that harm shall not be done to the nation or the public service by disclosure of certain documents, and there is the public interest that the administration of justice shall not be frustrated by the withholding of documents which must be produced if justice is to be done.”
What the court has to do is to assess the harm, if any, that would be done to the national interest through disclosure, and weigh that against the harm that would be done to the administration of justice (eg the likelihood, or the possibility, that an unjustified conviction might be upheld) if disclosure were denied. In this balancing exercise, the court must consider what aspects of the UK’s national interest would be harmed by disclosure (eg national security; relations with friendly foreign governments) and what the extent and gravity of that harm would be. Before the Government’s PII claim can succeed, this potential harm must outweigh the public interest in (and the European Convention on Human Rights requirement of) the fairness of criminal proceedings, which involves an accused person’s having access to all relevant material that might assist his defence.
In the past, PII claims have been relatively frequently been upheld in civil cases, but only rarely upheld in criminal cases, where the liberty of the accused person is at stake. And given that the document in question was already in the hands of the Crown at the time of the Lockerbie trial in 2000, I suspect that the court will take some convincing that serious harm would be done to the UK’s national interest by its disclosure today, some eight years later.
As a distinguished Scottish judge said in 1968 in a case in the House of Lords: “It is universally recognised that there are two kinds of public interest which may clash. There is the public interest that harm shall not be done to the nation or the public service by disclosure of certain documents, and there is the public interest that the administration of justice shall not be frustrated by the withholding of documents which must be produced if justice is to be done.”
What the court has to do is to assess the harm, if any, that would be done to the national interest through disclosure, and weigh that against the harm that would be done to the administration of justice (eg the likelihood, or the possibility, that an unjustified conviction might be upheld) if disclosure were denied. In this balancing exercise, the court must consider what aspects of the UK’s national interest would be harmed by disclosure (eg national security; relations with friendly foreign governments) and what the extent and gravity of that harm would be. Before the Government’s PII claim can succeed, this potential harm must outweigh the public interest in (and the European Convention on Human Rights requirement of) the fairness of criminal proceedings, which involves an accused person’s having access to all relevant material that might assist his defence.
In the past, PII claims have been relatively frequently been upheld in civil cases, but only rarely upheld in criminal cases, where the liberty of the accused person is at stake. And given that the document in question was already in the hands of the Crown at the time of the Lockerbie trial in 2000, I suspect that the court will take some convincing that serious harm would be done to the UK’s national interest by its disclosure today, some eight years later.
Friday 23 May 2008
Crown Office response on PII issue
The Deputy Crown Agent has today a letter in The Herald making it clear that any attempt to have the PII issue discussed behind closed doors, or to propose that any disclosure should be to "special counsel" and not to Megrahi's regular lawyers, would be at the instigation of the UK Government and its Scottish representative, the Advocate General, and not at the instigation of the Scottish prosecutor, the Lord Advocate. It reads as follows:
“I am concerned your readers may have been misled as to the position of the Crown in a matter of considerable public importance (Bid to ban lawyers in secret hearings, and accompanying editorial, May 22).
“The Appeal Court has set three days aside next week to hear proposals from the Advocate General, representing the United Kingdom Government, the Crown and the representatives of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, on the procedure the court should follow when hearing arguments on the issue of Public Interest Immunity (PII) which has arisen in the appeal.
“The claim of PII in the Lockerbie appeal has been taken by the UK Government, not by the Lord Advocate. The UK Government is represented by the Advocate General.
“The court hearings next week will take place in public and it will be entirely a matter for the court to determine whether any future hearings in private are required.
“The Lord Advocate, as public prosecutor, has a responsibility to ensure that all criminal proceedings in Scotland, including appeals, are conducted fairly.
“It is the UK Government, and not the Crown, that has raised the issue of PII. Next week's hearing will enable the court to decide what further procedure is necessary, but there is no question of the Crown seeking to have next week's hearing in private, far less excluding the appellant's legal team from participating, as suggested in your editorial.
“The purpose and nature of next week's court hearing had already been discussed in open court, with journalists present, in February 2008.”
“I am concerned your readers may have been misled as to the position of the Crown in a matter of considerable public importance (Bid to ban lawyers in secret hearings, and accompanying editorial, May 22).
“The Appeal Court has set three days aside next week to hear proposals from the Advocate General, representing the United Kingdom Government, the Crown and the representatives of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, on the procedure the court should follow when hearing arguments on the issue of Public Interest Immunity (PII) which has arisen in the appeal.
“The claim of PII in the Lockerbie appeal has been taken by the UK Government, not by the Lord Advocate. The UK Government is represented by the Advocate General.
“The court hearings next week will take place in public and it will be entirely a matter for the court to determine whether any future hearings in private are required.
“The Lord Advocate, as public prosecutor, has a responsibility to ensure that all criminal proceedings in Scotland, including appeals, are conducted fairly.
“It is the UK Government, and not the Crown, that has raised the issue of PII. Next week's hearing will enable the court to decide what further procedure is necessary, but there is no question of the Crown seeking to have next week's hearing in private, far less excluding the appellant's legal team from participating, as suggested in your editorial.
“The purpose and nature of next week's court hearing had already been discussed in open court, with journalists present, in February 2008.”
Thursday 22 May 2008
Concern at Lockerbie lawyer claim
This is the heading over the BBC News website's coverage of the story that the UK Government is proposing that the PII issue be resolved by the Appeal Court behind closed doors and, perhaps, through the mechanism of disclosure to specially vetted counsel rather than to Megrahi's existing legal team. Megrahi's solicitor, Tony Kelly, is quoted, as is a spokesman for the UK Government's Scottish legal representative, The Advocate General for Scotland. The full article can be read here.
Fourth procedural hearing
A procedural hearing on whether to uphold or reject the United Kingdom Government’s claim of Public Interest Immunity (PII) in respect of the foreign document relating to timers (the non-disclosure and contents of which formed grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that there might have been a miscarriage of justice in the Lockerbie trial) is to be held in the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh on Tuesday, 27 May 2008.
Informed observers anticipate that the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General for Scotland (representing the UK Government) will seek to argue that the hearing should be held behind closed doors because of the sensitivity of the material to be discussed; and that, if disclosure of the document is ordered by the court, it should not be to the appellant and his legal team, but to special counsel selected for the purpose and vetted in advance by the Crown. This is a form of disclosure that has been judicially recognised in England (and is sometimes – but not often – resorted to) in terrorism trials where the argument is that disclosure directly to the accused and his lawyers might prejudice on-going terrorism investigations. It is difficult to see how that rationale could apply to the Lockerbie appeal, where the crime was committed almost twenty years ago; the trial concluded over seven years ago; and, as far as anyone can tell, there are no continuing investigations being conducted into the affair since, the authorities confidently assure us, the Lockerbie trial established once and for all who was responsible for the crime.
Earlier posts on this blog on the PII issue can be found here and here and here.
Today's issue of The Herald has articles on the subject entitled "Bid to ban Lockerbie lawyers in secrets hearing" and "Another twist in controversy surrounding Lockerbie trial" and an editorial entitled "Lockerbie evidence".
The other major preliminary issue that remains to be decided is the fundamental one of the scope of the appeal. Are Megrahi’s grounds of appeal to be limited to those issues which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided might have given rise to a miscarriage of justice; or can his grounds cover other issues as well, including those that were specifically not accepted by the SCCRC? A procedural hearing on this subject is to be held (before five judges, since the Crown is seeking to overturn an earlier case decided by three judges) at the end of June. Relevant posts on this blog can be found here and here.
Informed observers anticipate that the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General for Scotland (representing the UK Government) will seek to argue that the hearing should be held behind closed doors because of the sensitivity of the material to be discussed; and that, if disclosure of the document is ordered by the court, it should not be to the appellant and his legal team, but to special counsel selected for the purpose and vetted in advance by the Crown. This is a form of disclosure that has been judicially recognised in England (and is sometimes – but not often – resorted to) in terrorism trials where the argument is that disclosure directly to the accused and his lawyers might prejudice on-going terrorism investigations. It is difficult to see how that rationale could apply to the Lockerbie appeal, where the crime was committed almost twenty years ago; the trial concluded over seven years ago; and, as far as anyone can tell, there are no continuing investigations being conducted into the affair since, the authorities confidently assure us, the Lockerbie trial established once and for all who was responsible for the crime.
Earlier posts on this blog on the PII issue can be found here and here and here.
Today's issue of The Herald has articles on the subject entitled "Bid to ban Lockerbie lawyers in secrets hearing" and "Another twist in controversy surrounding Lockerbie trial" and an editorial entitled "Lockerbie evidence".
The other major preliminary issue that remains to be decided is the fundamental one of the scope of the appeal. Are Megrahi’s grounds of appeal to be limited to those issues which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided might have given rise to a miscarriage of justice; or can his grounds cover other issues as well, including those that were specifically not accepted by the SCCRC? A procedural hearing on this subject is to be held (before five judges, since the Crown is seeking to overturn an earlier case decided by three judges) at the end of June. Relevant posts on this blog can be found here and here.
Monday 19 May 2008
In praise of the 'subversive' documentary
This is the title of a post earlier today on Kurt Rudder's blog. It deals with the importance of documentary films challenging the "official" version of events. One paragraph reads:
"There is a hunger among the public for documentaries because only documentaries, at their best, are fearless and show the unpalatable and make sense of the news. The extraordinary films of Allan Francovich achieved this. Francovich, who died in 1997, made The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie. THIS destroyed the official truth that Libya was responsible for the sabotage of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. Instead, an unwitting 'mule', with links to the CIA, was alleged to have carried the bomb on board the aircraft. (Paul Foot's parallel investigation for Private Eye came to a similar conclusion.) The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie has never been publicly screened in the United States. In this country, the threat of legal action from a US Government official prevented showings at the 1994 London Film Festival and the Institute of Contemporary Arts. In 1995, defying threats, Tam Dalyell showed it in the House of Commons, and Channel 4 broadcast it in May 1995."
The full text can be read here.
The post appears to be simply a reproduction of an article by John Pilger published on 16 September 2006, which can be read here.
"There is a hunger among the public for documentaries because only documentaries, at their best, are fearless and show the unpalatable and make sense of the news. The extraordinary films of Allan Francovich achieved this. Francovich, who died in 1997, made The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie. THIS destroyed the official truth that Libya was responsible for the sabotage of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. Instead, an unwitting 'mule', with links to the CIA, was alleged to have carried the bomb on board the aircraft. (Paul Foot's parallel investigation for Private Eye came to a similar conclusion.) The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie has never been publicly screened in the United States. In this country, the threat of legal action from a US Government official prevented showings at the 1994 London Film Festival and the Institute of Contemporary Arts. In 1995, defying threats, Tam Dalyell showed it in the House of Commons, and Channel 4 broadcast it in May 1995."
The full text can be read here.
The post appears to be simply a reproduction of an article by John Pilger published on 16 September 2006, which can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)