The following update on the talks in Tripoli is from AFP:
'Libya and the United States are close to a deal that would see compensation paid for US victims of Libyan attacks and a full normalisation of diplomatic ties, an American official said in an interview published Thursday.
'"We hope we will (soon) conclude discussions on the deal between the two governments," US assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs David Welch told the daily Asharq al-Awsat newspaper.
'"If we manage to conclude this matter, we will be in a situation that will allow a complete normalisation of relations with Libya," he added.
'Welch arrived in Tripoli on Wednesday to hold final discussions ahead of the inking of a far-reaching agreement that will see a fund being set up to compensate US victims of Libyan-sponsored attacks.
'Both US houses of Congress have passed a bill that grants Libya immunity from lawsuits once compensation has been paid through the fund.
'US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after the bill was passed on August 1 that she looked forward to further improvements in ties with the north African state.
'Libyan newspaper Oya said last month that Tripoli and Washington had resumed talks in Abu Dhabi on fully compensating the relatives of US victims of Libyan attacks as well as Libyan victims of US air raids.
'Washington wants Tripoli to fully compensate families of the victims of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am Flight over Lockerbie, Scotland that killed 270 people, and a Berlin disco bombing that killed two Americans.
'US-Libyan relations were restored in early 2004 after more than two decades after Libya's leader, Colonel Moamer Kadhafi, announced that Tripoli was abandoning efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
'In 2006, the United States announced a full normalisation of ties, dropping Libya from a State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism and raising diplomatic relations to the level of ambassadors.
'However, the appointment of a US ambassador to Tripoli as well as approval of funds for a new embassy have been held up in the Senate. Rice has also said she wants to visit Tripoli, but has not yet done so.'
Thursday 14 August 2008
Wednesday 13 August 2008
US official in Libya for attack compensation talks
Following the passage by the Congress of the United States of the Libyan Claims Resolution Act and its signing by President Bush, it appears that an Assistant Secretary of State is in Tripoli for negotiations about payment by Libya into the compensation fund. The following is from AFP (Agence France Presse) and Middle East Online:
'A top US diplomat arrived in Tripoli on Wednesday for what the local press said were talks aimed at securing compensation for US victims of Libyan attacks.
'The visit by assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs David Welch came after both US houses of Congress passed a bill to set up a fund for Libya to compensate US victims of Libyan-sponsored attacks and granting it immunity from lawsuits once compensation has been paid.
'US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after the bill was passed on August 1 that she looked forward to further improvements in ties with the north African state.
'Libyan newspaper Oya said last month that Tripoli and Washington had resumed talks in Abu Dhabi on fully compensating the relatives of US victims of Libyan attacks as well as Libyan victims of US air raids.
'Washington wants Tripoli to fully compensate families of the victims of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am Flight over Lockerbie, Scotland that killed 270 people, and a Berlin disco bombing that killed two Americans.
'US-Libyan relations were restored in early 2004 after more than two decades after Libya's leader, Colonel Moamer Kadhafi, announced that Tripoli was abandoning efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
'In 2006, the United States announced a full normalisation of ties, dropping Libya from a State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism and raising diplomatic relations to the level of ambassadors.
'However, the appointment of a US ambassador to Tripoli as well as approval of funds for a new embassy have been held up in the Senate. Rice has also said she wants to visit Tripoli, but has not yet done so.
'State Department officials declined to link removing the final diplomatic snags to a settlement of the compensation issue.'
'A top US diplomat arrived in Tripoli on Wednesday for what the local press said were talks aimed at securing compensation for US victims of Libyan attacks.
'The visit by assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs David Welch came after both US houses of Congress passed a bill to set up a fund for Libya to compensate US victims of Libyan-sponsored attacks and granting it immunity from lawsuits once compensation has been paid.
'US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after the bill was passed on August 1 that she looked forward to further improvements in ties with the north African state.
'Libyan newspaper Oya said last month that Tripoli and Washington had resumed talks in Abu Dhabi on fully compensating the relatives of US victims of Libyan attacks as well as Libyan victims of US air raids.
'Washington wants Tripoli to fully compensate families of the victims of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am Flight over Lockerbie, Scotland that killed 270 people, and a Berlin disco bombing that killed two Americans.
'US-Libyan relations were restored in early 2004 after more than two decades after Libya's leader, Colonel Moamer Kadhafi, announced that Tripoli was abandoning efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
'In 2006, the United States announced a full normalisation of ties, dropping Libya from a State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism and raising diplomatic relations to the level of ambassadors.
'However, the appointment of a US ambassador to Tripoli as well as approval of funds for a new embassy have been held up in the Senate. Rice has also said she wants to visit Tripoli, but has not yet done so.
'State Department officials declined to link removing the final diplomatic snags to a settlement of the compensation issue.'
Sunday 10 August 2008
Patrick Haseldine on US-Libya compensation agreement
I am grateful to Patrick Haseldine for allowing me to reproduce here the text of an e-mail that he sent to me today:
'A week ago, President Bush signed off the Libyan Claims Resolution Act (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4462187.ece).
'A fortnight ago, the Libyan leader's son Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi publicly confirmed that a comprehensive agreement with the United States over further payments of compensation for past bombing incidents for which Libya has been blamed (April 1986 Berlin discotheque, December 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 and September 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombings) was close to being concluded. However, Saif al-Islam was insistent that the United States should first compensate Libya for the June 1986 bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi: "We offered the United States a comprehensive deal putting all the cases in one package but we want them to compensate the Libyan victims of the U.S. strike. This is our condition and they must satisfy it" (see http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080724/wl_nm/libya_italy_compensation_dc).
'It would be wrong to regard this Libyan demand for compensation as something new or simply the latest negotiating tactic. Giving evidence in a 2002 legal action against The Daily Telegraph, Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi recounted a terrifying event that took place in his youth:
'"One of the worst times in my family's life together was the United States bombing raid on Tripoli and Benghazi (the two biggest cities in Libya) in 1986. I was only 14 at the time and my family were all together in our home in Tripoli. One night, without any warning, the bombers came and, for five minutes, rained rockets down on us. I was woken up by loud crashing sounds and explosions, it was absolutely terrifying. Our house had been directly hit. I knew that we had to go to a shelter which had been built within the house. Sadly, some of my brothers and sisters were too young to know what to do, and they became trapped in one part of the house when a corridor collapsed. They were stuck there until the rescue services arrived, and, when we dug them out we found that Hannah, my youngest sister, had died. She was just four years old" (see http://www.libya-watanona.com/news/n21aug2a.htm).
'It was claimed that the U.S. air strike killed at least 40 people in Libya, and injured 220. As recently as 3 August 2008, it was revealed that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had been forewarned of the attack in a telephone call from Malta's Prime Minister, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici. When Gaddafi heard that unauthorised aircraft were flying over Maltese airspace heading south towards Tripoli, he rushed out of the family residence in the Bab al Aziziya compound moments before the bombs dropped, and escaped injury (see http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/08/03/t8.html).
'The Libyan claim for compensation might not be limited just to the United States but could perhaps be extended to the United Kingdom. This is because Margaret Thatcher's government authorised the use of RAF Lakenheath and RAF Upper Heyford for the bombing raid by the USAF's 22 strike aircraft. France, which denied the USAF overflying rights, could also put in a compensation claim because the French embassy in Tripoli was seriously damaged by a precision-guided bomb which "missed" its intended target!'
This item was reproduced by Mathaba News Network on 12 August 2008.
'A week ago, President Bush signed off the Libyan Claims Resolution Act (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4462187.ece).
'A fortnight ago, the Libyan leader's son Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi publicly confirmed that a comprehensive agreement with the United States over further payments of compensation for past bombing incidents for which Libya has been blamed (April 1986 Berlin discotheque, December 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 and September 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombings) was close to being concluded. However, Saif al-Islam was insistent that the United States should first compensate Libya for the June 1986 bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi: "We offered the United States a comprehensive deal putting all the cases in one package but we want them to compensate the Libyan victims of the U.S. strike. This is our condition and they must satisfy it" (see http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080724/wl_nm/libya_italy_compensation_dc).
'It would be wrong to regard this Libyan demand for compensation as something new or simply the latest negotiating tactic. Giving evidence in a 2002 legal action against The Daily Telegraph, Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi recounted a terrifying event that took place in his youth:
'"One of the worst times in my family's life together was the United States bombing raid on Tripoli and Benghazi (the two biggest cities in Libya) in 1986. I was only 14 at the time and my family were all together in our home in Tripoli. One night, without any warning, the bombers came and, for five minutes, rained rockets down on us. I was woken up by loud crashing sounds and explosions, it was absolutely terrifying. Our house had been directly hit. I knew that we had to go to a shelter which had been built within the house. Sadly, some of my brothers and sisters were too young to know what to do, and they became trapped in one part of the house when a corridor collapsed. They were stuck there until the rescue services arrived, and, when we dug them out we found that Hannah, my youngest sister, had died. She was just four years old" (see http://www.libya-watanona.com/news/n21aug2a.htm).
'It was claimed that the U.S. air strike killed at least 40 people in Libya, and injured 220. As recently as 3 August 2008, it was revealed that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had been forewarned of the attack in a telephone call from Malta's Prime Minister, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici. When Gaddafi heard that unauthorised aircraft were flying over Maltese airspace heading south towards Tripoli, he rushed out of the family residence in the Bab al Aziziya compound moments before the bombs dropped, and escaped injury (see http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/08/03/t8.html).
'The Libyan claim for compensation might not be limited just to the United States but could perhaps be extended to the United Kingdom. This is because Margaret Thatcher's government authorised the use of RAF Lakenheath and RAF Upper Heyford for the bombing raid by the USAF's 22 strike aircraft. France, which denied the USAF overflying rights, could also put in a compensation claim because the French embassy in Tripoli was seriously damaged by a precision-guided bomb which "missed" its intended target!'
This item was reproduced by Mathaba News Network on 12 August 2008.
Wednesday 6 August 2008
The USS Vincennes affair
The following comes from Ed's Blog City:
'In the midst of the continuing appeal by the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and the approaching Pan Am 103 Lockerbie 20 year anniversary, there was another painful anniversary marked last month. July 3rd marked two decades since Iran Airbus 655, carrying 290 civilians was downed over the Persian Gulf by an American warship and relatives of those killed gathered at Bandar Abbas to commemorate them.
'Many believe, contrary to the official line taken by the US and UK government's, that this particular event in July 1988 led directly to the attack on the Pan Am flight just before Christmas in 1988.
'The US, despite paying compsenation to the Iranian victims families, has never apoligised for the incident and in fact still to this day seems reluctant to show any remorse for the attack, wiping all recollection of the atrocity from memory.
'In a daily press briefing on July 2, 2008, the following set of questions and answers took place between an unidentified reporter and Department of State Spokesman Sean McCormack:
'QUESTION: Tomorrow marks the 20 years since the U.S. Navy warship Vincennes gunned down the IR655 civilian airliner, killing all 300 people on board, 71 of whom were children. And while the United States Government settled the incident in the International Court of Justice in 1996 at $61.1 million in compensation to the families, they, till this day, refuse to apologize...
'MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.
'QUESTION: – as requested by the Iranian Government. And actually, officials in the Iranian Government said today that they’re planning on a commemoration tomorrow and it would, you know, show a sign of diplomatic reconciliation if the United States apologized for this incident.
'MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.
'QUESTION: Do you think it sends a positive message if, on the 20th anniversary of this incident, the United States Government apologize?
'MR. MCCORMACK: You know, to be honest with you, I’ll have to look back and see the history of what we have said about this – about the issue. I honestly don’t know. Look, nobody wants to see – everybody mourns innocent life lost. But in terms of our official U.S. Government response to it, I can’t – I have to confess to you, I don’t know the history of it. I’d be happy to post you an answer over to your question.'
And the following, from the same blog, comes from Wiredispatch:
'Some 300 relatives of victims as well as artists and officials sailed from the southern port city of Bandar Abbas to the spot where the Iran Air Airbus A300 crashed into the water on July 3, 1988, killing all on board.
'The USS Vincennes shot down the airliner shortly after it took off from Bandar Abbas for Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Washington said the Vincennes mistook the airliner for a hostile Iranian fighter jet. Iran maintains it was a deliberate attack.
'In recent years, as tensions with the U.S. have increased, the anniversary has become an annual outpouring of anger at America, and it has drawn wider coverage in state media.
'Participants shouted "Death to America" and "We condemn U.S. state terrorism" as helicopters showered flowers on the crash site.
'"This crime will remain a disgraceful blot on the forehead of the United States (government). We are here today to say we will never forget the horrendous crime Americans committed against civilians," said Roya Teimourian, an Iranian actress.
'The participants released 66 white pigeons into the air in remembrance of the 66 children killed in the attack. Relatives of the victims tossed flowers into the water while a navy band played the Iranian national anthem and the song "Death to America."
'"How could a sophisticated warship like the USS Vincennes have mistaken a passenger plane for a fighter jet, which is two-thirds smaller?" said Mehdi Amini-Joz, who lost his father in the attack.
'Ali Reza Tangsiri, a military official, said the incident was a deliberate attack.
'"The airliner was increasing its altitude and was flying a commercial route. The Airbus has a general frequency which shows it is a nonmilitary plane. ... It was deliberately targeted by two missiles from the Vincennes," he said.
'Iran has called for the commander of USS Vincennes at the time, William C. Rogers III, to be brought to trial. In 1990, then-U.S. President George H. W. Bush awarded Rogers the Legion of Merit for his service as a commanding officer.
'Iran has said it received $130 million from a 1996 settlement that included compensation for families of the victims.'
'In the midst of the continuing appeal by the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and the approaching Pan Am 103 Lockerbie 20 year anniversary, there was another painful anniversary marked last month. July 3rd marked two decades since Iran Airbus 655, carrying 290 civilians was downed over the Persian Gulf by an American warship and relatives of those killed gathered at Bandar Abbas to commemorate them.
'Many believe, contrary to the official line taken by the US and UK government's, that this particular event in July 1988 led directly to the attack on the Pan Am flight just before Christmas in 1988.
'The US, despite paying compsenation to the Iranian victims families, has never apoligised for the incident and in fact still to this day seems reluctant to show any remorse for the attack, wiping all recollection of the atrocity from memory.
'In a daily press briefing on July 2, 2008, the following set of questions and answers took place between an unidentified reporter and Department of State Spokesman Sean McCormack:
'QUESTION: Tomorrow marks the 20 years since the U.S. Navy warship Vincennes gunned down the IR655 civilian airliner, killing all 300 people on board, 71 of whom were children. And while the United States Government settled the incident in the International Court of Justice in 1996 at $61.1 million in compensation to the families, they, till this day, refuse to apologize...
'MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.
'QUESTION: – as requested by the Iranian Government. And actually, officials in the Iranian Government said today that they’re planning on a commemoration tomorrow and it would, you know, show a sign of diplomatic reconciliation if the United States apologized for this incident.
'MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.
'QUESTION: Do you think it sends a positive message if, on the 20th anniversary of this incident, the United States Government apologize?
'MR. MCCORMACK: You know, to be honest with you, I’ll have to look back and see the history of what we have said about this – about the issue. I honestly don’t know. Look, nobody wants to see – everybody mourns innocent life lost. But in terms of our official U.S. Government response to it, I can’t – I have to confess to you, I don’t know the history of it. I’d be happy to post you an answer over to your question.'
And the following, from the same blog, comes from Wiredispatch:
'Some 300 relatives of victims as well as artists and officials sailed from the southern port city of Bandar Abbas to the spot where the Iran Air Airbus A300 crashed into the water on July 3, 1988, killing all on board.
'The USS Vincennes shot down the airliner shortly after it took off from Bandar Abbas for Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Washington said the Vincennes mistook the airliner for a hostile Iranian fighter jet. Iran maintains it was a deliberate attack.
'In recent years, as tensions with the U.S. have increased, the anniversary has become an annual outpouring of anger at America, and it has drawn wider coverage in state media.
'Participants shouted "Death to America" and "We condemn U.S. state terrorism" as helicopters showered flowers on the crash site.
'"This crime will remain a disgraceful blot on the forehead of the United States (government). We are here today to say we will never forget the horrendous crime Americans committed against civilians," said Roya Teimourian, an Iranian actress.
'The participants released 66 white pigeons into the air in remembrance of the 66 children killed in the attack. Relatives of the victims tossed flowers into the water while a navy band played the Iranian national anthem and the song "Death to America."
'"How could a sophisticated warship like the USS Vincennes have mistaken a passenger plane for a fighter jet, which is two-thirds smaller?" said Mehdi Amini-Joz, who lost his father in the attack.
'Ali Reza Tangsiri, a military official, said the incident was a deliberate attack.
'"The airliner was increasing its altitude and was flying a commercial route. The Airbus has a general frequency which shows it is a nonmilitary plane. ... It was deliberately targeted by two missiles from the Vincennes," he said.
'Iran has called for the commander of USS Vincennes at the time, William C. Rogers III, to be brought to trial. In 1990, then-U.S. President George H. W. Bush awarded Rogers the Legion of Merit for his service as a commanding officer.
'Iran has said it received $130 million from a 1996 settlement that included compensation for families of the victims.'
Tuesday 5 August 2008
Bush signs Libya compensation law
This is the headline over an article today on The Times website. It reads in part:
'President George Bush has signed legislation that paves the way for the US to settle all remaining lawsuits against Libya by American terrorism victims, and paves the way for complete rapprochement between the former rogue state and the US. ...
'The Libyan Claims Resolution Act creates a fund to compensate the victims, and grants Libya immunity from terror-related lawsuits. Under the arrangement, the country would not accept responsibility for the acts but would provide the money to compensate the victims. ...
'The bill will allow the Lockerbie and La Belle victims, who already have settlements with Libya, to recover the full amount they're owed. Libya has paid the 268 families involved in the Pan Am settlement $US8m (£4,065,000) each but it owes them $US2m (£1,016,200) more.'
The separate account on the Jurist website contains useful links to background material and reactions.
Henk Ruyssenaars' commentary can be read on the Storming Heaven's Gates blog.
'President George Bush has signed legislation that paves the way for the US to settle all remaining lawsuits against Libya by American terrorism victims, and paves the way for complete rapprochement between the former rogue state and the US. ...
'The Libyan Claims Resolution Act creates a fund to compensate the victims, and grants Libya immunity from terror-related lawsuits. Under the arrangement, the country would not accept responsibility for the acts but would provide the money to compensate the victims. ...
'The bill will allow the Lockerbie and La Belle victims, who already have settlements with Libya, to recover the full amount they're owed. Libya has paid the 268 families involved in the Pan Am settlement $US8m (£4,065,000) each but it owes them $US2m (£1,016,200) more.'
The separate account on the Jurist website contains useful links to background material and reactions.
Henk Ruyssenaars' commentary can be read on the Storming Heaven's Gates blog.
Friday 1 August 2008
More from Dr De Braeckeleer
In his most recent article in OhMyNews International (the latest in a multi-part series on the background to the Lockerbie disaster) Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer has this to say:
'Just days after the downing [of Pan Am 103], the Iranian charge d'affaires in Beirut, Hussain Niknam, invited [Ahmed] Jibril at the Iranian Embassy. A few days later, several meetings occurred in Tehran. Among the participants, one finds Mohtashemi-Pur, Jibril and several representatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah.
'According to the minutes of one of these meetings obtained by a German magazine, [Quick] Iran ordered the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 to avenge the shooting down of an Iranian civilian jet by the US Navy in the Persian Gulf. Tehran paid Ahmed Jibril about $1 million in advance to carry out the attack.
'"We had advanced notice. The smoking gun came in July," Former CIA case officer Bob Baer told me earlier this month.
'"We had info that Iranian representatives of the Islamic Revolution Guards have signed an agreement with a Palestinian group to bring down a plane. The investigation data was superb. It couldn't have been better," Baer has said previously.
'Patrick Lang, chief of the US Defense Intelligence Agency's Middle East section at the time, told me that he stands by his statement that "the bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorized and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, the former Iranian minister of interior."
'According to a DIA memo, "the operation was contracted to Ahmad Jibril for $1 million." The remainder was to be paid after successful completion of the mission. (Jibril's organization did receive $10 million on Dec. 23, two days after the bombing of Pan Am 103.)
'Various media have quoted Lang as saying: "I still agree with that. We felt quite sure that this was a PFLP thing." In a recent e-mail, Lang told me that he meant the PFLP-GC -- that is, the group led by Ahmed Jibril. The PFLP is another group.'
The complete article can be read here.
'Just days after the downing [of Pan Am 103], the Iranian charge d'affaires in Beirut, Hussain Niknam, invited [Ahmed] Jibril at the Iranian Embassy. A few days later, several meetings occurred in Tehran. Among the participants, one finds Mohtashemi-Pur, Jibril and several representatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah.
'According to the minutes of one of these meetings obtained by a German magazine, [Quick] Iran ordered the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 to avenge the shooting down of an Iranian civilian jet by the US Navy in the Persian Gulf. Tehran paid Ahmed Jibril about $1 million in advance to carry out the attack.
'"We had advanced notice. The smoking gun came in July," Former CIA case officer Bob Baer told me earlier this month.
'"We had info that Iranian representatives of the Islamic Revolution Guards have signed an agreement with a Palestinian group to bring down a plane. The investigation data was superb. It couldn't have been better," Baer has said previously.
'Patrick Lang, chief of the US Defense Intelligence Agency's Middle East section at the time, told me that he stands by his statement that "the bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorized and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, the former Iranian minister of interior."
'According to a DIA memo, "the operation was contracted to Ahmad Jibril for $1 million." The remainder was to be paid after successful completion of the mission. (Jibril's organization did receive $10 million on Dec. 23, two days after the bombing of Pan Am 103.)
'Various media have quoted Lang as saying: "I still agree with that. We felt quite sure that this was a PFLP thing." In a recent e-mail, Lang told me that he meant the PFLP-GC -- that is, the group led by Ahmed Jibril. The PFLP is another group.'
The complete article can be read here.
Congress passes Libya immunity law
Yesterday both the US Senate and the House of Representatives passed the bill that grants Libya immunity from civil action in respect of past acts of terrorism, subject to Libya's paying around $800m into a fund to compensate those harmed. The bill now goes to President Bush for signature.
The fullest account that I can find is from Bloomberg and can be read here.
In Scotland, The Herald's coverage of the story can be seen here.
The fullest account that I can find is from Bloomberg and can be read here.
In Scotland, The Herald's coverage of the story can be seen here.
Thursday 31 July 2008
US and Libya close to agreement on compensation
Reuters reports that US and Libyan negotiators have reached tentative agreement on the outstanding compensation issues between the two countries, including the final tranche of the $10m payable to the family of each Lockerbie victim. The report reads in part:
'Under the deal, Libya would set aside $536 million to pay the remaining claims from the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and $283 million to compensate those killed and injured in the bombing of a West Berlin disco in 1986, said attorney Jim Kreindler, whose law firm represents 130 Lockerbie victims.
'Two hundred and seventy people died when a bomb destroyed a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988. The Berlin disco bomb killed three and injured 229.
'The deal would also set aside additional funds to compensate victims of other incidents blamed on Libya, possibly bringing the total payout to more than $1 billion.
'To implement the tentative agreement, however, Congress would have to relieve Libya of the effects of a law enacted this year making it easier for terrorism victims to collect damages by having the assets of target governments frozen.'
The full report can be read here, and earlier relevant posts appeared on this blog on 31 March, 5 May and 31 May 2008.
'Under the deal, Libya would set aside $536 million to pay the remaining claims from the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and $283 million to compensate those killed and injured in the bombing of a West Berlin disco in 1986, said attorney Jim Kreindler, whose law firm represents 130 Lockerbie victims.
'Two hundred and seventy people died when a bomb destroyed a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988. The Berlin disco bomb killed three and injured 229.
'The deal would also set aside additional funds to compensate victims of other incidents blamed on Libya, possibly bringing the total payout to more than $1 billion.
'To implement the tentative agreement, however, Congress would have to relieve Libya of the effects of a law enacted this year making it easier for terrorism victims to collect damages by having the assets of target governments frozen.'
The full report can be read here, and earlier relevant posts appeared on this blog on 31 March, 5 May and 31 May 2008.
Tuesday 29 July 2008
Francis Boyle on diplomacy through legal action
There is an interesting article on The Huffington Post retailing the views of Francis A Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, on the utility of a state's taking action in the World Court where it is threatened with direct military action by the United States and its allies. Professor Boyle refers to the precedent of Libya. The article reads in part:
'Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, proposes that Iran sue the United States, Britain, and Israel in the World Court, seeking the "international equivalent of a temporary restraining order" to compel the U.S. to abandon threats to attack. Boyle notes that threats to attack Iran violate the UN Charter, and that there is a relevant precedent for effective action by the World Court:
'There is a precedent here; [in]1992 ...the Bush Senior administration started to blame Libya for the Lockerbie bombing ... in 1988...President Bush Senior then sent the Sixth Fleet on hostile maneuvers off the coast of Libya, [and] had US jet fighters penetrating into Libyan airspace in order to provoke ... a confrontation...
'..we filed papers with the International Court of Justice in the Hague, on behalf of Libya against the US and the UK, we demanded an emergency hearing of the world court, and a temporary restraining order against the US and the UK, prohibiting the threat and use of force...after we filed the papers, and the court made it clear we were going to get our hearing, President Bush Senior ordered the 6th Fleet to stand down. They ended their hostile military maneuvers off the coast of Libya, the matter was submitted to the ICJ, there were hearings, a lawsuit, a judgment. And eventually that World Court judgment led to a peaceful negotiated solution of the Lockerbie dispute between the US and Britain on one hand and Libya on the other. And today there is normal diplomatic relations between these three countries... I think the same could be done here...
'Furthermore, Professor Boyle notes that the lawsuit itself could force the commencement of real negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, as it did in the Libyan case:
'If the United States government is not prepared to engage in reasonable direct unconditional good faith negotiations with Iran, then my advice is the Iranian government go forward with these lawsuits...if someone isn't going to talk to you, you sue them. And then they have to talk to you. And indeed it was during the course of the World Court lawsuit proceedings with Libya that the proceedings themselves were used to start negotiating a peaceful resolution of that dispute between the lawyers handling the lawsuit, because there were no diplomatic relations at that time between the United States, Britain, and Libya. So, again, the same could happen here...'
The full article can be read here.
'Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, proposes that Iran sue the United States, Britain, and Israel in the World Court, seeking the "international equivalent of a temporary restraining order" to compel the U.S. to abandon threats to attack. Boyle notes that threats to attack Iran violate the UN Charter, and that there is a relevant precedent for effective action by the World Court:
'There is a precedent here; [in]1992 ...the Bush Senior administration started to blame Libya for the Lockerbie bombing ... in 1988...President Bush Senior then sent the Sixth Fleet on hostile maneuvers off the coast of Libya, [and] had US jet fighters penetrating into Libyan airspace in order to provoke ... a confrontation...
'..we filed papers with the International Court of Justice in the Hague, on behalf of Libya against the US and the UK, we demanded an emergency hearing of the world court, and a temporary restraining order against the US and the UK, prohibiting the threat and use of force...after we filed the papers, and the court made it clear we were going to get our hearing, President Bush Senior ordered the 6th Fleet to stand down. They ended their hostile military maneuvers off the coast of Libya, the matter was submitted to the ICJ, there were hearings, a lawsuit, a judgment. And eventually that World Court judgment led to a peaceful negotiated solution of the Lockerbie dispute between the US and Britain on one hand and Libya on the other. And today there is normal diplomatic relations between these three countries... I think the same could be done here...
'Furthermore, Professor Boyle notes that the lawsuit itself could force the commencement of real negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, as it did in the Libyan case:
'If the United States government is not prepared to engage in reasonable direct unconditional good faith negotiations with Iran, then my advice is the Iranian government go forward with these lawsuits...if someone isn't going to talk to you, you sue them. And then they have to talk to you. And indeed it was during the course of the World Court lawsuit proceedings with Libya that the proceedings themselves were used to start negotiating a peaceful resolution of that dispute between the lawyers handling the lawsuit, because there were no diplomatic relations at that time between the United States, Britain, and Libya. So, again, the same could happen here...'
The full article can be read here.
Thursday 24 July 2008
The case the FBI will never forget
This is the headline over a story in the News and Star, a newspaper in Carlisle, the nearest large town in England to Lockerbie. It quotes Richard Marquise, who headed the FBI's Lockerbie taskforce and Kathryn Turman, a director in the FBI's office of victim support, as well as retired Chief Superintendent Tom McCulloch of Dumfries and Galloway Police. The article does not mention that Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction is currently under appeal as a result of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's finding that it might have constituted a miscarriage of justice.
Wednesday 23 July 2008
Letter from Professor Köchler to Foreign Secretary
LETTER FROM DR HANS KOECHLER, INTERNATIONAL OBSERVER AT THE LOCKERBIE TRIAL, TO BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY DAVID MILIBAND CONCERNING MISLEADING INFORMATION ON THE FOREIGN OFFICE’S WEB SITE AND THE ADVERSE EFFECT OF MR MILIBAND’S ISSUANCE OF A PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY (PII) CERTIFICATE ON THE NEW LOCKERBIE APPEAL
Vienna, 21 July 2008
I regret having to contact you again in the Lockerbie case – a matter that should have been resolved by now (almost twenty years after the tragic event) on the basis of the rule of law. Allow me, first, to refer to the Libya page on the web site of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. The section related to the midair explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie states, inter alia, that “Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not proven [sic!].” While the information concerning Mr. Al-Megrahi is correct, the information concerning Mr. Fhimah is wrong. The accurate words in the case of the verdict reached on Mr. Fhimah would be “not guilty”. It is worthy to note that the sentence on the FCO web site is also semantically flawed. A person can be found “guilty” or “not guilty”, but not “proven” or “not proven”. Only an allegation/accusation, not a person, can be found “proven” or “not proven”. The sentence on the web site can easily be corrected if the word “proven” is replaced by the word “guilty”. ["On 31 January 2001 Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not guilty" instead of "On 31 January 2001 Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not proven".]* I trust that, for the sake of truth, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office will correct this mistake. The accurate information about the verdict in Mr. Fhimah’s case is to be found in the official transcript of the High Court of Justiciary at Kamp van Zeist (record of Day 86, January 31, 2001, pages 10235 to 10236).**
As international observer, appointed by the United Nations, at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands I am also concerned about the Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate which has been issued by you in connection with the new Appeal of the convicted Libyan national. Withholding of evidence from the Defence was one of the reasons why the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred Mr. Al-Megrahi’s case back to the High Court of Justiciary. The Appeal cannot go ahead if the Government of the United Kingdom, through the PII certificate issued by you, denies the Defence the right (also guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights) to have access to a document which is in the possession of the Prosecution. How can there be equality of arms in such a situation? How can the independence of the judiciary be upheld if the executive power interferes into the appeal process in such a way?
In that regard, I have the honour to draw your attention to the recent decision of Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to stay the proceedings in the case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo because of the non-disclosure of exculpatory material (“Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials …” of 13 June 2008). The judges stated that “The Chamber has unhesitatingly concluded that the right to a fair trial – which is without doubt a fundamental right – includes an entitlement to disclosure of exculpatory material“ and referred to an ICTY [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia] ruling according to which “the public interest [...] is excluded where its application would deny to the accused the opportunity to establish his or her innocence”. (In a further decision, dated 2 July 2008, Trial Chamber I of the ICC ordered the release of Mr. Dyilo.) I sincerely hope that the British Government will not ignore the basic principle of fairness as expressed in these rulings of international criminal courts and will not insist on a measure that would, if upheld, effectively prevent the Scottish High Court of Justiciary to go ahead with Mr. Al-Megrahi’s Appeal. It is fair to expect that the standards of criminal justice adhered to in the United Kingdom (and within the devolved justice system of Scotland, for that matter) should not be lower than those of international criminal courts and should definitely be in conformity with the requirements of Art. 6 of the European Human Rights Convention.
Should further appeal proceedings become impossible because of the forced non-disclosure of evidence to the Defence, not only myself, who followed the proceedings in the Netherlands as international observer, but the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie tragedy will be prevented from any further chance of knowing the truth about those responsible for the midair explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. Many who, like myself, initially trusted in the integrity of the judicial process under Scots law, will feel betrayed. There is no justice without truth – and there can be no truth if evidence is withheld in a criminal case by governmental decree.
***
* Under Scots law, the judges had three options for their verdict: guilty; not guilty; not proven. In Mr Fhimah's case, their ruling was "not guilty" (and not "not proven"). See also Hans Köchler's Lockerbie trial report of 3 February 2001, Para. 12.
** Verdict of the Scottish Court of 31 January 2001: Mr. Al-Megrahi: "guilty", Mr. Fhimah: "not guilty"
Vienna, 21 July 2008
I regret having to contact you again in the Lockerbie case – a matter that should have been resolved by now (almost twenty years after the tragic event) on the basis of the rule of law. Allow me, first, to refer to the Libya page on the web site of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. The section related to the midair explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie states, inter alia, that “Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not proven [sic!].” While the information concerning Mr. Al-Megrahi is correct, the information concerning Mr. Fhimah is wrong. The accurate words in the case of the verdict reached on Mr. Fhimah would be “not guilty”. It is worthy to note that the sentence on the FCO web site is also semantically flawed. A person can be found “guilty” or “not guilty”, but not “proven” or “not proven”. Only an allegation/accusation, not a person, can be found “proven” or “not proven”. The sentence on the web site can easily be corrected if the word “proven” is replaced by the word “guilty”. ["On 31 January 2001 Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not guilty" instead of "On 31 January 2001 Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not proven".]* I trust that, for the sake of truth, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office will correct this mistake. The accurate information about the verdict in Mr. Fhimah’s case is to be found in the official transcript of the High Court of Justiciary at Kamp van Zeist (record of Day 86, January 31, 2001, pages 10235 to 10236).**
As international observer, appointed by the United Nations, at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands I am also concerned about the Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate which has been issued by you in connection with the new Appeal of the convicted Libyan national. Withholding of evidence from the Defence was one of the reasons why the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred Mr. Al-Megrahi’s case back to the High Court of Justiciary. The Appeal cannot go ahead if the Government of the United Kingdom, through the PII certificate issued by you, denies the Defence the right (also guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights) to have access to a document which is in the possession of the Prosecution. How can there be equality of arms in such a situation? How can the independence of the judiciary be upheld if the executive power interferes into the appeal process in such a way?
In that regard, I have the honour to draw your attention to the recent decision of Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to stay the proceedings in the case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo because of the non-disclosure of exculpatory material (“Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials …” of 13 June 2008). The judges stated that “The Chamber has unhesitatingly concluded that the right to a fair trial – which is without doubt a fundamental right – includes an entitlement to disclosure of exculpatory material“ and referred to an ICTY [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia] ruling according to which “the public interest [...] is excluded where its application would deny to the accused the opportunity to establish his or her innocence”. (In a further decision, dated 2 July 2008, Trial Chamber I of the ICC ordered the release of Mr. Dyilo.) I sincerely hope that the British Government will not ignore the basic principle of fairness as expressed in these rulings of international criminal courts and will not insist on a measure that would, if upheld, effectively prevent the Scottish High Court of Justiciary to go ahead with Mr. Al-Megrahi’s Appeal. It is fair to expect that the standards of criminal justice adhered to in the United Kingdom (and within the devolved justice system of Scotland, for that matter) should not be lower than those of international criminal courts and should definitely be in conformity with the requirements of Art. 6 of the European Human Rights Convention.
Should further appeal proceedings become impossible because of the forced non-disclosure of evidence to the Defence, not only myself, who followed the proceedings in the Netherlands as international observer, but the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie tragedy will be prevented from any further chance of knowing the truth about those responsible for the midair explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. Many who, like myself, initially trusted in the integrity of the judicial process under Scots law, will feel betrayed. There is no justice without truth – and there can be no truth if evidence is withheld in a criminal case by governmental decree.
***
* Under Scots law, the judges had three options for their verdict: guilty; not guilty; not proven. In Mr Fhimah's case, their ruling was "not guilty" (and not "not proven"). See also Hans Köchler's Lockerbie trial report of 3 February 2001, Para. 12.
** Verdict of the Scottish Court of 31 January 2001: Mr. Al-Megrahi: "guilty", Mr. Fhimah: "not guilty"
Tuesday 22 July 2008
The Conspiracy Files
BBC Two's autumn schedule contains a programme on Lockerbie in The Conspiracy Files series. The relevant portion of the BBC press release reads:
"Just before Christmas 1988 Britain's worst terrorist attack left 270 people dead. A Libyan intelligence officer was later convicted of mass murder, but he's now appealing against his sentence. So what wasn't revealed at his trial about the conspiracy to blow up a Pan Am jumbo jet en route from London to New York? The Conspiracy Files follows the trail of evidence from the Middle East, through Europe and on to North America, investigating the tangled web of claims and counterclaims surrounding the Lockerbie bombing."
"Just before Christmas 1988 Britain's worst terrorist attack left 270 people dead. A Libyan intelligence officer was later convicted of mass murder, but he's now appealing against his sentence. So what wasn't revealed at his trial about the conspiracy to blow up a Pan Am jumbo jet en route from London to New York? The Conspiracy Files follows the trail of evidence from the Middle East, through Europe and on to North America, investigating the tangled web of claims and counterclaims surrounding the Lockerbie bombing."
Sunday 20 July 2008
Lockerbie Appeal : Making Haste Slowly
Here, reproduced with his permission, is the text of an e-mail sent earlier today by Patrick Haseldine to Professor Hans Köchler and myself:
Today I extracted from the FCO's Libya website (http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/middle-east-north-africa/libya?profile=intRelations&pg=4) the following section related to the Lockerbie bombing:
"The Lockerbie trial began on 3 May 2000. On 31 January 2001 Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not proven. Al-Megrahi subsequently appealed against his conviction. His appeal was refused on 14 March 2002.
On 23 September 2003 Al-Megrahi applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for his conviction to be reviewed. On 28 June 2007 the Commission referred his case back to the High Court, allowing him to appeal against his conviction for a second time.
Trilateral talks began on 13 February 2001 to discuss how Libya could meet the Security Council’s remaining requirements. As a result of these talks, in August 2003 the UK tabled a resolution recommending that the Security Council lift UN sanctions. That resolution was passed by the Security Council on 12 September 2003."
On 10 July 2008 Prof. Black e-mailed the FCO pointing out that the verdict on Fhimah was in fact not guilty but the error has not yet been corrected (see Lockerbie verdict posted on Prof. Koechler's website http://i-p-o.org/Lockerbie_Verdict-31Jan2001.htm).
As regards the delay of over a year in arranging Mr Megrahi's second appeal against his conviction for the Lockerbie bombing, Prof. Black wrote an article on 17 July 2008 entitled 'Justice Delayed...', posing these two questions:
"Why has no date yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeal? Why does it now seem impossible that the appeal can be heard and a judgement delivered by the twentieth anniversary of the disaster on 21 December 2008?" (see http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/07/justice-delayed.html)
US and British diplomats (as I used to be) would probably deny that there has been a delay. Rather, they would euphemistically say it is a case of making haste slowly. I offer three reasons that might be seen, from an American perspective, to justify maintaining the slow progress in having Mr Megrahi's wrongful conviction overturned:
1. The Lockerbie bombing took place during the Reagan/Bush Snr interregnum. President Bush Jr is unlikely to allow the case to unravel and the convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber to be acquitted before the new president gets sworn in next January.
2. PA103 relatives and US politicians (eg Senators Hillary Clinton and Frank Lautenberg) insist that Libya should pay a further $540 million in compensation for the Lockerbie bombing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Compensation_from_Libya).
3. Lifting of UN Security Council sanctions against Libya hinged upon the payment of compensation for UTA772 as well as PA103 (see http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7868.doc.htm and http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/03/libyas-lockerbie-compensation-proposal.html) The US will doubtless want Libya to pay some or all of the $6 billion compensation for the UTA772 bombing before Mr Megrahi's appeal can be heard.
And finally here is a question from me: since the twentieth anniversary of the PA103 disaster is on 21 December 2008, will a future criminal prosecution (perhaps of apartheid South Africa) in respect of the Lockerbie bombing be ruled out by the 20-year statute of limitations?
[Note by RB: On one issue I can reassure Mr Haseldine. There is no statute of limitations applicable to common law crimes like murder in Scotland.]
Today I extracted from the FCO's Libya website (http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/middle-east-north-africa/libya?profile=intRelations&pg=4) the following section related to the Lockerbie bombing:
"The Lockerbie trial began on 3 May 2000. On 31 January 2001 Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not proven. Al-Megrahi subsequently appealed against his conviction. His appeal was refused on 14 March 2002.
On 23 September 2003 Al-Megrahi applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for his conviction to be reviewed. On 28 June 2007 the Commission referred his case back to the High Court, allowing him to appeal against his conviction for a second time.
Trilateral talks began on 13 February 2001 to discuss how Libya could meet the Security Council’s remaining requirements. As a result of these talks, in August 2003 the UK tabled a resolution recommending that the Security Council lift UN sanctions. That resolution was passed by the Security Council on 12 September 2003."
On 10 July 2008 Prof. Black e-mailed the FCO pointing out that the verdict on Fhimah was in fact not guilty but the error has not yet been corrected (see Lockerbie verdict posted on Prof. Koechler's website http://i-p-o.org/Lockerbie_Verdict-31Jan2001.htm).
As regards the delay of over a year in arranging Mr Megrahi's second appeal against his conviction for the Lockerbie bombing, Prof. Black wrote an article on 17 July 2008 entitled 'Justice Delayed...', posing these two questions:
"Why has no date yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeal? Why does it now seem impossible that the appeal can be heard and a judgement delivered by the twentieth anniversary of the disaster on 21 December 2008?" (see http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/07/justice-delayed.html)
US and British diplomats (as I used to be) would probably deny that there has been a delay. Rather, they would euphemistically say it is a case of making haste slowly. I offer three reasons that might be seen, from an American perspective, to justify maintaining the slow progress in having Mr Megrahi's wrongful conviction overturned:
1. The Lockerbie bombing took place during the Reagan/Bush Snr interregnum. President Bush Jr is unlikely to allow the case to unravel and the convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber to be acquitted before the new president gets sworn in next January.
2. PA103 relatives and US politicians (eg Senators Hillary Clinton and Frank Lautenberg) insist that Libya should pay a further $540 million in compensation for the Lockerbie bombing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Compensation_from_Libya).
3. Lifting of UN Security Council sanctions against Libya hinged upon the payment of compensation for UTA772 as well as PA103 (see http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7868.doc.htm and http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/03/libyas-lockerbie-compensation-proposal.html) The US will doubtless want Libya to pay some or all of the $6 billion compensation for the UTA772 bombing before Mr Megrahi's appeal can be heard.
And finally here is a question from me: since the twentieth anniversary of the PA103 disaster is on 21 December 2008, will a future criminal prosecution (perhaps of apartheid South Africa) in respect of the Lockerbie bombing be ruled out by the 20-year statute of limitations?
[Note by RB: On one issue I can reassure Mr Haseldine. There is no statute of limitations applicable to common law crimes like murder in Scotland.]
Saturday 19 July 2008
"One of the most dangerous men in the world"
The reference is to Monzer al-Kassar, who was extradited in June to the United States to stand trial for having supplied weapons to the FARC guerilla movement in Colombia. The German Kurtz Report features an article about him headlined (in translation) "Arms dealer or hostage saviour?" His alleged connection to Lockerbie is outlined in the following two paragraphs:
'Wenn Al Kassar, auch bekannt unter den Namen Abu Munawar und Al Taous, vor dem Bundesgericht erscheinen wird, kommen vielleicht noch andere Verbrechen zur Sprache. Richard Marquise, der frühere FBI-Beamte, der die Lockerbie-Ermittlungen leitete, empfahl dem Justizministerium, Kassar auch nach Lockerbie zu befragen. In seinem Schreiben bezog er sich auf die Behauptung des früheren israelischen Agenten Juval Aviv, Al Kassar habe als Mittler zwischen Iran und der amerikanischen Regierung im sogenannten “October Surprise Project” gehandelt, bei dem Waffen für den Iran gegen die Freilassung der amerikanischen Geiseln. Als Belohnung habe er Heroin aus dem Bekaa-Tal auf Flügen der amerikanischen Fluglinie Pan Am über Frankfurt in die USA liefern dürfen. Dabei sei die Drogenlieferung durch die Bombe ausgetauscht worden, die über Lockerbie explodierte.
'Der mögliche Lieferant des Zünders, Edwin Bollier, sollte im Rahmen des Todesermittlungsverfahrens Dr. Uwe Barschel vernommen werden. In den Akten der Lübecker Staatsanwaltschaft zum Fall Barschel findet sich auch eine sogenannte “Sonderakte Al Kassar”. Einen Monat vor der Verhaftung Al Kassars erschien das Buch “Deckname Dali” des ehemaligen Agenten des Bundesnachrichtendienstes (BND) Wilhelm Dietl. Darin beschreibt er, wie er auf Al Kassar angesetzt war, wie er wie in James Bond-Filmen dessen Akte auswendig gelernt habe, ihn mit Hilfe eines Observationsfotos des Bundeskriminalamts (BKA) auf einem Empfang der Österreichischen Botschaft in Damaskus identifizierte und ihn dann in Wien und Madrid traf.'
[I am grateful to a reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, for the following translation:
'When Al Kassar, also known under the names Abu Munawar and Al Taous, appears before the US Federal Court, other crimes may also come up. The former FBI agent, Richard Marquise, who led the Lockerbie investigation, has recommended to the Justice Department that Kassar should also be interrogated in connection with Lockerbie. In his writing, Marquise referred to the claim of the former Israel agent Juval Aviv, that Al Kassar functioned as an intermediary between Iran and the American government in the so-called “October Surprise Project”, whereby weapons were delivered to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages. By way of reward, he was supposedly allowed to fly heroin into the States from the Bekaa valley on Pan Am flights out of Frankfurt. In the course of this, the drug delivery was replaced by the bomb which exploded over Lockerbie.
‘It is claimed that the possible supplier of the fuse*, Edwin Bollier, was questioned in the context of the investigation into the death of Dr Uwe Barschel**. In the files of the Lübeck Public Prosecutor’s Office concerning the Barschel case, there is a so-called “Special File Al Kassar”. The book “Deckname Dali”, by former German secret service employee Wilhelm Dietl was published (in German) one month before the arrest of Al Kassar. In this book, he describes how he was instructed to track Al Kassar; how he, in the manner of James Bond, learned Al Kassar’s files by heart; how he identified Al Kassar at a reception held by the Austrian Embassy in Damascus, with the help of photos supplied by the German Federal Criminal Police Office; and how he met him in Vienna and Madrid.'
*Although it is the timer that Edwin Bollier’s company is alleged to have supplied, the German word “Zünder” means “fuse” or “detonator”.
**For information on the fascinating story of Dr Barschel, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_Barschel and (in German, but much more detailed) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_Barschel]
Also relevant is this post dating from 5 December 2007.
'Wenn Al Kassar, auch bekannt unter den Namen Abu Munawar und Al Taous, vor dem Bundesgericht erscheinen wird, kommen vielleicht noch andere Verbrechen zur Sprache. Richard Marquise, der frühere FBI-Beamte, der die Lockerbie-Ermittlungen leitete, empfahl dem Justizministerium, Kassar auch nach Lockerbie zu befragen. In seinem Schreiben bezog er sich auf die Behauptung des früheren israelischen Agenten Juval Aviv, Al Kassar habe als Mittler zwischen Iran und der amerikanischen Regierung im sogenannten “October Surprise Project” gehandelt, bei dem Waffen für den Iran gegen die Freilassung der amerikanischen Geiseln. Als Belohnung habe er Heroin aus dem Bekaa-Tal auf Flügen der amerikanischen Fluglinie Pan Am über Frankfurt in die USA liefern dürfen. Dabei sei die Drogenlieferung durch die Bombe ausgetauscht worden, die über Lockerbie explodierte.
'Der mögliche Lieferant des Zünders, Edwin Bollier, sollte im Rahmen des Todesermittlungsverfahrens Dr. Uwe Barschel vernommen werden. In den Akten der Lübecker Staatsanwaltschaft zum Fall Barschel findet sich auch eine sogenannte “Sonderakte Al Kassar”. Einen Monat vor der Verhaftung Al Kassars erschien das Buch “Deckname Dali” des ehemaligen Agenten des Bundesnachrichtendienstes (BND) Wilhelm Dietl. Darin beschreibt er, wie er auf Al Kassar angesetzt war, wie er wie in James Bond-Filmen dessen Akte auswendig gelernt habe, ihn mit Hilfe eines Observationsfotos des Bundeskriminalamts (BKA) auf einem Empfang der Österreichischen Botschaft in Damaskus identifizierte und ihn dann in Wien und Madrid traf.'
[I am grateful to a reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, for the following translation:
'When Al Kassar, also known under the names Abu Munawar and Al Taous, appears before the US Federal Court, other crimes may also come up. The former FBI agent, Richard Marquise, who led the Lockerbie investigation, has recommended to the Justice Department that Kassar should also be interrogated in connection with Lockerbie. In his writing, Marquise referred to the claim of the former Israel agent Juval Aviv, that Al Kassar functioned as an intermediary between Iran and the American government in the so-called “October Surprise Project”, whereby weapons were delivered to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages. By way of reward, he was supposedly allowed to fly heroin into the States from the Bekaa valley on Pan Am flights out of Frankfurt. In the course of this, the drug delivery was replaced by the bomb which exploded over Lockerbie.
‘It is claimed that the possible supplier of the fuse*, Edwin Bollier, was questioned in the context of the investigation into the death of Dr Uwe Barschel**. In the files of the Lübeck Public Prosecutor’s Office concerning the Barschel case, there is a so-called “Special File Al Kassar”. The book “Deckname Dali”, by former German secret service employee Wilhelm Dietl was published (in German) one month before the arrest of Al Kassar. In this book, he describes how he was instructed to track Al Kassar; how he, in the manner of James Bond, learned Al Kassar’s files by heart; how he identified Al Kassar at a reception held by the Austrian Embassy in Damascus, with the help of photos supplied by the German Federal Criminal Police Office; and how he met him in Vienna and Madrid.'
*Although it is the timer that Edwin Bollier’s company is alleged to have supplied, the German word “Zünder” means “fuse” or “detonator”.
**For information on the fascinating story of Dr Barschel, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_Barschel and (in German, but much more detailed) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_Barschel]
Also relevant is this post dating from 5 December 2007.
Friday 18 July 2008
Nelson Mandela
Here is an excerpt from a post on the South African blog Cunkuri on the occasion of the 90th birthday of Nelson Mandela:
'With so much having been written about the man, the best insights can, perhaps, be gleaned from his 'lesser' successes rather than his iconic triumphs. Nowhere is this more evident than in his mediation on the Lockerbie issue. Mandela took a particular interest in helping to resolve the long-running dispute between Gaddafi's Libya, on the one hand, and the United States and Britain on the other, over bringing to trial the two Libyans who were indicted in November 1991 and accused of sabotaging Pan Am Flight 103, which crashed at the Scottish town of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, with the loss of 270 lives. As early as 1992, Mandela informally approached President George Bush with a proposal to have the two indicted Libyans tried in a third country. Bush reacted favourably to the proposal, as did President Mitterrand of France and King Juan Carlos of Spain. In November 1994, six months after his election as president, Mandela formally proposed that South Africa should be the venue for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial.
'However, British Prime Minister, John Major, flatly rejected the idea saying the British government did not have confidence in foreign courts. A further three years elapsed until Mandela's offer was repeated to Major's successor, Tony Blair, when the president visited London in July 1997. Later the same year, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) at Edinburgh in October 1997, Mandela warned: "No one nation should be complainant, prosecutor and judge." A compromise solution was then agreed for a trial to be held at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, governed by Scottish law, and Mandela began negotiations with Gaddafi for the handover of the two accused (Megrahi and Fhimah) in April 1999.
'At the end of their nine-month trial, the verdict was announced on 31 January 2001. Fhimah was acquitted but Megrahi was convicted and sentenced to 27 years in a Scottish jail. Megrahi's initial appeal was turned down in March 2002, and former president Mandela went to visit him in Barlinnie prison on 10 June 2002. "Megrahi is all alone", Mandela told a packed press conference in the prison's visitors room. "He has nobody he can talk to. It is psychological persecution that a man must stay for the length of his long sentence all alone. It would be fair if he were transferred to a Muslim country, and there are Muslim countries which are trusted by the West. It will make it easier for his family to visit him if he is in a place like the kingdom of Morocco, Tunisia or Egypt."
'Megrahi was subsequently moved to Greenock jail and is no longer in solitary confinement. On 28 June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission concluded its three-year review of Megrahi's conviction and, believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, referred the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal for a second appeal. Fifteen years on from his initial involvement, Mandela's moral stature is bringing closure to the victims and reintegration into the world community of a country previously described as a rogue state. Mandela has frequently credited Mahatma Gandhi for being a major source of inspiration in his life, both for the philosophy of non-violence and for facing adversity with dignity. In the Lockerbie case it lives on as inescapable fact.'
The full text can be read here.
'With so much having been written about the man, the best insights can, perhaps, be gleaned from his 'lesser' successes rather than his iconic triumphs. Nowhere is this more evident than in his mediation on the Lockerbie issue. Mandela took a particular interest in helping to resolve the long-running dispute between Gaddafi's Libya, on the one hand, and the United States and Britain on the other, over bringing to trial the two Libyans who were indicted in November 1991 and accused of sabotaging Pan Am Flight 103, which crashed at the Scottish town of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, with the loss of 270 lives. As early as 1992, Mandela informally approached President George Bush with a proposal to have the two indicted Libyans tried in a third country. Bush reacted favourably to the proposal, as did President Mitterrand of France and King Juan Carlos of Spain. In November 1994, six months after his election as president, Mandela formally proposed that South Africa should be the venue for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial.
'However, British Prime Minister, John Major, flatly rejected the idea saying the British government did not have confidence in foreign courts. A further three years elapsed until Mandela's offer was repeated to Major's successor, Tony Blair, when the president visited London in July 1997. Later the same year, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) at Edinburgh in October 1997, Mandela warned: "No one nation should be complainant, prosecutor and judge." A compromise solution was then agreed for a trial to be held at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, governed by Scottish law, and Mandela began negotiations with Gaddafi for the handover of the two accused (Megrahi and Fhimah) in April 1999.
'At the end of their nine-month trial, the verdict was announced on 31 January 2001. Fhimah was acquitted but Megrahi was convicted and sentenced to 27 years in a Scottish jail. Megrahi's initial appeal was turned down in March 2002, and former president Mandela went to visit him in Barlinnie prison on 10 June 2002. "Megrahi is all alone", Mandela told a packed press conference in the prison's visitors room. "He has nobody he can talk to. It is psychological persecution that a man must stay for the length of his long sentence all alone. It would be fair if he were transferred to a Muslim country, and there are Muslim countries which are trusted by the West. It will make it easier for his family to visit him if he is in a place like the kingdom of Morocco, Tunisia or Egypt."
'Megrahi was subsequently moved to Greenock jail and is no longer in solitary confinement. On 28 June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission concluded its three-year review of Megrahi's conviction and, believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, referred the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal for a second appeal. Fifteen years on from his initial involvement, Mandela's moral stature is bringing closure to the victims and reintegration into the world community of a country previously described as a rogue state. Mandela has frequently credited Mahatma Gandhi for being a major source of inspiration in his life, both for the philosophy of non-violence and for facing adversity with dignity. In the Lockerbie case it lives on as inescapable fact.'
The full text can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)