[This is the headline over the report in today's Gulf Times on the Doha Debate on the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. It reads in part:]
The motion ‘This House deplores the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya,’ was carried with 53% votes at the first episode of the sixth series of Qatar Foundation’s Doha Debates last night.
The debate, which saw both sides raising solid arguments and some highly relevant questions from the audience, was the first public forum in the Arab world to discuss the bitterly-contested topic. (...)
Arguing for the motion was British MP and chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Libya, Daniel Kawczynski and Libyan writer, political commentator and frequent critic of the Libyan regime, Guma El-Gamaty, a resident of the UK for more than three decades.
On the opposing side was Dr Jim Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter Flora was a passenger on the Pan Am flight. Since her death, he has led a high-profile campaign for justice on behalf of UK relatives.
He was joined by Mustafa Fetouri, a Libyan academic and political commentator who writes for a variety of Arab and English language newspapers and currently MBA Programme Director at The Academy of Graduate Studies in Tripoli.
Kawczynski, the first speaker, set the tone for the evening by stating that the Pan Am bombing “was the worst atrocity imaginable” and he did not want al-Megrahi’s release.
He tied the issue to the ‘non-co-operation’ of the Libyan regime in the investigation of the killing of the young British police constable Yvonne Fletcher, shot outside the Libyan embassy 25 years ago.
“Gaddafi (Libyan president) refuses to see me,” said Kawczynski who alleged that Fletcher was shot by a Libyan diplomat. The Tory MP had accompanied the Fletcher family last month when they met British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.
Speaking next, Dr Fetouri remarked that al-Megrahi ought to have been released a long time ago and cited the “growing public opinion” that the convict was “actually framed.”
“Libya accepted responsibility for the Pan Am incident and paid the compensation to get out of the international sanctions, and 99.9% of Libyans believe that Libya as a country was not responsible for the bombing,” he maintained.
El-Gamaty, who alleged that al-Megrahi’s release was the result of a British-Libyan deal to give oil and gas exploration rights in Libya to British Petroleum, believed that the convict should have tried to clear his name if he were innocent as the Scottish court had offered to hear his case again.
Swire, whose main message to the debate audience was ‘we need to stop killing each other,’ declared that “the trial convinced me al-Megrahi was not involved in this” and “I am delighted by his release.”
“I have met Gaddafi thrice, whereas all the British Prime Ministers except Thatcher refused to meet me and the present Prime Minister Gordon Brown has not replied to my letter,” he said.
El-Gamaty argued that al-Megrahi, a very junior Libyan intelligence officer “has been used and is a victim whereas there are countries involved in this.”
Kawczynski, who suggested that al-Megrahi should have been released in exchange for the killer of Fletcher, also said the decision to free him had no sanction from the British Parliament.
[The report in The Peninsula can be read here.]
Tuesday 13 October 2009
Lockerbie bombing: Government backed Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's release
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Guardian on the Foreign Secretary's statement yesterday in the UK Parliament. The following are excerpts. The most important revelation is that contained in the second and third paragraphs, which I have italicised.]
David Miliband has revealed that the UK government supported the decision to free the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing because his death in a Scottish jail would have damaged trade and diplomatic ties to Libya.
The foreign secretary disclosed that Libya and Scottish National party ministers were told in advance that the government agreed "as a matter of policy" that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi should be freed on compassionate grounds because of his terminal cancer.
His remarks, made in a statement on the Megrahi affair to MPs on their first day back after the recess, confirm that the government had formally sanctioned the release by making its views known to both sides.
Miliband insisted that UK ministers had no power or desire to pressurise the Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, to release Megrahi because that was solely a matter for the Scottish legal system.
But he would make "no apology" for protecting business links with Libya, British jobs and the government's efforts to win Libyan help on security and counter-terrorism, including tackling al-Qaida terrorists in north Africa who killed the British tourist Edwin Dwyer in May. (...)
But Miliband's attempts to settle the controversy surrounding Megrahi's release were rebuffed by senior Tories, the Liberal Democrats and some Labour backbenchers, who accused the government of seriously damaging relations with the US and betraying the 270 victims of the atrocity.
William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said the government's handling of the affair had been "characterised by confusion and obfuscation". Gordon Brown's refusal to make a statement on whether he agreed with Megrahi's release for nine days was "deeply regrettable", he said. Even after the prime minister had said he respected the Scottish government's decision, there was further confusion after the children's secretary, Ed Balls, claimed that "no one" wanted Megrahi to be released. (...)
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, repeated his demand for an independent inquiry, and said it was now clear that "trade came before justice".
[The report in The Times by Scottish Political Editor, Angus Macleod, makes much of the gulf between the UK Labour Government's approval of Megrahi's release and the virulent disapproval of it expressed by the Labour Opposition in the Scottish Parliament. The story is headed "Scottish Labour at odds with London over al-Megrahi".]
David Miliband has revealed that the UK government supported the decision to free the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing because his death in a Scottish jail would have damaged trade and diplomatic ties to Libya.
The foreign secretary disclosed that Libya and Scottish National party ministers were told in advance that the government agreed "as a matter of policy" that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi should be freed on compassionate grounds because of his terminal cancer.
His remarks, made in a statement on the Megrahi affair to MPs on their first day back after the recess, confirm that the government had formally sanctioned the release by making its views known to both sides.
Miliband insisted that UK ministers had no power or desire to pressurise the Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, to release Megrahi because that was solely a matter for the Scottish legal system.
But he would make "no apology" for protecting business links with Libya, British jobs and the government's efforts to win Libyan help on security and counter-terrorism, including tackling al-Qaida terrorists in north Africa who killed the British tourist Edwin Dwyer in May. (...)
But Miliband's attempts to settle the controversy surrounding Megrahi's release were rebuffed by senior Tories, the Liberal Democrats and some Labour backbenchers, who accused the government of seriously damaging relations with the US and betraying the 270 victims of the atrocity.
William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said the government's handling of the affair had been "characterised by confusion and obfuscation". Gordon Brown's refusal to make a statement on whether he agreed with Megrahi's release for nine days was "deeply regrettable", he said. Even after the prime minister had said he respected the Scottish government's decision, there was further confusion after the children's secretary, Ed Balls, claimed that "no one" wanted Megrahi to be released. (...)
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, repeated his demand for an independent inquiry, and said it was now clear that "trade came before justice".
[The report in The Times by Scottish Political Editor, Angus Macleod, makes much of the gulf between the UK Labour Government's approval of Megrahi's release and the virulent disapproval of it expressed by the Labour Opposition in the Scottish Parliament. The story is headed "Scottish Labour at odds with London over al-Megrahi".]
Monday 12 October 2009
Miliband admits Megrahi jail fear
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
The UK government thought the national interest would be "damaged" if the Lockerbie bomber had died in prison, the foreign secretary has said.
Libyan Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds by the Scottish government in August.
But David Miliband told the Commons he "rejected" claims that any pressure had been applied by the UK government. (...)
Mr Miliband said that, because justice was a devolved matter and therefore dealt with by the Scottish government, the decision had been "for him [Mr MacAskill] to take and for him to take alone".
He added: "The government was clear that any attempt by us to pressure the Scottish Executive would have been wrong."
He said he wanted to address the "unfounded allegation" that Britain had ignored Libya's past support for terrorism or that it had forgotten about IRA victims or the family of murdered police officer Yvonne Fletcher, shot by a gunman inside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984.
The Scottish government, run by the Scottish National Party (SNP), has said the decision to release Megrahi was made on compassionate grounds, as he has terminal cancer.
Mr Miliband told MPs: "Notwithstanding that any decision on release was for Scottish ministers and the Scottish judicial system, the UK government had a responsibility to consider the consequences of any Scottish decision.
"Although the decision was not one for the UK government, British interests, including those of UK nationals, British businesses and possibly security co-operation would be damaged, perhaps badly, if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison rather than Libya.
"Given the risk of Libyan adverse reaction we made it clear to them both that as a matter of law and practice it was not a decision for the UK government and as a matter of policy we were not seeking Megrahi's death in Scottish custody." (...)
Speaking in the Commons, the SNP's Westminster leader Angus Robertson, said the decision had been recommended by parole officers and had not been based "on political considerations".
A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said: "Kenny MacAskill took the right decisions for the right reasons, based on the due process of Scots law - including the recommendations of the parole board and prison governor, and the medical evidence.
"The foreign secretary has now made it clear that UK government policy was not in favour of al-Megrahi dying in Scotland.
"The UK Labour position played no role whatever in the justice secretary's decisions to reject prisoner transfer and grant compassionate release."
The UK government thought the national interest would be "damaged" if the Lockerbie bomber had died in prison, the foreign secretary has said.
Libyan Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds by the Scottish government in August.
But David Miliband told the Commons he "rejected" claims that any pressure had been applied by the UK government. (...)
Mr Miliband said that, because justice was a devolved matter and therefore dealt with by the Scottish government, the decision had been "for him [Mr MacAskill] to take and for him to take alone".
He added: "The government was clear that any attempt by us to pressure the Scottish Executive would have been wrong."
He said he wanted to address the "unfounded allegation" that Britain had ignored Libya's past support for terrorism or that it had forgotten about IRA victims or the family of murdered police officer Yvonne Fletcher, shot by a gunman inside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984.
The Scottish government, run by the Scottish National Party (SNP), has said the decision to release Megrahi was made on compassionate grounds, as he has terminal cancer.
Mr Miliband told MPs: "Notwithstanding that any decision on release was for Scottish ministers and the Scottish judicial system, the UK government had a responsibility to consider the consequences of any Scottish decision.
"Although the decision was not one for the UK government, British interests, including those of UK nationals, British businesses and possibly security co-operation would be damaged, perhaps badly, if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison rather than Libya.
"Given the risk of Libyan adverse reaction we made it clear to them both that as a matter of law and practice it was not a decision for the UK government and as a matter of policy we were not seeking Megrahi's death in Scottish custody." (...)
Speaking in the Commons, the SNP's Westminster leader Angus Robertson, said the decision had been recommended by parole officers and had not been based "on political considerations".
A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said: "Kenny MacAskill took the right decisions for the right reasons, based on the due process of Scots law - including the recommendations of the parole board and prison governor, and the medical evidence.
"The foreign secretary has now made it clear that UK government policy was not in favour of al-Megrahi dying in Scotland.
"The UK Labour position played no role whatever in the justice secretary's decisions to reject prisoner transfer and grant compassionate release."
Doha Debates to discuss Megrahi’s release
The Doha Debates will begin their sixth series today, with a discussion on the bitterly-contested release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, a Libyan national with terminal cancer, was freed in August by the Scottish government on compassionate grounds, provoking an international outcry and condemnation by US President Barack Obama.
Al Megrahi was the only person convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 which came down over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people.
The debate, which takes place at Qatar Foundation Headquarters at 7.30pm, will argue the motion that “This House deplores the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya”. Debates’ Chairman Tim Sebastian said that most of the comments had so far come from Britain and America.
“It’s time to hear from Arabs themselves about the conflict between justice and compassion. There are moral and practical implications at stake. What message did the release of the bomber send to terrorists around the world, as well as their victims?”
Arguing for the motion is Daniel Kawczynski, British MP and Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Libya.
With him is Guma El-Gamaty, a Libyan writer, political commentator and frequent critic of the Libyan regime. He has been living in the UK for more than 30 years.
The panel opposing the motion includes Jim Swire, whose 23-year old daughter Flora was a passenger on the Pan Am flight. Since her death, he has led a high-profile campaign for justice on behalf of UK relatives.
He is joined by Mustafa Fetouri, a Libyan academic and political commentator who writes for a variety of Arab and English language newspapers and is currently MBA Programme Director at The Academy of Graduate Studies in Tripoli.
Besides the BBC World News broadcasts, the Debates can now be followed on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
[From today's edition of The Peninsula, Qatar's largest English language daily newspaper. The article can be read here.]
Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, a Libyan national with terminal cancer, was freed in August by the Scottish government on compassionate grounds, provoking an international outcry and condemnation by US President Barack Obama.
Al Megrahi was the only person convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 which came down over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people.
The debate, which takes place at Qatar Foundation Headquarters at 7.30pm, will argue the motion that “This House deplores the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya”. Debates’ Chairman Tim Sebastian said that most of the comments had so far come from Britain and America.
“It’s time to hear from Arabs themselves about the conflict between justice and compassion. There are moral and practical implications at stake. What message did the release of the bomber send to terrorists around the world, as well as their victims?”
Arguing for the motion is Daniel Kawczynski, British MP and Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Libya.
With him is Guma El-Gamaty, a Libyan writer, political commentator and frequent critic of the Libyan regime. He has been living in the UK for more than 30 years.
The panel opposing the motion includes Jim Swire, whose 23-year old daughter Flora was a passenger on the Pan Am flight. Since her death, he has led a high-profile campaign for justice on behalf of UK relatives.
He is joined by Mustafa Fetouri, a Libyan academic and political commentator who writes for a variety of Arab and English language newspapers and is currently MBA Programme Director at The Academy of Graduate Studies in Tripoli.
Besides the BBC World News broadcasts, the Debates can now be followed on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
[From today's edition of The Peninsula, Qatar's largest English language daily newspaper. The article can be read here.]
Sunday 11 October 2009
Libya must not be held hostage by greed
[This is the heading over a long letter by Joseph M Cachia in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Independent on Sunday. It reads as follows.]
“Greed is the inventor of injustice as well as the current enforcer” – Julian Casablancas
The clamour following the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi had hardly died down when the headlines of the US media barked out: “Terrorist celebrated in Libya”.
What shame and hypocrisy!
Why shouldn’t al-Megrahi be given a hero’s welcome and met with scenes of jubilation, especially by his family and close friends? Wasn’t a hero’s welcome given to Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the other accused and acquitted, equally and rightfully deserving?
Back in 2001, when al-Megrahi was convicted of the bombing by a Scottish court, the newspapers were filled with pictures of jubilant relatives of the victims of the 1988 bombing of PanAm 103. Admittedly, they had believed that justice had been meted out, albeit doubtfully.
So, what’s wrong with welcoming home a man whom his countrymen strongly believe to have been unjustly convicted?
What disturbs me most about this matter is the revenge motive. It seems that revenge is a dish best served cold, off the human menu and serving no genuine purpose. The lack of compassion expressed by some shows that they are no better than any terrorist.
I lived in Libya for over three years, so know first hand that most Libyan people are peaceful, hospitable and generous. The spontaneous warm celebration that welcomed this unfortunate man back home does, beyond any doubt, credit to them.
Moreover, not only Libya but also various other competent authorities have always perceived al-Megrahi as innocent.
As he quite rightly said: “I have returned to Tripoli with my UNJUST conviction still in place.” It is extremely shameful for anyone to say that his attempt to challenge his conviction and clear his name is deplorable. What point have we reached? Is it justice to deprive anyone of the chance to prove his innocence?
Although it appears that the US President was not properly informed about the al-Megrahi case, he did not hesitate to condemn Scottish justice for his compassionate release. And what now, Mr President, if Mr al-Megrahi, is finally proved innocent? Perhaps, if the US President cares to give Al-Megrahi’s conviction a second look, reading the book Cover-up of Convenience – The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie, co-authored by investigative journalist Ian Ferguson, would surely prevent him from being so vociferous in his unabashed convictions!
When asked whether Britain would consider reimbursing Libya in the event of Mr al-Megrahi’s exoneration, no one at the Foreign Office was prepared to comment.
What was the reason for the film The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie being so fiercely criticised by the US and British governments that subsequently it had to be withdrawn from public viewing?
Truth is everyone’s right and it seems it is still being denied to us.
In a move agreed to by the US and British governments, Libya had offered compensation to the relatives of those killed in the bombing.
In February 2004, the Libyan Prime Minister formally declared that his country was innocent but was forced to pay-up as a “price for peace”. The Libyan government paid the relatives of the Lockerbie victims £803 million in compensation.
The conditions of the deal included the lifting of the United Nations sanctions against Libya, the removal of US sanctions and the removal of Libya from the US list of states “sponsoring terrorism”. Anything goes, as long as it’s paid for! At that time, even the Maltese government had offered support to the Libyan stance. Anything goes as long as it’s paid for!
The only objections to the Libyan initiative came from the French government. Citing the much lower sums offered by Libya to relatives of victims of another aircraft bombing, the French government has demanded a comparable level of compensation for the victims. The victim’s relatives were paid up to $33,000 each by Libya, in contrast to the $10 million each for relatives of the victims of PA 103. Still more avarice – a ceaseless, overwhelming desire for more.
How many of the relatives of victims of the Lockerbie bombing, who recently protested outside the UN building at President Gaddafi’s appearance, were recipients of Libya’s contributions?
Seif Al Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan leader, angered Lockerbie victims’ relatives last year when he said they were “very greedy” and “trading with the blood of their sons and daughters” in their battle for compensation. That’s nothing but the honest truth!
If the release of Mr al-Megrahi was based on greed, as has been implied by various media, it definitely wasn’t on the part of the Libyan government.
Contagious avarice
When the British were calling the IRA terrorists, American sympathisers funded and protected them and called them “freedom fighters”.
Remember the wisecrack: “the safest place to be in London during an IRA bombing campaign is any branch of McDonalds, as they would never, ever blow up a business outlet of one of their US supporters”.
Previously, the British government had always said it would not intervene in compensation claims brought by victims of explosives and weaponry allegedly supplied to the IRA by Libya.
Still reeling from the row surrounding the release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has now changed his stance to support compensation claims against Libya by the victims of IRA attacks.
In a shameless U-turn, Gordon Brown has now thrown his support behind the victims of IRA bombings when they head to Libya to demand compensation from Colonel Gaddafi, including the assignment of a dedicated staff from the Foreign Office to support the victims and their families. Hopefully, if the Libyan government agrees to pay compensation, the US government will not let itself be outdone and will likewise agree to offer a hefty compensation!
But President Gaddafi’s son, Saif al Islam, told Sky News that the matter would be argued in court. “Anyone can knock at our door and ask for money,” he said. “But we go to the courts. They have their lawyers, we have our lawyers.”
I am convinced that no one can disagree with his statement that any such claims will be rejected.
Libya must no longer remain captive to greed.
Finally, may I suggest that all those who are still dubious about the facts regarding the Lockerbie drama, and are willing to learn the whole story, visit the new website: “Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi – My Story”.
“Justice must prevail beyond all other considerations. Beyond politics, convictions, religion, even compassion (and certainly expedience), regardless of one’s sympathies, JUSTICE must be the banner that unites us. This is more than pity for a dying man; this is a demand for justice.” (Danton de Vouvray)
“Greed is the inventor of injustice as well as the current enforcer” – Julian Casablancas
The clamour following the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi had hardly died down when the headlines of the US media barked out: “Terrorist celebrated in Libya”.
What shame and hypocrisy!
Why shouldn’t al-Megrahi be given a hero’s welcome and met with scenes of jubilation, especially by his family and close friends? Wasn’t a hero’s welcome given to Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the other accused and acquitted, equally and rightfully deserving?
Back in 2001, when al-Megrahi was convicted of the bombing by a Scottish court, the newspapers were filled with pictures of jubilant relatives of the victims of the 1988 bombing of PanAm 103. Admittedly, they had believed that justice had been meted out, albeit doubtfully.
So, what’s wrong with welcoming home a man whom his countrymen strongly believe to have been unjustly convicted?
What disturbs me most about this matter is the revenge motive. It seems that revenge is a dish best served cold, off the human menu and serving no genuine purpose. The lack of compassion expressed by some shows that they are no better than any terrorist.
I lived in Libya for over three years, so know first hand that most Libyan people are peaceful, hospitable and generous. The spontaneous warm celebration that welcomed this unfortunate man back home does, beyond any doubt, credit to them.
Moreover, not only Libya but also various other competent authorities have always perceived al-Megrahi as innocent.
As he quite rightly said: “I have returned to Tripoli with my UNJUST conviction still in place.” It is extremely shameful for anyone to say that his attempt to challenge his conviction and clear his name is deplorable. What point have we reached? Is it justice to deprive anyone of the chance to prove his innocence?
Although it appears that the US President was not properly informed about the al-Megrahi case, he did not hesitate to condemn Scottish justice for his compassionate release. And what now, Mr President, if Mr al-Megrahi, is finally proved innocent? Perhaps, if the US President cares to give Al-Megrahi’s conviction a second look, reading the book Cover-up of Convenience – The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie, co-authored by investigative journalist Ian Ferguson, would surely prevent him from being so vociferous in his unabashed convictions!
When asked whether Britain would consider reimbursing Libya in the event of Mr al-Megrahi’s exoneration, no one at the Foreign Office was prepared to comment.
What was the reason for the film The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie being so fiercely criticised by the US and British governments that subsequently it had to be withdrawn from public viewing?
Truth is everyone’s right and it seems it is still being denied to us.
In a move agreed to by the US and British governments, Libya had offered compensation to the relatives of those killed in the bombing.
In February 2004, the Libyan Prime Minister formally declared that his country was innocent but was forced to pay-up as a “price for peace”. The Libyan government paid the relatives of the Lockerbie victims £803 million in compensation.
The conditions of the deal included the lifting of the United Nations sanctions against Libya, the removal of US sanctions and the removal of Libya from the US list of states “sponsoring terrorism”. Anything goes, as long as it’s paid for! At that time, even the Maltese government had offered support to the Libyan stance. Anything goes as long as it’s paid for!
The only objections to the Libyan initiative came from the French government. Citing the much lower sums offered by Libya to relatives of victims of another aircraft bombing, the French government has demanded a comparable level of compensation for the victims. The victim’s relatives were paid up to $33,000 each by Libya, in contrast to the $10 million each for relatives of the victims of PA 103. Still more avarice – a ceaseless, overwhelming desire for more.
How many of the relatives of victims of the Lockerbie bombing, who recently protested outside the UN building at President Gaddafi’s appearance, were recipients of Libya’s contributions?
Seif Al Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan leader, angered Lockerbie victims’ relatives last year when he said they were “very greedy” and “trading with the blood of their sons and daughters” in their battle for compensation. That’s nothing but the honest truth!
If the release of Mr al-Megrahi was based on greed, as has been implied by various media, it definitely wasn’t on the part of the Libyan government.
Contagious avarice
When the British were calling the IRA terrorists, American sympathisers funded and protected them and called them “freedom fighters”.
Remember the wisecrack: “the safest place to be in London during an IRA bombing campaign is any branch of McDonalds, as they would never, ever blow up a business outlet of one of their US supporters”.
Previously, the British government had always said it would not intervene in compensation claims brought by victims of explosives and weaponry allegedly supplied to the IRA by Libya.
Still reeling from the row surrounding the release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has now changed his stance to support compensation claims against Libya by the victims of IRA attacks.
In a shameless U-turn, Gordon Brown has now thrown his support behind the victims of IRA bombings when they head to Libya to demand compensation from Colonel Gaddafi, including the assignment of a dedicated staff from the Foreign Office to support the victims and their families. Hopefully, if the Libyan government agrees to pay compensation, the US government will not let itself be outdone and will likewise agree to offer a hefty compensation!
But President Gaddafi’s son, Saif al Islam, told Sky News that the matter would be argued in court. “Anyone can knock at our door and ask for money,” he said. “But we go to the courts. They have their lawyers, we have our lawyers.”
I am convinced that no one can disagree with his statement that any such claims will be rejected.
Libya must no longer remain captive to greed.
Finally, may I suggest that all those who are still dubious about the facts regarding the Lockerbie drama, and are willing to learn the whole story, visit the new website: “Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi – My Story”.
“Justice must prevail beyond all other considerations. Beyond politics, convictions, religion, even compassion (and certainly expedience), regardless of one’s sympathies, JUSTICE must be the banner that unites us. This is more than pity for a dying man; this is a demand for justice.” (Danton de Vouvray)
SNP slammed over refusal to go public with latest Megrahi health reports
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads in part:]
Officials are refusing to publish up-to-date medical reports about the health of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
The reports, compiled by Megrahi's Libyan doctors, have been handed to East Renfrewshire Council as part of regular assessments the local authority is making on the bomber's licensed release.
The council's criminal justice social work team is in charge of monitoring Megrahi from his home in Tripoli and could, if the medical reports show an improvement in his health, ask him to return to jail.
East Renfrewshire Council claimed last week that the medical reports belonged to the Scottish Government's justice department, where they had been sent. But the Scottish Government then said it was up to East Renfrewshire to decide whether or not to release the reports, not them.
A spokesman said: "We have decided with East Renfrewshire that they should be the first point of contact. It is their responsibility."
An East Renfrewshire spokesman declared: "These reports contain personal information. They could be released only if Mr Megrahi agreed to it. It is the same as any other criminal justice case."
Opposition parties last night said all medical information about Megrahi should be placed in the public domain. (...)
Megrahi will this week begin his ninth week of freedom at his home in Tripoli. Reports about his health have varied, some suggesting he is getting frailer, others declaring there remains optimism in Libya that he may make a recovery.
Officials are refusing to publish up-to-date medical reports about the health of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
The reports, compiled by Megrahi's Libyan doctors, have been handed to East Renfrewshire Council as part of regular assessments the local authority is making on the bomber's licensed release.
The council's criminal justice social work team is in charge of monitoring Megrahi from his home in Tripoli and could, if the medical reports show an improvement in his health, ask him to return to jail.
East Renfrewshire Council claimed last week that the medical reports belonged to the Scottish Government's justice department, where they had been sent. But the Scottish Government then said it was up to East Renfrewshire to decide whether or not to release the reports, not them.
A spokesman said: "We have decided with East Renfrewshire that they should be the first point of contact. It is their responsibility."
An East Renfrewshire spokesman declared: "These reports contain personal information. They could be released only if Mr Megrahi agreed to it. It is the same as any other criminal justice case."
Opposition parties last night said all medical information about Megrahi should be placed in the public domain. (...)
Megrahi will this week begin his ninth week of freedom at his home in Tripoli. Reports about his health have varied, some suggesting he is getting frailer, others declaring there remains optimism in Libya that he may make a recovery.
Saturday 10 October 2009
Who was really behind Lockerbie?
[This is the heading over an article in the Harvard Law Record, the newspaper of the Harvard Law School, by Kate Spencer, a Scot following the LLM programme there. It reads in part:]
Decades later, this question - and now, the question of why al-Megrahi was really released - remain
Twenty-one years later after the bombing with which it began, the Lockerbie saga just won’t go away. The most recent media coverage has revolved around the release of the convicted al-Megrahi and his return to Libya. His release and the hero’s welcome he received provoked international outrage, most vocally from the U.S. Was it really a straightforward case of the Scottish Justice Minster experiencing a tug on his heart strings after meeting al-Megrahi, terminally ill with cancer? (...)
Theories abound as to the perpetrators and motives of the attack. Books, films and countless documentaries have publicised the inconsistencies surrounding the case (notably few have been screened on U.S. television). Initial blame focused on three countries: Iran, Syria and Libya. Following the erroneous shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane by the USS Vincennes 5 months earlier, Iran had likely motive. The U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency indicated that the Palestine Front for the Liberation of Palestine in conjunction with elements of the Iranian government and Hezbollah were planning to attack a U.S. target. 8 weeks before the bombing a PFLP cell was arrested in West Germany and bombs similar to that used on Pan Am 103 were confiscated.
However, in 2001 a Libyan intelligence officer, Abelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, was convicted of involvement in the bombing and sentenced to life imprisonment, amid extreme doubts over the circumstantial evidence that secured the conviction. (...)
The prosecution maintained that the bomb was placed in luggage in Malta. By the end of the trial the defense was suggesting the possibility of it being planted in Heathrow, a theory supported by Robert Baer, a former CIA agent (played by George Clooney in Syriana!) He suggests that it makes no sense for the bomb to be put on the plane at Malta and having to make two stops before it exploded on its way to the U.S. Much more likely, he maintains, that the bomb had been planted at Heathrow. Months after the conviction of al-Megrahi, a former security guard at Heathrow revealed he had discovered a break in at the Pan Am luggage facility on the day of the attack. The prosecution case relied on the premise that a bag was checked on a plane from Malta, not Heathrow, without a corresponding passenger. In a civil action brought by Air Malta over a “libellous” documentary that showed the “bomb bag” being loaded onto the plane at Malta, the airline produced evidence proving all bags had been accounted for and accompanied by passengers. The action settled out of court.
Also key to the prosecution case was the witness evidence of Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper and tailor, who claimed to have sold the clothes found in the suitcase containing the bomb to al-Megrahi. Considerable doubt arose from Gauci’s evidence, particularly in light of allegations of a $2 million pay-off. Gauci was non-committal as to whether al-Megrahi was the man who purchased the clothes from his shop. The closest he got to a positive identification was to state that there was a “resemblance”.
He was uncertain of the date he sold the clothes and was memorably described by the man who indicted al-Megrahi, Lord Fraser (Scotland’s most senior law officer at the time) as “not quite the full shilling”. The UN appointed external arbiter stated after the trial: “there is not one single piece of material evidence linking [Megrahi] to the crime… the guilty verdict appears to be arbitrary, even irrational.” He has also said that the split decision, where one accused was found guilty and the other not guilty is highly questionable and further, that it is impossible to believe that a lone intelligence officer could have masterminded and organised the attack. While the Libyans did eventually (in a roundabout way) accept responsibility for the attack and paid out billions in compensation to Lockerbie victims’ families, Libyan government officials label this move as purely pragmatic: “ [it was] easier for us to buy peace and this is why we agreed to compensation.”
A Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (a body established to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice) inquiry was launched and a recommendation given that there should be a new appeal. This second appeal was conveniently dropped before Al Megrahi’s release. Why? Was a deal done? Was Al Megrahi persuaded to drop his appeal so he could go home to die? Therein lies the true injustice – and the only assumption that can be drawn is it wouldn’t be in the interests of any government concerned to pursue the appeal.
So, unanswered questions engulf the Lockerbie affair. An official inquiry, so desired by the families of the Scottish victims and the general public, has been repeatedly refused; the UN is now being called on to conduct an international inquiry. The evidential issues have never been resolved. Factor in the British commercial presence in Libya (oil and arms trade), the Blair government’s favorable attitude toward Gaddafi and Gaddafi’s volte-face desire to ingratiate himself into the international community. Add to this the extraordinary prisoner extradition agreement in 2007 (that the Scots refused to carry out) aimed solely at returning al-Megrahi to Libya and the picture of emerges is one that appears to leave the U.K. government with much explaining to do. (...)
The idea that the Nationalist administration would risk international censure by releasing al-Megrahi on the orders of Gordon Brown to further “British” business interests is, to my mind, absurd. Release on compassionate grounds is a genuine tradition in Scots criminal law and some suggest this was an example of the Scottish Government, keen to prove itself as an international actor, doing something uniquely “Scottish”. There was widespread support within Scotland for the release of al-Megrahi; perhaps as a result of the cynicism surrounding his conviction and the outspokenness of those advocating for his release, or at least re-trial. However the American reaction to the decision and the quagmire of controversy surrounding it negate any political expediency it may have achieved.
Currently, al-Megrahi is releasing documents he would have used in his latest appeal on the internet, documents which he says prove his innocence. But despite his release he will die guilty in the eyes of the law. Without a public inquiry the unanswered questions will never be answered and the alleged miscarriage of justice remains just that — alleged.
Decades later, this question - and now, the question of why al-Megrahi was really released - remain
Twenty-one years later after the bombing with which it began, the Lockerbie saga just won’t go away. The most recent media coverage has revolved around the release of the convicted al-Megrahi and his return to Libya. His release and the hero’s welcome he received provoked international outrage, most vocally from the U.S. Was it really a straightforward case of the Scottish Justice Minster experiencing a tug on his heart strings after meeting al-Megrahi, terminally ill with cancer? (...)
Theories abound as to the perpetrators and motives of the attack. Books, films and countless documentaries have publicised the inconsistencies surrounding the case (notably few have been screened on U.S. television). Initial blame focused on three countries: Iran, Syria and Libya. Following the erroneous shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane by the USS Vincennes 5 months earlier, Iran had likely motive. The U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency indicated that the Palestine Front for the Liberation of Palestine in conjunction with elements of the Iranian government and Hezbollah were planning to attack a U.S. target. 8 weeks before the bombing a PFLP cell was arrested in West Germany and bombs similar to that used on Pan Am 103 were confiscated.
However, in 2001 a Libyan intelligence officer, Abelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, was convicted of involvement in the bombing and sentenced to life imprisonment, amid extreme doubts over the circumstantial evidence that secured the conviction. (...)
The prosecution maintained that the bomb was placed in luggage in Malta. By the end of the trial the defense was suggesting the possibility of it being planted in Heathrow, a theory supported by Robert Baer, a former CIA agent (played by George Clooney in Syriana!) He suggests that it makes no sense for the bomb to be put on the plane at Malta and having to make two stops before it exploded on its way to the U.S. Much more likely, he maintains, that the bomb had been planted at Heathrow. Months after the conviction of al-Megrahi, a former security guard at Heathrow revealed he had discovered a break in at the Pan Am luggage facility on the day of the attack. The prosecution case relied on the premise that a bag was checked on a plane from Malta, not Heathrow, without a corresponding passenger. In a civil action brought by Air Malta over a “libellous” documentary that showed the “bomb bag” being loaded onto the plane at Malta, the airline produced evidence proving all bags had been accounted for and accompanied by passengers. The action settled out of court.
Also key to the prosecution case was the witness evidence of Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper and tailor, who claimed to have sold the clothes found in the suitcase containing the bomb to al-Megrahi. Considerable doubt arose from Gauci’s evidence, particularly in light of allegations of a $2 million pay-off. Gauci was non-committal as to whether al-Megrahi was the man who purchased the clothes from his shop. The closest he got to a positive identification was to state that there was a “resemblance”.
He was uncertain of the date he sold the clothes and was memorably described by the man who indicted al-Megrahi, Lord Fraser (Scotland’s most senior law officer at the time) as “not quite the full shilling”. The UN appointed external arbiter stated after the trial: “there is not one single piece of material evidence linking [Megrahi] to the crime… the guilty verdict appears to be arbitrary, even irrational.” He has also said that the split decision, where one accused was found guilty and the other not guilty is highly questionable and further, that it is impossible to believe that a lone intelligence officer could have masterminded and organised the attack. While the Libyans did eventually (in a roundabout way) accept responsibility for the attack and paid out billions in compensation to Lockerbie victims’ families, Libyan government officials label this move as purely pragmatic: “ [it was] easier for us to buy peace and this is why we agreed to compensation.”
A Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (a body established to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice) inquiry was launched and a recommendation given that there should be a new appeal. This second appeal was conveniently dropped before Al Megrahi’s release. Why? Was a deal done? Was Al Megrahi persuaded to drop his appeal so he could go home to die? Therein lies the true injustice – and the only assumption that can be drawn is it wouldn’t be in the interests of any government concerned to pursue the appeal.
So, unanswered questions engulf the Lockerbie affair. An official inquiry, so desired by the families of the Scottish victims and the general public, has been repeatedly refused; the UN is now being called on to conduct an international inquiry. The evidential issues have never been resolved. Factor in the British commercial presence in Libya (oil and arms trade), the Blair government’s favorable attitude toward Gaddafi and Gaddafi’s volte-face desire to ingratiate himself into the international community. Add to this the extraordinary prisoner extradition agreement in 2007 (that the Scots refused to carry out) aimed solely at returning al-Megrahi to Libya and the picture of emerges is one that appears to leave the U.K. government with much explaining to do. (...)
The idea that the Nationalist administration would risk international censure by releasing al-Megrahi on the orders of Gordon Brown to further “British” business interests is, to my mind, absurd. Release on compassionate grounds is a genuine tradition in Scots criminal law and some suggest this was an example of the Scottish Government, keen to prove itself as an international actor, doing something uniquely “Scottish”. There was widespread support within Scotland for the release of al-Megrahi; perhaps as a result of the cynicism surrounding his conviction and the outspokenness of those advocating for his release, or at least re-trial. However the American reaction to the decision and the quagmire of controversy surrounding it negate any political expediency it may have achieved.
Currently, al-Megrahi is releasing documents he would have used in his latest appeal on the internet, documents which he says prove his innocence. But despite his release he will die guilty in the eyes of the law. Without a public inquiry the unanswered questions will never be answered and the alleged miscarriage of justice remains just that — alleged.
Thursday 8 October 2009
Responsibility to Protest: After Lockerbie
This is the title of issue 106 of The Spokesman, the quarterly journal of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation. Amongst other interesting contributions from Noam Chomsky, John Pilger and Tony Blair, it contains a section consisting of four Lockerbie articles (previously published elsewhere) by Hans Koechler ("Unfair Trial"), Marcello Mega (Lockerbie -- the Cover-up"), Tam Dalyell ("The Crime of Lockerbie") and myself ("Lockerbie and the Law") and a long editorial ("After Lockerbie") by Ken Coates. The journal (ISBN: 978 0 85124 7724) can be obtained through the Spokesman Books website.
Tuesday 6 October 2009
Lockerbie: the truth is finally coming out
[This is the heading over a recent post by Michael Meacher MP on his blog. It reads as follows:]
An international corruption scandal is fast brewing with potentially explosive significance for the reputation of the US. The lawyers representing Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of murdering 270 people in the bombing of the Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, have just published on-line the documents which they would have used for his appeal, had not Megrahi withdrawn his appeal last month after a deal was struck to release him on compassionate grounds since he has terminal prostate cancer. What the legal documents reveal is that the key prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, and his brother had been secretly given rewards of $3 million in a deal discussed by Scottish detectives and the US Government. Gauci had given the crucial evidence at the trial declaring that Megrahi had bought clothes later used in the suitcase that allegedly contained the Lockerbie bomb. No other evidence connected Megrahi to the bomb. Now for the first time these latest documents disclose that in 1989 the FBI told the Scottish police that they wanted to offer Tony Gauci "unlimited money" and $10,000 straightaway. The US Justice Department was also asked to pay a further £1 million to Gauci's brother who did not give evidence, but halped to identify the clothing and to "maintain the resolve of his brother". The implications of these revelations are sensational.
These secret payments were brought to light by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, with many references contained in the private diaries of the detectives involved, though not in their official notebooks. Other highly relevant evidence is made known for the first time by these documents. They disclose that in 23 police interviews before the trial Gauci gave contradictory evidence about the person buying the clothes, his age, appearance, and the date of purchase. Significantly also Gauci said the area's Christmas lights were not lit when the clothese were bought (stated to be 7 December), but the current Maltese High Commissioner to the UK, then the local MP, has insisted that the lights were switched on on 6 December. But the key pointer is the bribe. If Gauci was telling the truth, why did he have to be bribed, and his brother bribed too to shore him up?
It neve made sense for Libya to have carried out the Lockerbie atrocity. But it did for Iran. The US navy in the Gulf had just previously without provocation shot down an Iranian civil airliner carrying 290 passengers. For a year after the bombing Iran was universally suspected of the crime, but then the Americans suddenly asserted that they had new evidence that pointed to the Libyan connection. American concerns had shifted towards a Middle East coalition for the containment of Saddam Hussein whose ambitions threatened the US long-term interest in Middle East oil, and they didn't want a hostile and vengeful Iran to scupper their plans, so a scapegoat had to be quickly found. Gadaffi's Libya, with which the US had had several brushes in the mid 1980s (including a US air attack in 1986 aimed at killing Gadaffi), fitted the role nicely. That just left the small matter of having to concoct the necessary evidence, and it is the breathtaking corruptness of the US Government in fabricating this lie which is now being brought to light.
An international corruption scandal is fast brewing with potentially explosive significance for the reputation of the US. The lawyers representing Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of murdering 270 people in the bombing of the Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, have just published on-line the documents which they would have used for his appeal, had not Megrahi withdrawn his appeal last month after a deal was struck to release him on compassionate grounds since he has terminal prostate cancer. What the legal documents reveal is that the key prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, and his brother had been secretly given rewards of $3 million in a deal discussed by Scottish detectives and the US Government. Gauci had given the crucial evidence at the trial declaring that Megrahi had bought clothes later used in the suitcase that allegedly contained the Lockerbie bomb. No other evidence connected Megrahi to the bomb. Now for the first time these latest documents disclose that in 1989 the FBI told the Scottish police that they wanted to offer Tony Gauci "unlimited money" and $10,000 straightaway. The US Justice Department was also asked to pay a further £1 million to Gauci's brother who did not give evidence, but halped to identify the clothing and to "maintain the resolve of his brother". The implications of these revelations are sensational.
These secret payments were brought to light by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, with many references contained in the private diaries of the detectives involved, though not in their official notebooks. Other highly relevant evidence is made known for the first time by these documents. They disclose that in 23 police interviews before the trial Gauci gave contradictory evidence about the person buying the clothes, his age, appearance, and the date of purchase. Significantly also Gauci said the area's Christmas lights were not lit when the clothese were bought (stated to be 7 December), but the current Maltese High Commissioner to the UK, then the local MP, has insisted that the lights were switched on on 6 December. But the key pointer is the bribe. If Gauci was telling the truth, why did he have to be bribed, and his brother bribed too to shore him up?
It neve made sense for Libya to have carried out the Lockerbie atrocity. But it did for Iran. The US navy in the Gulf had just previously without provocation shot down an Iranian civil airliner carrying 290 passengers. For a year after the bombing Iran was universally suspected of the crime, but then the Americans suddenly asserted that they had new evidence that pointed to the Libyan connection. American concerns had shifted towards a Middle East coalition for the containment of Saddam Hussein whose ambitions threatened the US long-term interest in Middle East oil, and they didn't want a hostile and vengeful Iran to scupper their plans, so a scapegoat had to be quickly found. Gadaffi's Libya, with which the US had had several brushes in the mid 1980s (including a US air attack in 1986 aimed at killing Gadaffi), fitted the role nicely. That just left the small matter of having to concoct the necessary evidence, and it is the breathtaking corruptness of the US Government in fabricating this lie which is now being brought to light.
Sunday 4 October 2009
Malta asked to support demands for UN inquiry on Lockerbie
[This is the headline over an article by Caroline Muscat in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]
Maltese witnesses paid over $3 million - defence claims
The government has been asked to support an international attempt to request the United Nations to conduct an inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.
The letter is signed by 20 people including the families of the victims, authors, journalists, professors, politicians and parliamentarians, as well as Archbishop Desmond Tutu - well-known for defending human rights worldwide. The government said it was considering the call for the inquiry.
The letter asks the UN to help remove "many of the deep misgivings which persist in lingering over this (Lockerbie) tragedy". Such an effort could also eliminate the Malta connection with the terrorist act.
Malta was brought into the case because the prosecution argued that Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima had placed the bomb on an Air Malta aircraft before it was transferred at Frankfurt airport to a feeder flight [Pan Am 103A] for Pan Am flight [103] which departed from London. (...)
The second appeal of the convicted bomber, Mr Al-Megrahi, was expected to produce evidence that had not been made available at the trial and remove doubts that continue to linger on the verdict.
But Mr Al-Megrahi, who is terminally ill, was released from Scottish prison in August on compassionate grounds and abandoned his appeal to return to Libya.
The convicted bomber has always maintained his innocence. In a bid to clear his name before he succumbs to cancer, he began publishing documents that were to have featured in the appeal on the website www.megrahimystory.net.
The papers, he insists, provided enough grounds to have secured his release on appeal, if it had not been dropped. The first 300-odd pages of documents refer to Malta and the testimony of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci.
Mr Gauci had identified Mr Al-Megrahi as the man who bought the clothes from his shop in Sliema that were later found wrapped around the bomb. But, according to the documents, Mr Gauci's testimony was replete with inconsistencies.
Moreover, the published documents state that Mr Gauci was paid "in excess of $2 million", while his brother, Paul Gauci was paid "in excess of $1 million" for their co-operation.
Sky News reported last Friday that Tony Gauci was now living in luxury in Australia. The payment had not been disclosed at the original trial, nor had the documents related to it.
Excerpts from interviews conducted for the case that were revealed in the published documents quote former Police Commissioner George Grech and the former Head of the Security Services Godfrey Scicluna saying they were of the opinion that Tony Gauci "had become confused about things".
Yet, statements by representatives of the highest government authorities in Malta at the time were overruled in favour of Tony Gauci's testimony.
Another witness, David Wright, a regular visitor to Malta and friend of Tony Gauci, also filed a statement with the police in the UK saying that he was at the shop when the clothes were bought and that Mr Al-Megrahi was not the buyer. Yet, he was never called to testify.
Foreign Affairs Minister Tonio Borg yesterday told The Sunday Times: "Since 1988, successive governments have insisted that according to our records, the bomb did not leave [from] Malta. We are still firm in that conviction." (...)
Dr Borg said the letter to the UN requesting an inquiry was an interesting development that would be "deeply" considered, although he referred to complex issues surrounding the event.
"We cannot ignore that there were two judgments on Mr Al-Megrahi. The fact that the second appeal was initiated does show that doubts persist on the verdicts. Unfortunately, it was not concluded," Dr Borg added.
Hans Koechler, who was handpicked by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor proceedings, said in his report following the original verdict that a "miscarriage of justice had occurred". Dr Koechler told The Sunday Times that oil interests and joint security considerations have prevented the truth from emerging.
The sentiment that political interests dominated the trial is echoed by Robert Black, the legal expert who was the architect of the original trial. He is one of the signatories to the letter demanding a full public inquiry.
Maltese witnesses paid over $3 million - defence claims
The government has been asked to support an international attempt to request the United Nations to conduct an inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.
The letter is signed by 20 people including the families of the victims, authors, journalists, professors, politicians and parliamentarians, as well as Archbishop Desmond Tutu - well-known for defending human rights worldwide. The government said it was considering the call for the inquiry.
The letter asks the UN to help remove "many of the deep misgivings which persist in lingering over this (Lockerbie) tragedy". Such an effort could also eliminate the Malta connection with the terrorist act.
Malta was brought into the case because the prosecution argued that Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima had placed the bomb on an Air Malta aircraft before it was transferred at Frankfurt airport to a feeder flight [Pan Am 103A] for Pan Am flight [103] which departed from London. (...)
The second appeal of the convicted bomber, Mr Al-Megrahi, was expected to produce evidence that had not been made available at the trial and remove doubts that continue to linger on the verdict.
But Mr Al-Megrahi, who is terminally ill, was released from Scottish prison in August on compassionate grounds and abandoned his appeal to return to Libya.
The convicted bomber has always maintained his innocence. In a bid to clear his name before he succumbs to cancer, he began publishing documents that were to have featured in the appeal on the website www.megrahimystory.net.
The papers, he insists, provided enough grounds to have secured his release on appeal, if it had not been dropped. The first 300-odd pages of documents refer to Malta and the testimony of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci.
Mr Gauci had identified Mr Al-Megrahi as the man who bought the clothes from his shop in Sliema that were later found wrapped around the bomb. But, according to the documents, Mr Gauci's testimony was replete with inconsistencies.
Moreover, the published documents state that Mr Gauci was paid "in excess of $2 million", while his brother, Paul Gauci was paid "in excess of $1 million" for their co-operation.
Sky News reported last Friday that Tony Gauci was now living in luxury in Australia. The payment had not been disclosed at the original trial, nor had the documents related to it.
Excerpts from interviews conducted for the case that were revealed in the published documents quote former Police Commissioner George Grech and the former Head of the Security Services Godfrey Scicluna saying they were of the opinion that Tony Gauci "had become confused about things".
Yet, statements by representatives of the highest government authorities in Malta at the time were overruled in favour of Tony Gauci's testimony.
Another witness, David Wright, a regular visitor to Malta and friend of Tony Gauci, also filed a statement with the police in the UK saying that he was at the shop when the clothes were bought and that Mr Al-Megrahi was not the buyer. Yet, he was never called to testify.
Foreign Affairs Minister Tonio Borg yesterday told The Sunday Times: "Since 1988, successive governments have insisted that according to our records, the bomb did not leave [from] Malta. We are still firm in that conviction." (...)
Dr Borg said the letter to the UN requesting an inquiry was an interesting development that would be "deeply" considered, although he referred to complex issues surrounding the event.
"We cannot ignore that there were two judgments on Mr Al-Megrahi. The fact that the second appeal was initiated does show that doubts persist on the verdicts. Unfortunately, it was not concluded," Dr Borg added.
Hans Koechler, who was handpicked by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor proceedings, said in his report following the original verdict that a "miscarriage of justice had occurred". Dr Koechler told The Sunday Times that oil interests and joint security considerations have prevented the truth from emerging.
The sentiment that political interests dominated the trial is echoed by Robert Black, the legal expert who was the architect of the original trial. He is one of the signatories to the letter demanding a full public inquiry.
Saturday 3 October 2009
Revealed: Scots link in $3m Lockerbie pay-out
[This is the headline over an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald on the materials published yesterday on Abdelbaset Megrahi's website. It reads in part:]
Scottish police officers took an active role in seeking a $3m-plus reward for a key witness in the Lockerbie bombing trial and his brother, previously secret papers revealed yesterday.
The documents, which were never disclosed to defence lawyers working for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, also point to another potentially important eye witness whose evidence was never followed up by detectives.
Those revelations, published on Megrahi’s website, further undermine the credibility of Tony Gauci, the Crown’s main witness at Camp Zeist. (...)
It will fuel fears of a miscarriage of justice, and strengthen calls for an independent inquiry into Lockerbie.
A four-year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) found a number of documents which had not been shown to the defence. The non-disclosure would have been a key plank of Megrahi’s appeal, which he abandoned shortly before his release from Greenock Prison in August. (...)
The papers reveal that Tony Gauci received more than $2m after the trial and Paul, who never testified at Camp Zeist but “exercised considerable control over his brother”, received more than $1m. The family previously had financial problems.
Megrahi’s website summary [RB: I can find no trace of this summary on the website] states: “Tony Gauci and Paul Gauci had both expressed an interest in financial reward prior to giving evidence at trial. None of the documents in which references to the brothers’ financial interest or to the FBI offers of reward was disclosed and no mention of this was made to the defence. Many of the references . . . were in diaries kept by police officers. Parts of the diaries were missing and, most unusually, no police notebooks were kept. Letters written by the Scottish police to the US Department of Justice applying for a reward on behalf of the Gauci brothers were also recovered.”
Another section suggests Megrahi might not have bought clothes later found next to the suitcase carrying the Lockerbie bomb. A new witness called David Wright claims to have seen other men buying them in Tony Gauci’s shop in Malta.
In November 1989, Mr Wright called Dumfries and Galloway Police to say he had been in Mr Gauci’s shop when two Libyans bought similar clothing. He said Mr Gauci referred to them as “Libyan pigs”. But his statement was never followed up by police.
A Crown Office spokeswoman said yesterday: “All of these issues could have been raised during the course of the appeal which Mr Megrahi abandoned.”
[A further article by Lucy Adams in the same newspaper is headed "Is this man key to Lockerbie ...or was he just after the cash?" The following are extracts.]
Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, became the Crown’s key witness in the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, and was the one man who linked the suspect to clothes found in the suitcase that harboured the bomb.
But new allegations published yesterday, which would have been tested in court if the appeal that began in April had gone ahead, have undermined both his credibility and reliability.
Papers on Megrahi’s website reveal that Gauci and his brother Paul were interested in financial reward from the start of the case, and that between them they received at least $3m (£1.88m) at the end of the trial.
Previously-secret police reports dating back to 1999 indicate “the frustration of Tony Gauci that he will not be compensated” and that “in respect of Paul Gauci, it is apparent from speaking to him for any length of time that he has a clear desire to gain financial benefit from the position he and his brother are in relative to the case.
“As a consequence he exaggerates his own importance as a witness and clearly inflates the fears he and his brother have.
“He is anxious to establish what advantage he can gain from the Scottish police.
“Although demanding, Paul Gauci remains an asset to the case but will continue to explore any means he can to identify where financial advantage can be gained.”
Offering witnesses financial remuneration is anathema to the Scottish system, and yet this information, uncovered by the investigation of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was never disclosed to the defence.
Megrahi’s website states: “It is a matter of common sense, and it has long been recognised in Scots law, that the existence of a financial interest and/or the offer of rewards to a witness is of considerable importance in relation to the credibility of that witness.
“Depending upon the nature and degree of any such interest or reward, the law may exclude the evidence of the witness, or leave the effect of same on the witness to be weighed by the jury.” (...)
Megrahi’s website summary [RB: Again, I can find no trace of this summary] also states: “The documents also indicate that Tony Gauci had been visited by the Scottish police on more than 50 occasions – many, perhaps even the majority, of which were unrecorded.
“This information shows that the witness has significantly changed his position over time regarding the items sold.
“In addition there is a clear inference from the timing and context of these inconsistent statements that the witness has been influenced in his recollection by the police inquiries – either by being shown articles such as control samples or fragments or by discussion.”
Expert reports published for the first time on the website also question the validity of Mr Gauci’s identification of Megrahi.
Scottish police officers took an active role in seeking a $3m-plus reward for a key witness in the Lockerbie bombing trial and his brother, previously secret papers revealed yesterday.
The documents, which were never disclosed to defence lawyers working for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, also point to another potentially important eye witness whose evidence was never followed up by detectives.
Those revelations, published on Megrahi’s website, further undermine the credibility of Tony Gauci, the Crown’s main witness at Camp Zeist. (...)
It will fuel fears of a miscarriage of justice, and strengthen calls for an independent inquiry into Lockerbie.
A four-year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) found a number of documents which had not been shown to the defence. The non-disclosure would have been a key plank of Megrahi’s appeal, which he abandoned shortly before his release from Greenock Prison in August. (...)
The papers reveal that Tony Gauci received more than $2m after the trial and Paul, who never testified at Camp Zeist but “exercised considerable control over his brother”, received more than $1m. The family previously had financial problems.
Megrahi’s website summary [RB: I can find no trace of this summary on the website] states: “Tony Gauci and Paul Gauci had both expressed an interest in financial reward prior to giving evidence at trial. None of the documents in which references to the brothers’ financial interest or to the FBI offers of reward was disclosed and no mention of this was made to the defence. Many of the references . . . were in diaries kept by police officers. Parts of the diaries were missing and, most unusually, no police notebooks were kept. Letters written by the Scottish police to the US Department of Justice applying for a reward on behalf of the Gauci brothers were also recovered.”
Another section suggests Megrahi might not have bought clothes later found next to the suitcase carrying the Lockerbie bomb. A new witness called David Wright claims to have seen other men buying them in Tony Gauci’s shop in Malta.
In November 1989, Mr Wright called Dumfries and Galloway Police to say he had been in Mr Gauci’s shop when two Libyans bought similar clothing. He said Mr Gauci referred to them as “Libyan pigs”. But his statement was never followed up by police.
A Crown Office spokeswoman said yesterday: “All of these issues could have been raised during the course of the appeal which Mr Megrahi abandoned.”
[A further article by Lucy Adams in the same newspaper is headed "Is this man key to Lockerbie ...or was he just after the cash?" The following are extracts.]
Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, became the Crown’s key witness in the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, and was the one man who linked the suspect to clothes found in the suitcase that harboured the bomb.
But new allegations published yesterday, which would have been tested in court if the appeal that began in April had gone ahead, have undermined both his credibility and reliability.
Papers on Megrahi’s website reveal that Gauci and his brother Paul were interested in financial reward from the start of the case, and that between them they received at least $3m (£1.88m) at the end of the trial.
Previously-secret police reports dating back to 1999 indicate “the frustration of Tony Gauci that he will not be compensated” and that “in respect of Paul Gauci, it is apparent from speaking to him for any length of time that he has a clear desire to gain financial benefit from the position he and his brother are in relative to the case.
“As a consequence he exaggerates his own importance as a witness and clearly inflates the fears he and his brother have.
“He is anxious to establish what advantage he can gain from the Scottish police.
“Although demanding, Paul Gauci remains an asset to the case but will continue to explore any means he can to identify where financial advantage can be gained.”
Offering witnesses financial remuneration is anathema to the Scottish system, and yet this information, uncovered by the investigation of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was never disclosed to the defence.
Megrahi’s website states: “It is a matter of common sense, and it has long been recognised in Scots law, that the existence of a financial interest and/or the offer of rewards to a witness is of considerable importance in relation to the credibility of that witness.
“Depending upon the nature and degree of any such interest or reward, the law may exclude the evidence of the witness, or leave the effect of same on the witness to be weighed by the jury.” (...)
Megrahi’s website summary [RB: Again, I can find no trace of this summary] also states: “The documents also indicate that Tony Gauci had been visited by the Scottish police on more than 50 occasions – many, perhaps even the majority, of which were unrecorded.
“This information shows that the witness has significantly changed his position over time regarding the items sold.
“In addition there is a clear inference from the timing and context of these inconsistent statements that the witness has been influenced in his recollection by the police inquiries – either by being shown articles such as control samples or fragments or by discussion.”
Expert reports published for the first time on the website also question the validity of Mr Gauci’s identification of Megrahi.
Friday 2 October 2009
Lockerbie judges under pressure to convict, despite unprecedented denial
[This is the headline over an exclusive report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. it reads as follows:]
The three judges who convicted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi were under “undue pressure” during the Lockerbie trial it is claimed, despite protestations from the High Court Information Officer Elizabeth Cutting, published today in the New York Times .
The New York Times published a letter from Cutting following earlier reports that had claimed the judges – who had never before been tasked with determining guilt or innocence in their judicial careers, had been placed under pressure to return a guilty verdict.
“I remember talking to one of the judges from the panel that convicted him. He said there was enormous pressure put on the court to get a conviction,” Professor Diedrik Vanderwalle was reported to have said by the New York Times. Today, Cutting’s letter on behalf of the judges attempted to undermine that claim.
“I’m authorized to say that to the best of their knowledge the three deciding judges on the panel — Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean — have never met Mr. Vandewalle,” she said.
“Moreover, they assert that none of them has ever said what Mr Vandewalle reports one of them to have said. They were never under any pressure to return any particular verdict.”
However the Firm has been told exclusively by sources close to Professor Vanderwalle that the crucial information had been passed to him by a member of the Scottish judiciary, not one of the three trial judges, at a conference in London organised by the Royal Institution of International Affairs after the Zeist trial, but before the appeal.
The source told the Firm that “a Scottish judge thought that some of the people involved – not necessarily the three judges in the court itself -- felt there had been a lot of pressure to get this case over and done with.”
The “Scottish judge” said he thought undue pressure was being put on people connected to the trial, and that if it went to appeal “his impression was that there would be some irregularities [revealed] that people would not want to come to light,” the source said.
The identity of the Scottish judge referred to was not disclosed.
Professor Robert Black QC has said publicly that he also believed subtle pressure had been present in the judges’ minds.
"I don’t think for a minute that political pressure of that nature was placed on the judges,” Black said in 2007.
“I think what influenced these judges was that they thought that if both of the Libyans accused are found not guilty, this will be the most fiendish embarrassment to the Lord Advocate."
The three judges who convicted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi were under “undue pressure” during the Lockerbie trial it is claimed, despite protestations from the High Court Information Officer Elizabeth Cutting, published today in the New York Times .
The New York Times published a letter from Cutting following earlier reports that had claimed the judges – who had never before been tasked with determining guilt or innocence in their judicial careers, had been placed under pressure to return a guilty verdict.
“I remember talking to one of the judges from the panel that convicted him. He said there was enormous pressure put on the court to get a conviction,” Professor Diedrik Vanderwalle was reported to have said by the New York Times. Today, Cutting’s letter on behalf of the judges attempted to undermine that claim.
“I’m authorized to say that to the best of their knowledge the three deciding judges on the panel — Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean — have never met Mr. Vandewalle,” she said.
“Moreover, they assert that none of them has ever said what Mr Vandewalle reports one of them to have said. They were never under any pressure to return any particular verdict.”
However the Firm has been told exclusively by sources close to Professor Vanderwalle that the crucial information had been passed to him by a member of the Scottish judiciary, not one of the three trial judges, at a conference in London organised by the Royal Institution of International Affairs after the Zeist trial, but before the appeal.
The source told the Firm that “a Scottish judge thought that some of the people involved – not necessarily the three judges in the court itself -- felt there had been a lot of pressure to get this case over and done with.”
The “Scottish judge” said he thought undue pressure was being put on people connected to the trial, and that if it went to appeal “his impression was that there would be some irregularities [revealed] that people would not want to come to light,” the source said.
The identity of the Scottish judge referred to was not disclosed.
Professor Robert Black QC has said publicly that he also believed subtle pressure had been present in the judges’ minds.
"I don’t think for a minute that political pressure of that nature was placed on the judges,” Black said in 2007.
“I think what influenced these judges was that they thought that if both of the Libyans accused are found not guilty, this will be the most fiendish embarrassment to the Lord Advocate."
More Megrahi materials released
A second batch of materials has been released on Abdelbaset Megrahi’s website. These take the form of Grounds of Appeal numbers 3.1 to 3.3 (which would have been argued at the second stage of the – now abandoned – appeal that had been due to start on 2 November 2009) along with two expert reports and the US Department of Justice publication Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement.
These materials relate principally to the evidence emanating from Malta.
1. The credibility and reliability of the evidence of “identification” of Megrahi by Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, is challenged by reference to (a) new evidence about the circumstances in which Gauci’s various “resemblance” statements came to be made, including improper conduct by investigators; (b) failure by the Crown to disclose to the defence statements by Gauci that undermined or contradicted his “identification”; (c) failure to disclose to the defence the existence of, and a police statement by, a witness who may have been present when the purchase of the clothes in Gauci’s shop took place; (d) the expectation of money from US official sources on the part of Tony Gauci and his brother, Paul, and its subsequent payment to them; (e) evidence from two leading psychologists and experts on facial recognition of the unreliability of Gauci’s “identification” of Megrahi.
2. The Lockerbie court’s acceptance of 7 December 1988 as the date of purchase of the clothes and other items in Tony Gauci’s shop is challenged. Even on the material before the court at Zeist, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had concluded that it was strongly arguable that no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that this was the date. The materials released today disclose the existence of new evidence that confirms that the date of purchase was not 7 December 1988 (and hence that the purchaser was not Abdelbaset Megrahi).
The importance of this is, of course, that if the court at Zeist had not decided that Mr Megrahi was the purchaser of the clothes in Malta, they would not in law have been entitled to convict him.
A further matter expected to be adverted to in today’s materials, but which does not seem to be, is the SCCRC ground of referral based on documents in respect of which the UK Foreign Secretary has claimed public interest immunity and to which Mr Megrahi’s legal team still have not had access. Had the appeal continued, Megrahi’s lawyers would have argued that, without the information on which the SCCRC had referred the case back to the appeal court, he could not exercise his right of appeal and would accordingly have been denied fairness, contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
[A report on this newly released material can be read on the Sky News website. A report on the heraldscotland website, which contains comments by Megrahi himself, can be read here, that on The Guardian website here and that on The Times website here.]
These materials relate principally to the evidence emanating from Malta.
1. The credibility and reliability of the evidence of “identification” of Megrahi by Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, is challenged by reference to (a) new evidence about the circumstances in which Gauci’s various “resemblance” statements came to be made, including improper conduct by investigators; (b) failure by the Crown to disclose to the defence statements by Gauci that undermined or contradicted his “identification”; (c) failure to disclose to the defence the existence of, and a police statement by, a witness who may have been present when the purchase of the clothes in Gauci’s shop took place; (d) the expectation of money from US official sources on the part of Tony Gauci and his brother, Paul, and its subsequent payment to them; (e) evidence from two leading psychologists and experts on facial recognition of the unreliability of Gauci’s “identification” of Megrahi.
2. The Lockerbie court’s acceptance of 7 December 1988 as the date of purchase of the clothes and other items in Tony Gauci’s shop is challenged. Even on the material before the court at Zeist, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had concluded that it was strongly arguable that no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that this was the date. The materials released today disclose the existence of new evidence that confirms that the date of purchase was not 7 December 1988 (and hence that the purchaser was not Abdelbaset Megrahi).
The importance of this is, of course, that if the court at Zeist had not decided that Mr Megrahi was the purchaser of the clothes in Malta, they would not in law have been entitled to convict him.
A further matter expected to be adverted to in today’s materials, but which does not seem to be, is the SCCRC ground of referral based on documents in respect of which the UK Foreign Secretary has claimed public interest immunity and to which Mr Megrahi’s legal team still have not had access. Had the appeal continued, Megrahi’s lawyers would have argued that, without the information on which the SCCRC had referred the case back to the appeal court, he could not exercise his right of appeal and would accordingly have been denied fairness, contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
[A report on this newly released material can be read on the Sky News website. A report on the heraldscotland website, which contains comments by Megrahi himself, can be read here, that on The Guardian website here and that on The Times website here.]
No pressure to return particular verdict
[The following letter from Elizabeth Cutting, Public Information Officer for the Scottish Judiciary, is published in today's edition of The New York Times. The issue was referred to in a post on this blog on 14 September.]
Re “Still Chafing After 40 Years, Qaddafi Baffles the West With His Behavior” (news analysis, Aug. 26):
Dirk J. Vandewalle, associate professor of government at Dartmouth College, is quoted as stating that a judge from the Scottish panel that in January 2001 convicted Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing told him during a conversation that “there was enormous pressure put on the court to get a conviction.”
I’m authorized to say that to the best of their knowledge the three deciding judges on the panel — Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean — have never met Mr. Vandewalle.
Moreover, they assert that none of them has ever said what Mr. Vandewalle reports one of them to have said. They were never under any pressure to return any particular verdict.
Re “Still Chafing After 40 Years, Qaddafi Baffles the West With His Behavior” (news analysis, Aug. 26):
Dirk J. Vandewalle, associate professor of government at Dartmouth College, is quoted as stating that a judge from the Scottish panel that in January 2001 convicted Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing told him during a conversation that “there was enormous pressure put on the court to get a conviction.”
I’m authorized to say that to the best of their knowledge the three deciding judges on the panel — Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean — have never met Mr. Vandewalle.
Moreover, they assert that none of them has ever said what Mr. Vandewalle reports one of them to have said. They were never under any pressure to return any particular verdict.
Thursday 1 October 2009
The American media and its Libyan script
[This is the headline over an article on the website of The Final Call. It reads in part:]
Before Muammar Gadhafi arrived on the shores of America, the stage had already been set, the script written and the actors were in place.
All that was missing was the lead character that the American media had decided to cast as a villain and that person was the leader of Libya and president of the African Union.
The media “script” was based on the pain of loss felt by relatives of victims of Pan Am Flight 103 and the release of the Libyan national convicted of bombing the plane and causing the death of innocent people. The convicted bomber was released to return to his country to die, but his countrymen, convinced of his innocence, came out to welcome him home.
Those images did not translate well in the United States or the United Kingdom and surely pained those who lost loved ones and felt justice was not done because the person they believed was responsible was free.
Their pain is real and understandable, but there is another side to the story: When Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed, Libya was not initially charged in the bombing. There have long been questions about the validity of the judgment rendered in the case of Abdel-baset Ali al-Megrahi, and whether he was guilty. Libya accepted responsibility for the acts of any of its nationals who may have been connected to the deadly incident. Libya paid damages, gave up its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and worked with the Bush administration in the war against terror. (...)
Instead of media outlets telling the full story of Libya's history and the deaths of Libyans because of bombs dropped by America---a very one-sided story was told. The story was emotional, but not insightful. The story reported inflamed passions and brought heat from those who felt outraged, but it did not offer additional light that the American people might get a better understanding. It appealed to old ugly stereotypes of evil Arabs and terrorist Muslims.
In the past, Libya pursued its support for causes based on her revolutionary ideals and seeing oppression in all corners of the globe. The U.S. pursued her goals around the globe based on national interests and security objectives. These competing visions clashed and the U.S. and Libya clashed. It was hardly a fair fight with the small nation going up against a world power.
Instead of offering the public insightful reporting on the causes of these clashes and later developments, which still allow people to make up their own minds, media outlets almost went into a time warp. Newspaper accounts of the Libyan leader in September were like reprints of articles published in the 1980s.
An exchange between Khalifa Elderbak and a Fox News reporter near the Libyan Mission was symbolic of the problem with the U.S. media. The reporter peppered the Libyan Ph.D. student with loaded questions, demanding to know how the man could support a “horrible” figure and “terrorist” like Col. Gadhafi.
No matter how hard Mr. Elderbak tried to make a point or explain an issue, or share his thinking, the reporter would not relent or open a different line of discussion. It was obvious that a decision had been made on how the characters in this story would unfold and there would be little, if any, room for anyone who did not agree with casting Brother Gadhafi as a villain.
“Much of the Americans know that media tries to confuse the people of the United States about the news they broadcast,” Mr. Elderbak told The Final Call.
“I think that the media is doing a very bad thing; they don't say the truth about what's going on outside the United States which is a shame. I don't say all the American media are doing the same thing, but most of the big media do that. And they try not to let their people know the reality, the truth about other countries, about the way they live." (...)
Even when family members of Pam Am 103 victims met with Col. Gadhafi, they were challenged and questioned as if they had no right to decide how to deal with the loss of their loved ones. One woman stressed she felt the tragedy offered an opportunity to learn about Libya and to find a way to peace so that such events would never occur again. Isn't her voice a valid voice and isn't her choice a valid choice?
If there are at least two sides to every story, the U.S. media failed miserably in offering the other side—and the America people are the losers, if an informed electorate is the hallmark of a healthy democracy.
Before Muammar Gadhafi arrived on the shores of America, the stage had already been set, the script written and the actors were in place.
All that was missing was the lead character that the American media had decided to cast as a villain and that person was the leader of Libya and president of the African Union.
The media “script” was based on the pain of loss felt by relatives of victims of Pan Am Flight 103 and the release of the Libyan national convicted of bombing the plane and causing the death of innocent people. The convicted bomber was released to return to his country to die, but his countrymen, convinced of his innocence, came out to welcome him home.
Those images did not translate well in the United States or the United Kingdom and surely pained those who lost loved ones and felt justice was not done because the person they believed was responsible was free.
Their pain is real and understandable, but there is another side to the story: When Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed, Libya was not initially charged in the bombing. There have long been questions about the validity of the judgment rendered in the case of Abdel-baset Ali al-Megrahi, and whether he was guilty. Libya accepted responsibility for the acts of any of its nationals who may have been connected to the deadly incident. Libya paid damages, gave up its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and worked with the Bush administration in the war against terror. (...)
Instead of media outlets telling the full story of Libya's history and the deaths of Libyans because of bombs dropped by America---a very one-sided story was told. The story was emotional, but not insightful. The story reported inflamed passions and brought heat from those who felt outraged, but it did not offer additional light that the American people might get a better understanding. It appealed to old ugly stereotypes of evil Arabs and terrorist Muslims.
In the past, Libya pursued its support for causes based on her revolutionary ideals and seeing oppression in all corners of the globe. The U.S. pursued her goals around the globe based on national interests and security objectives. These competing visions clashed and the U.S. and Libya clashed. It was hardly a fair fight with the small nation going up against a world power.
Instead of offering the public insightful reporting on the causes of these clashes and later developments, which still allow people to make up their own minds, media outlets almost went into a time warp. Newspaper accounts of the Libyan leader in September were like reprints of articles published in the 1980s.
An exchange between Khalifa Elderbak and a Fox News reporter near the Libyan Mission was symbolic of the problem with the U.S. media. The reporter peppered the Libyan Ph.D. student with loaded questions, demanding to know how the man could support a “horrible” figure and “terrorist” like Col. Gadhafi.
No matter how hard Mr. Elderbak tried to make a point or explain an issue, or share his thinking, the reporter would not relent or open a different line of discussion. It was obvious that a decision had been made on how the characters in this story would unfold and there would be little, if any, room for anyone who did not agree with casting Brother Gadhafi as a villain.
“Much of the Americans know that media tries to confuse the people of the United States about the news they broadcast,” Mr. Elderbak told The Final Call.
“I think that the media is doing a very bad thing; they don't say the truth about what's going on outside the United States which is a shame. I don't say all the American media are doing the same thing, but most of the big media do that. And they try not to let their people know the reality, the truth about other countries, about the way they live." (...)
Even when family members of Pam Am 103 victims met with Col. Gadhafi, they were challenged and questioned as if they had no right to decide how to deal with the loss of their loved ones. One woman stressed she felt the tragedy offered an opportunity to learn about Libya and to find a way to peace so that such events would never occur again. Isn't her voice a valid voice and isn't her choice a valid choice?
If there are at least two sides to every story, the U.S. media failed miserably in offering the other side—and the America people are the losers, if an informed electorate is the hallmark of a healthy democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)