[This is the headline over an article on the World Socialist Web Site. It consists largely of a summary of Gareth Peirce's recent contribution in the London Review of Books. The following are excerpts from the new article.]
Leading British human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce has stated that, in her opinion Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the only man ... convicted of the 1988 bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, was framed.
Peirce has a long track record of defending those caught in the British legal system’s most notorious miscarriages of justice. Her clients have included the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and Judith Ward, all of whom were Irish people accused and wrongly convicted of IRA bomb attacks in the 1970s. More recently Peirce has taken up a number of high profile cases of individuals accused in the so-called “war on terror”, including the Tipton Three and Moazam Begg, held illegally by the US government in Guantánamo Bay. She has represented the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent man shot dead by British police in Stockwell underground station in 2005.
Writing in the September edition of the London Review of Books, Peirce, of the law firm headed by Benedict Birnberg, summarises some of the most concerning, and well known, aspects of the entire Lockerbie disaster in which 270 people died, and the subsequent investigation. (...)
Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi and his co-accused, Llamen Khalifa Fhimah, were handed over by the Libyan government in 1999. The trial opened at a converted US airbase in the Netherlands in 2000. The indictment against Megrahi read that an MST 13 bomb timer was made in Switzerland, by MEBO AG, and sold exclusively to Libya.
Identification of the timer rested on the efforts of Thomas Hayes and Alan Feraday of the Royal Armament and Development Establishment (RARDE), along with Thomas Thurman of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
In 1997, following an investigation by the US inspector general, Michael Bromwich, Thurman was barred from being called as an expert witness. Bromwich described Thurman as “circumventing procedures and protocols, testifying to areas of expertise that he had no qualifications in...therefore fabricating evidence”.
Thomas Hayes claimed that on May 12, 1989, he found a fragment of circuit board in the collar of a shirt later traced to a Maltese shop. The fragment itself had been found in January 1989 by British police investigating the crash site.
Peirce states, “Even if one knew nothing of the devastating findings of the public inquiry in the early 1990s into the false science that convicted the Maguire Seven or of the succession of thunderous judgments in the Court of Appeal in case after case in which RARDE scientists had provided the basis for wrongful convictions, Hayes’s key evidence in this case on the key fragment should be viewed as disgraceful”.
“Hayes”, Peirce continues, “played his part in the most notorious [miscarriage case] of all, endorsing the finding of an explosive trace that was never there, and speculating that a piece of chalk mentioned to the police by Vincent Maguire, aged 16, and a candle by Patrick Maguire, aged 13, ‘fitted the description better’ of a stick of gelignite wrapped in white paper”.
Hayes’s information regarding this crucial piece of Lockerbie evidence was also flawed. Despite having carefully documented every other piece of evidence he found, Hayes had made no drawing of this particular item and had not assigned it a reference number on discovery. He had not carried out a test for explosives. Hayes said he had “no idea” when the pagination of his notes recording findings had been altered to include an additional page, and it was an “unfathomable mystery” as to why the alterations should have occurred. (...)
She describes the verdict delivered in 2001 by three experienced judges, upheld later by five appeal court judges as “profoundly shocking”, and makes the following devastating assessment:
“Al-Megrahi’s trial constituted a unique legal construct, engineered to achieve a political rapprochement, but its content was so manipulated that in reality there was only ever an illusion of a trial”.
Peirce concludes that there is “pressing need to investigate in details how it has come about that there has been a form of death in this case—the death of justice—and who should be found responsible”.
Subsequent to Peirce’s comments, more revelations have emerged about the crucial piece of MST 13 circuit board. Following a Freedom of Information request raised by Scottish Nationalist Member of the Scottish Parliament Christine Graham, the Scottish Crown Office has confirmed that evidence item PT-35, the piece of circuit board found by Hayes, was taken for examination to both Germany and the US. Graham claimed that this was done with the knowledge of the then chief prosecutor, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who recently told a Dutch television company that he was unaware of the fragment’s movements.
Megrahi was released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny Macaskill in August, allegedly on humanitarian grounds. It occurred at a time when the Libyan government had made clear that, if the terminally ill Megrahi had been allowed to die in Greenock prison, British oil contracts would have been imperilled. In addition, Megrahi had agreed to drop a long delayed appeal against his conviction in order to secure his release.
The release triggered outrage from the US in particular and was attacked by President Barack Obama, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the head of the FBI, and the US Joint Chief of Staff amongst many. Commentary went as far as suggesting that the so-called “special relationship” between British and US imperialism, and Scotland in particular, was imperiled.
All this has been forgotten. On September 21, US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly informed the world that the US had “deep abiding ties with Scotland”. Kelly continued, “We are very close allies, and I don’t think we’re looking to punish anybody per se. There’s no tit for tat here”.
Three weeks later, speaking before a meeting with UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Clinton stated, “I have a special relationship with the prime minister. And of course, I think it can’t be said often enough, we have a special relationship between our countries”.
What was said between the two regarding Lockerbie is not clear, but the meeting came immediately prior to the British government’s decision to send an additional 500 troops to Afghanistan. Brown has subsequently ruled out a public inquiry into the bombing, while the Scottish government have denied they had the power to hold an authoritative inquiry in the first place.
Clinton also called in the Libyan government, speaking for 15 minutes en route to Egypt with Libyan Foreign Minister and former intelligence chief Musa Kusa. According to US Assistant Secretary Philip Crowley, the two talked of “Sudan, Darfur, cooperation about terrorism and the possibility of advancing our relationship”.
Crowley claimed that Megrahi was not discussed, lamely stating that “the Libyans understand our concerns about Megrahi very, very well”.
Wednesday 11 November 2009
Justice Secretary under fire as bomber defies three-month prognosis
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Times. It reads in part:]
Three months after he was released on compassionate grounds by the Scottish government, the Lockerbie bomber continues to defy predictions about the likely course of his illness.
When, on August 20, Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary announced that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, was suffering from terminal prostate cancer, he suggested that he had about three months left to live.
Yesterday, however, al-Megrahi, the only person to be convicted over the 1988 Pan Am flight 103 atrocity, which claimed 270 lives, was still fighting the illness in a Libyan hospital. The 12-week time span is crucial because only prisoners expected to survive three months or less are eligible for compassionate release.
Last night Mr MacAskill was under pressure again as victims’ relatives questioned his decision, and said they felt “hurt and betrayed”.
The Times understands that al-Megrahi remains a patient at the Tripoli Medical Centre, where he was admitted about ten days after he returned to Libya. Although sources were not able to say how ill he is, his family suggested that his prognosis was poor. His elder brother, Mohammed, said he was unable to comment on his health but confirmed he was “still in hospital taking heavy treatments”.
A Libyan official said that al-Megrahi’s will to live was probably stronger “in the bosom of his family than in a prison cell”, but emphasised: “The outcome is not in any doubt.”
A prominent British cancer specialist, who asked not to be named, said, “no one should be remotely surprised” that the Lockerbie bomber was still alive. Three months was merely the average life expectancy of someone with prostate cancer as advanced as al-Megrahi’s, he said. Some patients would live longer while others would die sooner.
Al-Megrahi has not been seen in public since September 9, when he was briefly taken into a conference room inside the hospital to meet a delegation of African Union parliamentarians. He was in a wheelchair, coughed repeatedly and said nothing during his ten-minute appearance. Observers said he looked very frail. (...)
Tony Kelly, al-Megrahi’s lawyer in Scotland, refused to comment on his client’s health. Under the terms of release, East Renfrewshire Council receives a monthly report from al-Megrahi’s doctors, and its criminal justice officials speak to him periodically by video link or telephone, but a council spokesman refused to discuss the bomber’s health.
Frank Duggan, president of Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, which represents US families, said he was not surprised that al-Megrahi lives on.
“We never believed he was as sick as he said he was,” he said. “They had been saying for over a year he had one foot in the grave.”
He said the families felt “hurt and betrayed” by the Scottish government and claimed that the Libyan’s survival would intensify those feelings.
Pamela Dix, of Woking, Surrey, whose brother Peter was killed in the attack, urged the authorities to provide more information about al-Megrahi’s condition. She said that speculation over his condition could detract from their efforts to force a public inquiry into the Lockerbie affair.
A spokeswoman for the Scottish government said: “The Justice Secretary made his decision taking into account a report dated August 10 from the Director of Health and Care for the Scottish Prison Service which indicated that a three-month prognosis was then a reasonable estimate.”
• Campaigners including Noam Chomsky and Archbishop Desmond Tutu have sent an open letter to the United Nations, calling for an extensive UN-run public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing. The letter, addressed to the President of the General Assembly of the UN, says that the decision by al-Megrahi to drop his appeal before being freed on compassionate grounds ended “one of the last best hopes” of discovering the truth about the tragedy.
Three months after he was released on compassionate grounds by the Scottish government, the Lockerbie bomber continues to defy predictions about the likely course of his illness.
When, on August 20, Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary announced that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, was suffering from terminal prostate cancer, he suggested that he had about three months left to live.
Yesterday, however, al-Megrahi, the only person to be convicted over the 1988 Pan Am flight 103 atrocity, which claimed 270 lives, was still fighting the illness in a Libyan hospital. The 12-week time span is crucial because only prisoners expected to survive three months or less are eligible for compassionate release.
Last night Mr MacAskill was under pressure again as victims’ relatives questioned his decision, and said they felt “hurt and betrayed”.
The Times understands that al-Megrahi remains a patient at the Tripoli Medical Centre, where he was admitted about ten days after he returned to Libya. Although sources were not able to say how ill he is, his family suggested that his prognosis was poor. His elder brother, Mohammed, said he was unable to comment on his health but confirmed he was “still in hospital taking heavy treatments”.
A Libyan official said that al-Megrahi’s will to live was probably stronger “in the bosom of his family than in a prison cell”, but emphasised: “The outcome is not in any doubt.”
A prominent British cancer specialist, who asked not to be named, said, “no one should be remotely surprised” that the Lockerbie bomber was still alive. Three months was merely the average life expectancy of someone with prostate cancer as advanced as al-Megrahi’s, he said. Some patients would live longer while others would die sooner.
Al-Megrahi has not been seen in public since September 9, when he was briefly taken into a conference room inside the hospital to meet a delegation of African Union parliamentarians. He was in a wheelchair, coughed repeatedly and said nothing during his ten-minute appearance. Observers said he looked very frail. (...)
Tony Kelly, al-Megrahi’s lawyer in Scotland, refused to comment on his client’s health. Under the terms of release, East Renfrewshire Council receives a monthly report from al-Megrahi’s doctors, and its criminal justice officials speak to him periodically by video link or telephone, but a council spokesman refused to discuss the bomber’s health.
Frank Duggan, president of Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, which represents US families, said he was not surprised that al-Megrahi lives on.
“We never believed he was as sick as he said he was,” he said. “They had been saying for over a year he had one foot in the grave.”
He said the families felt “hurt and betrayed” by the Scottish government and claimed that the Libyan’s survival would intensify those feelings.
Pamela Dix, of Woking, Surrey, whose brother Peter was killed in the attack, urged the authorities to provide more information about al-Megrahi’s condition. She said that speculation over his condition could detract from their efforts to force a public inquiry into the Lockerbie affair.
A spokeswoman for the Scottish government said: “The Justice Secretary made his decision taking into account a report dated August 10 from the Director of Health and Care for the Scottish Prison Service which indicated that a three-month prognosis was then a reasonable estimate.”
• Campaigners including Noam Chomsky and Archbishop Desmond Tutu have sent an open letter to the United Nations, calling for an extensive UN-run public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing. The letter, addressed to the President of the General Assembly of the UN, says that the decision by al-Megrahi to drop his appeal before being freed on compassionate grounds ended “one of the last best hopes” of discovering the truth about the tragedy.
Monday 9 November 2009
Former diplomat urges MacAskill to press for UN Lockerbie inquiry
[This is the headline over an article on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
Patrick Haseldine, a former diplomat under John Major's Westminster administration, has pressed Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill to take active steps to initiate an international inquiry into the Lockerbie debacle, pointing out that MacAskill pledged to support such an inquiry should it convene.
Haseldine is among the signatories of an open letter addressed to the President of the UN General Assembly asking the United Nations to 'institute a full public inquiry.
"I'm very pleased to note from your statement that you have committed the Scottish Government to 'fully co-operate in such an inquiry'. However, a UN member state must first table a resolution at the General Assembly, and get a majority of votes in favour, before a Lockerbie inquiry can be instituted," he said.
"On 3 October 2009, another signatory, Professor Robert Black QC, wrote to Malta's Foreign Affairs Minister, Dr Tonio Borg, requesting Malta to table the necessary UNGA resolution. I think it would be helpful at this stage if you were to take an early opportunity to contact the Maltese Government, and reiterate your pledge that the Scottish Government will co-operate fully in a [Malta-sponsored] United Nations inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster."
Signatories to the UN letter include Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu, campaigner Noam Chomsky, Tam Dalyell and members of both UK Families Flight 103 and the Justice for Megrahi campaign.
Patrick Haseldine, a former diplomat under John Major's Westminster administration, has pressed Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill to take active steps to initiate an international inquiry into the Lockerbie debacle, pointing out that MacAskill pledged to support such an inquiry should it convene.
Haseldine is among the signatories of an open letter addressed to the President of the UN General Assembly asking the United Nations to 'institute a full public inquiry.
"I'm very pleased to note from your statement that you have committed the Scottish Government to 'fully co-operate in such an inquiry'. However, a UN member state must first table a resolution at the General Assembly, and get a majority of votes in favour, before a Lockerbie inquiry can be instituted," he said.
"On 3 October 2009, another signatory, Professor Robert Black QC, wrote to Malta's Foreign Affairs Minister, Dr Tonio Borg, requesting Malta to table the necessary UNGA resolution. I think it would be helpful at this stage if you were to take an early opportunity to contact the Maltese Government, and reiterate your pledge that the Scottish Government will co-operate fully in a [Malta-sponsored] United Nations inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster."
Signatories to the UN letter include Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu, campaigner Noam Chomsky, Tam Dalyell and members of both UK Families Flight 103 and the Justice for Megrahi campaign.
Sunday 8 November 2009
"It is totally untrue."
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, rejecting claims that his government had decided not to investigate Lockerbie prime witness Tony Gauci due to pressure from the US.
[From the Quotes of the week column in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times.]
[From the Quotes of the week column in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times.]
Saturday 7 November 2009
Britain admits paying thousands for advice from Libya on airline security
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. It reads in part:]
Victims of the Lockerbie bombing have criticised the Government for paying for tens of thousands of pounds-worth of advice from Libya on airline safety.
Documents show that taxpayers covered the cost of flying Libyan security experts to the UK, while British officials met Libyan counterparts at Tripoli airport.
In all five different visits were made to discuss “aviation security” at a total cost to the taxpayer nearly £25,000 between 2007 and 2009.
The Government declined to say what was discussed at the meetings, insisting it does not comment on “specific operational issues”. (...)
Pamela Dix, whose brother, Peter, was killed in the bombing, said that while she was "entirely in favour for a deepening of our links with Libya", it was "bizarre and inappropriate to receive advice in this way".
She added: "Whatever the level of responsibility for Lockerbie, they have been responsible for the destruction of other aircraft.
"The idea of the Department for Transport seeking advice on aviation security - let alone paying for it - from Libya is quite shocking.
"I was in favour of diplomatic relations being restored with Libya, in the interests of mutual understanding and to reduce the likelihood of terrorist activity, but not at the expense of good sense and an understanding of the political context."
The details of the controversial programme were disclosed in a response to a Freedom of Information request from The Daily Telegraph.
The details included how six British officials met four Libyan officials in Britain in March last year to discuss “aviation security” and officials from the Department for Transport visited Tripoli airport twice in 2007, and on two more occasions earlier this year.
Other talks have also taken place since 2001 about increasing the number of flights between the UK and the north African country. (...)
Around 140,000 passengers fly regularly between the UK and Libya on three airlines - British Airways, Libyan Arab Airlines and Afriqiyah Airways.
Anglo-Libyan relations are under intense scrutiny after Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds in August, a move which was denounced as a “mistake” by US President Barack Obama.
Victims of the Lockerbie bombing have criticised the Government for paying for tens of thousands of pounds-worth of advice from Libya on airline safety.
Documents show that taxpayers covered the cost of flying Libyan security experts to the UK, while British officials met Libyan counterparts at Tripoli airport.
In all five different visits were made to discuss “aviation security” at a total cost to the taxpayer nearly £25,000 between 2007 and 2009.
The Government declined to say what was discussed at the meetings, insisting it does not comment on “specific operational issues”. (...)
Pamela Dix, whose brother, Peter, was killed in the bombing, said that while she was "entirely in favour for a deepening of our links with Libya", it was "bizarre and inappropriate to receive advice in this way".
She added: "Whatever the level of responsibility for Lockerbie, they have been responsible for the destruction of other aircraft.
"The idea of the Department for Transport seeking advice on aviation security - let alone paying for it - from Libya is quite shocking.
"I was in favour of diplomatic relations being restored with Libya, in the interests of mutual understanding and to reduce the likelihood of terrorist activity, but not at the expense of good sense and an understanding of the political context."
The details of the controversial programme were disclosed in a response to a Freedom of Information request from The Daily Telegraph.
The details included how six British officials met four Libyan officials in Britain in March last year to discuss “aviation security” and officials from the Department for Transport visited Tripoli airport twice in 2007, and on two more occasions earlier this year.
Other talks have also taken place since 2001 about increasing the number of flights between the UK and the north African country. (...)
Around 140,000 passengers fly regularly between the UK and Libya on three airlines - British Airways, Libyan Arab Airlines and Afriqiyah Airways.
Anglo-Libyan relations are under intense scrutiny after Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds in August, a move which was denounced as a “mistake” by US President Barack Obama.
Wednesday 4 November 2009
Arabs support Al Megrahi's return to Libya
[The following press release was sent to me by a reader. The blog post on the Doha Debate on the motion "This House deplores the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya" can be read here.]
Doha, Qatar, November 4: Six out of 10 Arabs support the Scottish government's decision to send the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi back to Libya on compassionate grounds – but a similar number didn't believe Libya would have done the same.
The findings, contained in a YouGov poll, contradict the results of last month's Doha Debate, where a mainly Arab audience narrowly passed a motion deploring the release.
The poll was completed during the third week of October by more than 1,000 respondents from 18 Arab countries.
Over half – 55 percent - of those interviewed cast doubt on Al Megrahi's conviction for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. A similar number said they had no idea who else might have carried out the attack.
Roughly half the respondents believe that Libya accepted responsibility for the bombing only to rejoin the international community and attract investment to its oil industry.
[The press release is published without alteration or addition in the 5 November edition of The Peninsula.
The full YouGov report on the poll can now be read here.]
Doha, Qatar, November 4: Six out of 10 Arabs support the Scottish government's decision to send the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi back to Libya on compassionate grounds – but a similar number didn't believe Libya would have done the same.
The findings, contained in a YouGov poll, contradict the results of last month's Doha Debate, where a mainly Arab audience narrowly passed a motion deploring the release.
The poll was completed during the third week of October by more than 1,000 respondents from 18 Arab countries.
Over half – 55 percent - of those interviewed cast doubt on Al Megrahi's conviction for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. A similar number said they had no idea who else might have carried out the attack.
Roughly half the respondents believe that Libya accepted responsibility for the bombing only to rejoin the international community and attract investment to its oil industry.
[The press release is published without alteration or addition in the 5 November edition of The Peninsula.
The full YouGov report on the poll can now be read here.]
Hillary meets Musa
Mrs Clinton also met Tuesday with Libyan Foreign Minister Musa Kusa, formerly Tripoli's intelligence chief. Many US officials believe he had knowledge of the 1988 plot to blow up a US-bound airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people. Mrs. Clinton didn't raise the Lockerbie case with Mr Kusa, a US official said, but focused on US cooperation with Libya on counterterror measures and efforts to stabilize Sudan.
[From an article on the Secretary of State's Middle East tour in today's edition of The Wall Street Journal. The following excerpt from a press briefing given by State Department spokesman PJ Crowley is taken from the Still4Hill website.]
MR CROWLEY: And then she met with Foreign Minister Musa Kusa — M-u-s-a, K-u-s-a – who’s a – he’s a graduate of Michigan State University. At one point, he said, Spartans and gave a thumbs up.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Wasn’t Musa Kusa indicted for terrorism at one point? Can you check, because was the intelligence chief before he became the foreign minister?
QUESTION: I thought he was indicted for killing Americans.
QUESTION: Were you going to tell us about this? Can I have the next question?
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: Why was this not on the schedule and why was there no photo opportunity of this?
MR. CROWLEY: The short answer is it happened almost – let me back up. I mean, we had a limited time and we had a number of potential candidates for bilats. And in some cases, there were a couple countries that we were looking at bilats. And for example, and – but the Secretary was able to have pull-asides during the GCC meeting, for example. I mean, Libya is a country that we are – we have an emerging relationship with. And we think it’s best to continue talking to them and seeing where we can continue to advance the relationship.
And that – but I mean, it was something that – this was just a – kind of like a target of opportunity where the ministers found themselves with a similar hole and they got pulled into a room and sat for about 15 minutes.
QUESTION: Did they discuss the Lockerbie bomber’s recent release back home?
MR. CROWLEY: I was in the meeting; that did not come up. They –
QUESTION: She didn’t bring it up? I mean, you guys – excuse me, sorry. I mean, you and Ian were having to brief for about 10 days straight to us. Every single day we were asking you – hammering you guys with questions about the seeming welcome parade that he got and how upset people were about that, and you guys kept saying how upset the U.S. was about that. She didn’t bring that up when she had an opportunity?
MR. CROWLEY: We didn’t bring up the tent either. (Laughter.) Sorry.
QUESTION: The tent’s a little bit less of foreign policy issue.
MR. CROWLEY: No, the – I mean, Libya has a perspective on the region. They have been very helpful and integrally involved in developments in Sudan, so we did talk about Sudan, talked about Darfur. There has been cooperation from the countries on counterterrorism. And they continue to talk about advancing our relationship. But it was about a 10- or 15-minute meeting.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Sorry, you just said it was only 10 or 15 minutes. Was that the first time (inaudible)?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. CROWLEY: I’ll check.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. CROWLEY: Yes, that’s the first time that they’ve met.
[From an article on the Secretary of State's Middle East tour in today's edition of The Wall Street Journal. The following excerpt from a press briefing given by State Department spokesman PJ Crowley is taken from the Still4Hill website.]
MR CROWLEY: And then she met with Foreign Minister Musa Kusa — M-u-s-a, K-u-s-a – who’s a – he’s a graduate of Michigan State University. At one point, he said, Spartans and gave a thumbs up.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Wasn’t Musa Kusa indicted for terrorism at one point? Can you check, because was the intelligence chief before he became the foreign minister?
QUESTION: I thought he was indicted for killing Americans.
QUESTION: Were you going to tell us about this? Can I have the next question?
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: Why was this not on the schedule and why was there no photo opportunity of this?
MR. CROWLEY: The short answer is it happened almost – let me back up. I mean, we had a limited time and we had a number of potential candidates for bilats. And in some cases, there were a couple countries that we were looking at bilats. And for example, and – but the Secretary was able to have pull-asides during the GCC meeting, for example. I mean, Libya is a country that we are – we have an emerging relationship with. And we think it’s best to continue talking to them and seeing where we can continue to advance the relationship.
And that – but I mean, it was something that – this was just a – kind of like a target of opportunity where the ministers found themselves with a similar hole and they got pulled into a room and sat for about 15 minutes.
QUESTION: Did they discuss the Lockerbie bomber’s recent release back home?
MR. CROWLEY: I was in the meeting; that did not come up. They –
QUESTION: She didn’t bring it up? I mean, you guys – excuse me, sorry. I mean, you and Ian were having to brief for about 10 days straight to us. Every single day we were asking you – hammering you guys with questions about the seeming welcome parade that he got and how upset people were about that, and you guys kept saying how upset the U.S. was about that. She didn’t bring that up when she had an opportunity?
MR. CROWLEY: We didn’t bring up the tent either. (Laughter.) Sorry.
QUESTION: The tent’s a little bit less of foreign policy issue.
MR. CROWLEY: No, the – I mean, Libya has a perspective on the region. They have been very helpful and integrally involved in developments in Sudan, so we did talk about Sudan, talked about Darfur. There has been cooperation from the countries on counterterrorism. And they continue to talk about advancing our relationship. But it was about a 10- or 15-minute meeting.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Sorry, you just said it was only 10 or 15 minutes. Was that the first time (inaudible)?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. CROWLEY: I’ll check.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. CROWLEY: Yes, that’s the first time that they’ve met.
Tuesday 3 November 2009
LRB editor on Gareth Peirce article
[What follows is an excerpt from an interview in The Third Estate with senior editor Paul Myerscough of the London Review of Books.]
But what happens when Gareth Peirce writes about the Al [Megrahi] case for us? [She] publishes [her] essay and you think my God, this surely has to be answered at some level ― and nothing happens. The Independent reprinted it in entirety, but it just doesn’t make the same sort of impact. You want to cry that it doesn’t, because in a sense the case [she’s] presenting is so extraordinary that it can’t be addressed in a culture in which there’s consensus: every time Al Megrahi is referred to he is the Lockerbie Bomber ― and that’s in news sources. So what happens when you have piece that says he didn’t do it, actually it was someone else? You can’t really expect that to be picked up at ― except that it’s Gareth Peirce, the most respected defence solicitor on miscarriages of justice this country has. So I think you have grounds to influence whoever by publishing it. All you can really do is put these things into the public sphere and hope that they get picked up. Very often it doesn’t happen.
But what happens when Gareth Peirce writes about the Al [Megrahi] case for us? [She] publishes [her] essay and you think my God, this surely has to be answered at some level ― and nothing happens. The Independent reprinted it in entirety, but it just doesn’t make the same sort of impact. You want to cry that it doesn’t, because in a sense the case [she’s] presenting is so extraordinary that it can’t be addressed in a culture in which there’s consensus: every time Al Megrahi is referred to he is the Lockerbie Bomber ― and that’s in news sources. So what happens when you have piece that says he didn’t do it, actually it was someone else? You can’t really expect that to be picked up at ― except that it’s Gareth Peirce, the most respected defence solicitor on miscarriages of justice this country has. So I think you have grounds to influence whoever by publishing it. All you can really do is put these things into the public sphere and hope that they get picked up. Very often it doesn’t happen.
Holyrood investigation of release decision
Holyrood's Justice Committee will consider the documentation they will need to carry out its forthcoming inquiry into the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
The committee has already announced that Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill will be called to give evidence.
The Holyrood inquiry will focus on the Government's handling of Megrahi's appeal for compassionate release and a separate unsuccessful Libyan application to transfer him to a prison in Libya.
Mr MacAskill's decision angered US families of the victims, who said the 57-year-old, who has terminal cancer, should have died in HMP Greenock where he was being held.
The inquiry will also take evidence from others who contributed to the advice on which the minister's decision was based.
But it will not consider the question of whether the cabinet secretary was right to conclude that compassionate release was justified in the circumstances.
And the circumstances of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on December 21 1988 would not be looked into. (...)
MPs on the Commons' Scottish Affairs Select Committee announced last month they are to study the handling of Megrahi's release as part of a wider probe into relations between Westminster and Holyrood.
[The above are excerpts from a report in today's edition of The Herald. An earlier post on the Justice Committee investigation can be read here.
The following are excerpts from BBC News website's report after today's Justice Committee meeting:]
A Holyrood committee will write to the US and UK governments in its inquiry into the Lockerbie bomber's release.
The justice committee will request information on their understanding of a prisoner transfer agreement between Libya and the UK signed by Tony Blair. (...)
Earlier this year Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill decided not to transfer Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi but rather released him on compassionate grounds.
Mr [Bill] Aitken [the committee convener] said he was unsure what the outcome of writing to the two governments might be.
He said: "Whether or not anything might come out of that which would be of any particular value remains to be seen, but my view would be that we should at least try."
SNP committee member Nigel Don said Mr MacAskill did not seem to be clear about the understanding between the US the UK concerning the prisoner transfer agreement.
He called for the committee to write to Washington on the issue.
"I think there's an opportunity there to fill in that absent piece of information," Mr Don said.
Lib Dem Robert Brown said the issue was dealt with under international treaties and Labour's Cathy Craigie questioned whether this issue had "any bearing" on the decision to release Megrahi.
However, the SNP's Stewart Maxwell said the committee's remit did cover the subject.
[Interesting, but not in the least unexpected, to find Labour members of the committee questioning whether its remit covered the understandings between the UK and US Governments regarding where Mr Megrahi's sentence would be served. This issue has been dealt with in an earlier post on this blog.]
The committee has already announced that Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill will be called to give evidence.
The Holyrood inquiry will focus on the Government's handling of Megrahi's appeal for compassionate release and a separate unsuccessful Libyan application to transfer him to a prison in Libya.
Mr MacAskill's decision angered US families of the victims, who said the 57-year-old, who has terminal cancer, should have died in HMP Greenock where he was being held.
The inquiry will also take evidence from others who contributed to the advice on which the minister's decision was based.
But it will not consider the question of whether the cabinet secretary was right to conclude that compassionate release was justified in the circumstances.
And the circumstances of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on December 21 1988 would not be looked into. (...)
MPs on the Commons' Scottish Affairs Select Committee announced last month they are to study the handling of Megrahi's release as part of a wider probe into relations between Westminster and Holyrood.
[The above are excerpts from a report in today's edition of The Herald. An earlier post on the Justice Committee investigation can be read here.
The following are excerpts from BBC News website's report after today's Justice Committee meeting:]
A Holyrood committee will write to the US and UK governments in its inquiry into the Lockerbie bomber's release.
The justice committee will request information on their understanding of a prisoner transfer agreement between Libya and the UK signed by Tony Blair. (...)
Earlier this year Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill decided not to transfer Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi but rather released him on compassionate grounds.
Mr [Bill] Aitken [the committee convener] said he was unsure what the outcome of writing to the two governments might be.
He said: "Whether or not anything might come out of that which would be of any particular value remains to be seen, but my view would be that we should at least try."
SNP committee member Nigel Don said Mr MacAskill did not seem to be clear about the understanding between the US the UK concerning the prisoner transfer agreement.
He called for the committee to write to Washington on the issue.
"I think there's an opportunity there to fill in that absent piece of information," Mr Don said.
Lib Dem Robert Brown said the issue was dealt with under international treaties and Labour's Cathy Craigie questioned whether this issue had "any bearing" on the decision to release Megrahi.
However, the SNP's Stewart Maxwell said the committee's remit did cover the subject.
[Interesting, but not in the least unexpected, to find Labour members of the committee questioning whether its remit covered the understandings between the UK and US Governments regarding where Mr Megrahi's sentence would be served. This issue has been dealt with in an earlier post on this blog.]
Monday 2 November 2009
PM insists Malta will not probe prime witness
[This is the headline over a report in the Maltese newspaper The Times. It reads as follows:]
The Prime Minister rejected claims that his government was not investigating Lockerbie prime witness Tony Gauci due to pressure from the US.
"It is totally untrue," he insisted yesterday.
Jim Swire, the father of one of the victims of the 1988 bombing, last Saturday expressed concern that Malta was under pressure by the Americans not to open another investigation. But when asked about this, Dr [Lawrence] Gonzi said: "Until now, nobody has told me anything".
The Lockerbie case came to the fore again on Saturday when The Daily Telegraph quoted unnamed official legal sources saying that Malta wanted to look into Mr Gauci's claims, which had incriminated Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi of the terrorist attack that had claimed 270 lives.
The Maltese government was quick to deny the report, saying it "is not prepared" to investigate the testimony of the key witness. It said that, since 1988, successive Maltese governments had always maintained the bomb that downed Pan Am flight 103 had not departed from Malta and that ample proof of this was produced.
Scottish judge Robert Black, the architect of the Lockerbie trial, backed the government's stand, saying he would have been surprised if the Maltese authorities thought it appropriate to investigate a witness. But Hans Koechler, the expert picked by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor the Lockerbie trial, said he regretted Malta's stand not to conduct its own investigations.
"The government should be concerned that Mr Gauci wrongly identified a man who was convicted of a terrorist attack. The guilty verdict implies the bomb left from Luqa airport and I find it hard to understand why Malta has no interest or concern to investigate the matter and clear its name," he said.
Dr Gonzi yesterday reiterated the government's stand that Malta should not investigate the case. "Our position was always that Malta had nothing to do with the terrorist attack and it has never changed. Over the years we cooperated with every investigation and we think there is nothing to justify a change," he said.
The Prime Minister rejected claims that his government was not investigating Lockerbie prime witness Tony Gauci due to pressure from the US.
"It is totally untrue," he insisted yesterday.
Jim Swire, the father of one of the victims of the 1988 bombing, last Saturday expressed concern that Malta was under pressure by the Americans not to open another investigation. But when asked about this, Dr [Lawrence] Gonzi said: "Until now, nobody has told me anything".
The Lockerbie case came to the fore again on Saturday when The Daily Telegraph quoted unnamed official legal sources saying that Malta wanted to look into Mr Gauci's claims, which had incriminated Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi of the terrorist attack that had claimed 270 lives.
The Maltese government was quick to deny the report, saying it "is not prepared" to investigate the testimony of the key witness. It said that, since 1988, successive Maltese governments had always maintained the bomb that downed Pan Am flight 103 had not departed from Malta and that ample proof of this was produced.
Scottish judge Robert Black, the architect of the Lockerbie trial, backed the government's stand, saying he would have been surprised if the Maltese authorities thought it appropriate to investigate a witness. But Hans Koechler, the expert picked by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor the Lockerbie trial, said he regretted Malta's stand not to conduct its own investigations.
"The government should be concerned that Mr Gauci wrongly identified a man who was convicted of a terrorist attack. The guilty verdict implies the bomb left from Luqa airport and I find it hard to understand why Malta has no interest or concern to investigate the matter and clear its name," he said.
Dr Gonzi yesterday reiterated the government's stand that Malta should not investigate the case. "Our position was always that Malta had nothing to do with the terrorist attack and it has never changed. Over the years we cooperated with every investigation and we think there is nothing to justify a change," he said.
Chomsky on Lockerbie
Speaking at the annual Amnesty International lecture in Belfast, Professor [Noam] Chomsky noted:
“There is now a mass of people with real grievances who want answers and are not receiving them. A common reaction in elite educated circles and much of the left is to ridicule the right-wing protesters, but that is a serious error. (...)
He gave his sombre address on Friday evening to a capacity audience at Queen’s University.
Later, he forecast that the rift between Washington and Edinburgh over the release of the Lockerbie bomber would blow over. Responding to a question from the Sunday Herald, he suggested American anger was bluster and the Obama administration would have been relieved that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi had dropped his appeal.
“The appeal was going to bring in evidence from US intelligence casting serious doubt on the whole trial,” he said.
He added that he had sympathy with those who suspect a politically driven cover-up concerning Lockerbie.
[From a report in The Herald.]
Sunday 1 November 2009
Lost CCTV tape 'reveals true Lockerbie bomber'
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of the Sunday Express. The following are excerpts.]
A secret videotape exists of the moment the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 was planted but has been “lost” by the authorities, it emerged yesterday.
The footage was shot by German intelligence at Frankfurt Airport and shows a baggage handler slipping a Samsonite suitcase rigged with explosives onto a luggage trolley.
Investigator Juval Aviv obtained the tape and passed it to the now defunct airline, which placed copies in safe deposit boxes around Europe.
He said the CIA has denied the tape exists as it would reveal the US agency’s role in the bombing and clear the name of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
The BKA, the German equivalent of MI5, which was monitoring the Pan Am terminal, has lost the original tape and the US airline collapsed in 1991.
Mr Aviv said that in 1988 a secret CIA unit was allowing Middle Eastern criminals to smuggle heroin into America via Frankfurt.
The CIA wanted to secure the release of US hostages in Beirut and was also using the profits to buy weapons for operations in Central America.
“The video shows a baggage handler called Roland O’Neill,” said Mr Aviv. “He picks up the suitcase and realises it is heavier than usual. He goes to the phone and makes a call.
“Then he takes the case and puts it on the trolley. All the phones were tapped, so I also had a tape of the phone call.
“O’Neill called the CIA guy at the embassy in Bonn. He said, ‘This is O’Neill, I have the suitcase but it is much heavier than usual’. The CIA guy says, ‘Yes, we know, let it go’.”
The baggage handler, a German who had lived in America, later told Mr Aviv that he was working for the US Government and he thought the suitcase contained drugs. (...)
Mr Aviv, a former Mossad agent who hunted the killers of the Israeli 1972 Olympic team, was hired to investigate the tragedy by Pan Am.
In his confidential report he describes the videotape as “the gem” that proves Iranian-sponsored terrorists carried out the atrocity.
Terror warlord Ahmed Jibril became aware of the CIA-approved drug route and realised he could use it to bomb a Western passenger jet.
Yesterday, Mr Aviv said: “Most of the people involved were scared to pursue it as the CIA were after them. I work with Dr Jim Swire and the families and my dream is that one day we will see the truth come out.”
A secret videotape exists of the moment the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 was planted but has been “lost” by the authorities, it emerged yesterday.
The footage was shot by German intelligence at Frankfurt Airport and shows a baggage handler slipping a Samsonite suitcase rigged with explosives onto a luggage trolley.
Investigator Juval Aviv obtained the tape and passed it to the now defunct airline, which placed copies in safe deposit boxes around Europe.
He said the CIA has denied the tape exists as it would reveal the US agency’s role in the bombing and clear the name of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
The BKA, the German equivalent of MI5, which was monitoring the Pan Am terminal, has lost the original tape and the US airline collapsed in 1991.
Mr Aviv said that in 1988 a secret CIA unit was allowing Middle Eastern criminals to smuggle heroin into America via Frankfurt.
The CIA wanted to secure the release of US hostages in Beirut and was also using the profits to buy weapons for operations in Central America.
“The video shows a baggage handler called Roland O’Neill,” said Mr Aviv. “He picks up the suitcase and realises it is heavier than usual. He goes to the phone and makes a call.
“Then he takes the case and puts it on the trolley. All the phones were tapped, so I also had a tape of the phone call.
“O’Neill called the CIA guy at the embassy in Bonn. He said, ‘This is O’Neill, I have the suitcase but it is much heavier than usual’. The CIA guy says, ‘Yes, we know, let it go’.”
The baggage handler, a German who had lived in America, later told Mr Aviv that he was working for the US Government and he thought the suitcase contained drugs. (...)
Mr Aviv, a former Mossad agent who hunted the killers of the Israeli 1972 Olympic team, was hired to investigate the tragedy by Pan Am.
In his confidential report he describes the videotape as “the gem” that proves Iranian-sponsored terrorists carried out the atrocity.
Terror warlord Ahmed Jibril became aware of the CIA-approved drug route and realised he could use it to bomb a Western passenger jet.
Yesterday, Mr Aviv said: “Most of the people involved were scared to pursue it as the CIA were after them. I work with Dr Jim Swire and the families and my dream is that one day we will see the truth come out.”
Dr Swire's reply to Gordon Brown
[Dr Jim Swire has replied to the Prime Minister's letter to him dated 23 October 2009. This letter, and the one from Dr Swire that prompted it, can be read here. Dr Swire's new letter, dated 27 October, reads as follows:]
Dear Prime Minister,
Thank you for your letter dated 23rd October, replying to my letter of 24th August.
I can see how the contents of my previous letter may have misled you into thinking that it was purely questions surrounding the Scottish criminal court case against Mr Megrahi for which I am seeking an inquiry.
That however is not the case.
The Heathrow incident which I mentioned, and to which you naturally referred, was of course located at that airport. So far as I am aware Scotland has no locus in controlling that.
However one thing Scotland did have control over was that since the deaths of the crew (‘in their place of work’) occurred in Scotland, it was mandatory that a Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry be held. It made a number of interesting findings.
It concluded that the aircraft was under the Host State protection of the United Kingdom, not of course Scotland.
It also concluded that the disaster had been preventable. So far as I am aware, the adherence of the United Kingdom to International ICAO aviation security treaties is not devolved. Yet the adherence of Heathrow airport to international treaties was shown in the FAI to have been deficient, even though, unlike the authorities in London, it was not aware of the appallingly irresponsible handling of the break-in there.
Now it is the duty of Fatal Accident Inquiries, as you know, not to point the finger of blame, but to define factors and entities which may have contributed to the deaths. In this case our FAI found that the aircraft, under the Host State protection of the United Kingdom had been loaded from empty at Heathrow airport, and that therefore the loading of the bomb aboard the fatal flight inevitably occurred there, since the incoming aircraft from Frankfurt had been a different one from the 747 which blew up, and every one of the 747’s bags was loaded aboard at Heathrow, some of them having been transferred from the Frankfurt aircraft on the tarmac at Heathrow. What the FAI could not comment upon was the material which I referred to in my previous letter, the Heathrow break-in, since it was not known to that court. It remained hidden for 12 years. Any meaningful inquiry will want to know why. The origins of that mystery too must obviously be sought in London, not Scotland
Instead the FAI was invited (by the late Sheriff Principal John Mowat), to presume that the IED which was said to have caused the disaster had ‘come from Frankfurt’.
A simple inquiry will confirm for you that the Heathrow night security guard (Mr Manley) who had discovered the said break-in had immediately reported it to his superiors and came shortly afterwards (January 1989) to be interviewed by the anti terrorist branch of the Metropolitan Police.
Now so far as I know, neither the state of security at Heathrow in December 1988, nor the activities of the Metropolitan anti-terrorist branch, nor the remarkable fact that the existence of this break-in event lay hidden for 12 years can be attributed to the devolved Government of Scotland, nor her separate legal system. Indeed Scotland’s Crown Office has denied to me in writing that they knew of the break-in during the 12 years it lay hidden.
Yet this is still far from a summary of why any inquiry to be meaningful must focus attention on London, not Edinburgh.
Following the disaster, from various sources (none of them volunteered from within the Thatcher government) we acquired details of a number of extraordinarily relevant and timely warnings. These came from abroad to the UK government either directly or via the US government. None of them came to Scotland.
Why were they not acted upon? The Fatal Accident Inquiry told us the disaster was preventable: why were the warnings ignored or wasted? Surely it is time that we were allowed to know that? The answer to this vital question must lie with the UK Government.
Yes the aircraft was American owned, but the FAI told us that it was the UK Government which had the responsibility for its security. Yes, we are told that the plane was destroyed by a bomb in its cargo hold, but the FAI told us that every suitcase, and therefore the bomb itself had been loaded at Heathrow.
You have now received a much more comprehensive letter requesting a full inquiry from our group ‘UK Families-Flight 103’ I am one of the signatories. I hope that the contents of this letter underline some of the reasons as to why I cannot possibly accept that any inquiry should be limited to Scotland, and I apologise if my previous personal letter of the 24th of August misled you over the main focus that the inquiry will need to address.
That focus lies in London and at the door of the then inhabitant of Number 10 Downing Street.
I look forward to hearing you comments both to our group’s letter and to the contents of this one.
Yours sincerely,
(signed) Dr Jim Swire
Dear Prime Minister,
Thank you for your letter dated 23rd October, replying to my letter of 24th August.
I can see how the contents of my previous letter may have misled you into thinking that it was purely questions surrounding the Scottish criminal court case against Mr Megrahi for which I am seeking an inquiry.
That however is not the case.
The Heathrow incident which I mentioned, and to which you naturally referred, was of course located at that airport. So far as I am aware Scotland has no locus in controlling that.
However one thing Scotland did have control over was that since the deaths of the crew (‘in their place of work’) occurred in Scotland, it was mandatory that a Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry be held. It made a number of interesting findings.
It concluded that the aircraft was under the Host State protection of the United Kingdom, not of course Scotland.
It also concluded that the disaster had been preventable. So far as I am aware, the adherence of the United Kingdom to International ICAO aviation security treaties is not devolved. Yet the adherence of Heathrow airport to international treaties was shown in the FAI to have been deficient, even though, unlike the authorities in London, it was not aware of the appallingly irresponsible handling of the break-in there.
Now it is the duty of Fatal Accident Inquiries, as you know, not to point the finger of blame, but to define factors and entities which may have contributed to the deaths. In this case our FAI found that the aircraft, under the Host State protection of the United Kingdom had been loaded from empty at Heathrow airport, and that therefore the loading of the bomb aboard the fatal flight inevitably occurred there, since the incoming aircraft from Frankfurt had been a different one from the 747 which blew up, and every one of the 747’s bags was loaded aboard at Heathrow, some of them having been transferred from the Frankfurt aircraft on the tarmac at Heathrow. What the FAI could not comment upon was the material which I referred to in my previous letter, the Heathrow break-in, since it was not known to that court. It remained hidden for 12 years. Any meaningful inquiry will want to know why. The origins of that mystery too must obviously be sought in London, not Scotland
Instead the FAI was invited (by the late Sheriff Principal John Mowat), to presume that the IED which was said to have caused the disaster had ‘come from Frankfurt’.
A simple inquiry will confirm for you that the Heathrow night security guard (Mr Manley) who had discovered the said break-in had immediately reported it to his superiors and came shortly afterwards (January 1989) to be interviewed by the anti terrorist branch of the Metropolitan Police.
Now so far as I know, neither the state of security at Heathrow in December 1988, nor the activities of the Metropolitan anti-terrorist branch, nor the remarkable fact that the existence of this break-in event lay hidden for 12 years can be attributed to the devolved Government of Scotland, nor her separate legal system. Indeed Scotland’s Crown Office has denied to me in writing that they knew of the break-in during the 12 years it lay hidden.
Yet this is still far from a summary of why any inquiry to be meaningful must focus attention on London, not Edinburgh.
Following the disaster, from various sources (none of them volunteered from within the Thatcher government) we acquired details of a number of extraordinarily relevant and timely warnings. These came from abroad to the UK government either directly or via the US government. None of them came to Scotland.
Why were they not acted upon? The Fatal Accident Inquiry told us the disaster was preventable: why were the warnings ignored or wasted? Surely it is time that we were allowed to know that? The answer to this vital question must lie with the UK Government.
Yes the aircraft was American owned, but the FAI told us that it was the UK Government which had the responsibility for its security. Yes, we are told that the plane was destroyed by a bomb in its cargo hold, but the FAI told us that every suitcase, and therefore the bomb itself had been loaded at Heathrow.
You have now received a much more comprehensive letter requesting a full inquiry from our group ‘UK Families-Flight 103’ I am one of the signatories. I hope that the contents of this letter underline some of the reasons as to why I cannot possibly accept that any inquiry should be limited to Scotland, and I apologise if my previous personal letter of the 24th of August misled you over the main focus that the inquiry will need to address.
That focus lies in London and at the door of the then inhabitant of Number 10 Downing Street.
I look forward to hearing you comments both to our group’s letter and to the contents of this one.
Yours sincerely,
(signed) Dr Jim Swire
Malta won't probe Lockerbie witness
[This is the headline over a report in the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]
The government "is not prepared" to investigate the testimony of key Lockerbie trial witness Tony Gauci, despite claims his evidence wrongly incriminated the Libyan man convicted of the bombing.
The Justice Ministry was forced to issue a denial yesterday after British newspaper The Daily Telegraph quoted unnamed Maltese official legal sources saying Malta wanted to look at Mr Gauci's claims.
The ministry said in a statement: "Government categorically denies that any government official said that the Maltese government is preparing to look into the testimony Maltese national Tony Gauci gave during the trial. The Maltese government is not prepared to do any such thing."
The government's statement was criticised yesterday by the man appointed by the UN to monitor the Lockerbie trial as well as the father of one of the victims.
When contacted by The Sunday Times, both men urged the Maltese authorities to press ahead with an investigation "in the interests of truth and justice". (...)
The government yesterday reiterated that since 1988 successive Maltese governments had "always maintained the bomb which downed Pan Am flight 103 had not departed from Malta and ample proof of this was produced".
The architect of the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, Scottish lawyer Robert Black, backed the government's stand when contacted yesterday, insisting that a broader inquiry would make more sense.
"I was very surprised by The Daily Telegraph story. I would be amazed if the Maltese authorities thought it appropriate to investigate a witness.
"Malta can be realistically asked to support an inquiry into all aspects of the Lockerbie case, which would also include the testimony of Tony Gauci, which is the weakest link in the whole affair," Prof. Black said.
His view contrasted with that of Prof. Koechler, the expert picked by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor the Lockerbie trial.
"I regret Malta's stand not to conduct its own investigations. The government should be concerned that Mr Gauci wrongly identified a man who was convicted of a terrorist attack. The guilty verdict implies the bomb left from Luqa airport and I find it hard to understand why Malta has no interest or concern to investigate the matter and clear its name," Prof. Koechler said when contacted.
Only last Sunday he had urged the Maltese authorities to launch an inquiry into the Lockerbie case and question Mr Gauci.
Prof. Koechler's report after the trial that found Mr Al-Megrahi guilty of the bombing said that a "miscarriage of justice" had occurred.
Meanwhile, the father of one of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, Jim Swire, said any objective reinvestigation of the Al-Megrahi case "would be welcome".
However, he expressed concern about possible US pressure on Malta not to investigate Mr Gauci.
"So interwoven with international politics has this dreadful case become that much depends on how far the Maltese are prepared to go to clear their island's name, despite the immediate US displeasure that is no doubt already descending upon them following The Daily Telegraph article," he said.
Dr Swire insisted the evidence from Malta against Mr Al-Megrahi was always "deeply flawed".
"The identification of the buyer and the date of the sale of the clothes were never satisfactorily established, as objective Maltese investigators would no doubt have confirmed," he said. Identifying the date the clothes were bought was also crucial, he added, since for Mr Al-Megrahi to be relevant to the whole affair the purchase had to have taken place in early December.
Mr Al-Megrahi was in Malta at that time but a thorough investigation would have led the Maltese authorities to conclude that the sale actually happened towards the end of November, Dr Swire explained, when the Libyan was not in Malta.
He also highlighted that a senior member of the Scots' team (Harry Bell) recorded during his visits to the island that the US authorities were offering Mr Gauci $10,000 up front and $2 million to follow.
"This must be significant and Maltese investigators might have been able now to access details of this scandalous attempt at witness bribery by looking at the documentation provided by the Megrahi defence team," Dr Swire said, calling on the Maltese government to show resolve and carry out its own investigation.
[What I intended to convey to the Maltese journalist was that an inquiry by the authorities in Malta confined to the testimony of Tony Gauci (which is what the article in The Daily Telegraph suggested was about to happen) would have been inappropriate. If the Maltese Government were prepared to institute an inquiry into the whole of the evidence supposedly showing a Maltese connexion to Lockerbie, I would support this unreservedly. But, since it is most unlikely to happen, what people should be pressing the Maltese Government to do is to support the request to the General Assembly of the United Nations for the establishment of a commission of enquiry.
A letter in the same newspaper supportive of the idea of an inquiry can be read here.]
The government "is not prepared" to investigate the testimony of key Lockerbie trial witness Tony Gauci, despite claims his evidence wrongly incriminated the Libyan man convicted of the bombing.
The Justice Ministry was forced to issue a denial yesterday after British newspaper The Daily Telegraph quoted unnamed Maltese official legal sources saying Malta wanted to look at Mr Gauci's claims.
The ministry said in a statement: "Government categorically denies that any government official said that the Maltese government is preparing to look into the testimony Maltese national Tony Gauci gave during the trial. The Maltese government is not prepared to do any such thing."
The government's statement was criticised yesterday by the man appointed by the UN to monitor the Lockerbie trial as well as the father of one of the victims.
When contacted by The Sunday Times, both men urged the Maltese authorities to press ahead with an investigation "in the interests of truth and justice". (...)
The government yesterday reiterated that since 1988 successive Maltese governments had "always maintained the bomb which downed Pan Am flight 103 had not departed from Malta and ample proof of this was produced".
The architect of the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, Scottish lawyer Robert Black, backed the government's stand when contacted yesterday, insisting that a broader inquiry would make more sense.
"I was very surprised by The Daily Telegraph story. I would be amazed if the Maltese authorities thought it appropriate to investigate a witness.
"Malta can be realistically asked to support an inquiry into all aspects of the Lockerbie case, which would also include the testimony of Tony Gauci, which is the weakest link in the whole affair," Prof. Black said.
His view contrasted with that of Prof. Koechler, the expert picked by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor the Lockerbie trial.
"I regret Malta's stand not to conduct its own investigations. The government should be concerned that Mr Gauci wrongly identified a man who was convicted of a terrorist attack. The guilty verdict implies the bomb left from Luqa airport and I find it hard to understand why Malta has no interest or concern to investigate the matter and clear its name," Prof. Koechler said when contacted.
Only last Sunday he had urged the Maltese authorities to launch an inquiry into the Lockerbie case and question Mr Gauci.
Prof. Koechler's report after the trial that found Mr Al-Megrahi guilty of the bombing said that a "miscarriage of justice" had occurred.
Meanwhile, the father of one of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, Jim Swire, said any objective reinvestigation of the Al-Megrahi case "would be welcome".
However, he expressed concern about possible US pressure on Malta not to investigate Mr Gauci.
"So interwoven with international politics has this dreadful case become that much depends on how far the Maltese are prepared to go to clear their island's name, despite the immediate US displeasure that is no doubt already descending upon them following The Daily Telegraph article," he said.
Dr Swire insisted the evidence from Malta against Mr Al-Megrahi was always "deeply flawed".
"The identification of the buyer and the date of the sale of the clothes were never satisfactorily established, as objective Maltese investigators would no doubt have confirmed," he said. Identifying the date the clothes were bought was also crucial, he added, since for Mr Al-Megrahi to be relevant to the whole affair the purchase had to have taken place in early December.
Mr Al-Megrahi was in Malta at that time but a thorough investigation would have led the Maltese authorities to conclude that the sale actually happened towards the end of November, Dr Swire explained, when the Libyan was not in Malta.
He also highlighted that a senior member of the Scots' team (Harry Bell) recorded during his visits to the island that the US authorities were offering Mr Gauci $10,000 up front and $2 million to follow.
"This must be significant and Maltese investigators might have been able now to access details of this scandalous attempt at witness bribery by looking at the documentation provided by the Megrahi defence team," Dr Swire said, calling on the Maltese government to show resolve and carry out its own investigation.
[What I intended to convey to the Maltese journalist was that an inquiry by the authorities in Malta confined to the testimony of Tony Gauci (which is what the article in The Daily Telegraph suggested was about to happen) would have been inappropriate. If the Maltese Government were prepared to institute an inquiry into the whole of the evidence supposedly showing a Maltese connexion to Lockerbie, I would support this unreservedly. But, since it is most unlikely to happen, what people should be pressing the Maltese Government to do is to support the request to the General Assembly of the United Nations for the establishment of a commission of enquiry.
A letter in the same newspaper supportive of the idea of an inquiry can be read here.]
Lockerbie inquiry ruled out by Gordon Brown
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Sunday Times about the letter recently received by Dr Jim Swire from the Prime Minister. The article reads as follows:]
Gordon Brown has ruled out holding a public inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster. In a letter to representatives of victims’ families, the prime minister said it would be “inappropriate” for the UK government to hold such an investigation.
His decision was criticised by relatives who said it has left them with little hope of learning the truth about who was behind the attack and the government’s handling of case.
UK ministers say it is now up to the Scottish government to decide if it wants to hold its own, more limited, inquiry into the worst terrorist attack on British soil. The SNP government has ruled out an independent inquiry, saying Holyrood lacks the constitutional power to examine the international dimensions of the case.
Supporters of a UK-led inquiry into the 1988 attack that killed 270 people believe it could involve sensitive Foreign Office files explaining why ministers named Libya as the state which sponsored the attack.
In a letter to Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 24, died in the attack, Brown said: “I understand your desire to understand the events surrounding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.” But he added: “I do not think it would be appropriate for the UK government to open an inquiry of this sort.”
Brown rejected Swire’s claim that a break-in at Heathrow airport shortly before the plane carrying the bomb took off rendered the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi unsafe.
“I understand the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland did consider whether the incident at Heathrow made the conviction of Mr Megrahi unsafe, and concluded that it did not,” the prime minister added.
Jean Berkley, whose son Alistair, 29, was killed in the bombing, said Brown had let down relatives of the victims.
“By handing it back to Scotland it looks like they are trying to push it into the long grass,” she said.
Professor Robert Black, a QC campaigning for an inquiry, accused Brown of “gross political cowardice”. He suspected the government did not want further scrutiny of sensitive aspects of the case which led the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to report in 2007 that the conviction against Megrahi may be unsafe.
Black pointed out the Inquiries Act 2005 allows the UK government to hold a joint inquiry with Holyrood on matters straddling both parliaments. “The security of the United Kingdom and foreign relations are non-devolved issues and if Gordon Brown is saying these are not areas that would be involved in a Lockerbie inquiry then the man is insane,” he said.
[This story has now been picked up on the Telegraph website and can be read here. The Sunday Telegraph publishes a very moving article about Rev John Mosey whose daughter, Helga, was one of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster. The last three paragraphs read:]
The Moseys know that they cannot "move on" from the terrorist attack that took their daughter's life until they know the truth about who killed her.
Megrahi's decision to drop his appeal denied them the chance to hear new evidence in court that might have given clues about the killers. They, and the other Lockerbie families, will continue to fight for an independent public inquiry.
"I don't know if we will ever get the truth about what happened," Mr Mosey says. "But we will never give up trying. We owe it to Helga."
Gordon Brown has ruled out holding a public inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster. In a letter to representatives of victims’ families, the prime minister said it would be “inappropriate” for the UK government to hold such an investigation.
His decision was criticised by relatives who said it has left them with little hope of learning the truth about who was behind the attack and the government’s handling of case.
UK ministers say it is now up to the Scottish government to decide if it wants to hold its own, more limited, inquiry into the worst terrorist attack on British soil. The SNP government has ruled out an independent inquiry, saying Holyrood lacks the constitutional power to examine the international dimensions of the case.
Supporters of a UK-led inquiry into the 1988 attack that killed 270 people believe it could involve sensitive Foreign Office files explaining why ministers named Libya as the state which sponsored the attack.
In a letter to Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 24, died in the attack, Brown said: “I understand your desire to understand the events surrounding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.” But he added: “I do not think it would be appropriate for the UK government to open an inquiry of this sort.”
Brown rejected Swire’s claim that a break-in at Heathrow airport shortly before the plane carrying the bomb took off rendered the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi unsafe.
“I understand the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland did consider whether the incident at Heathrow made the conviction of Mr Megrahi unsafe, and concluded that it did not,” the prime minister added.
Jean Berkley, whose son Alistair, 29, was killed in the bombing, said Brown had let down relatives of the victims.
“By handing it back to Scotland it looks like they are trying to push it into the long grass,” she said.
Professor Robert Black, a QC campaigning for an inquiry, accused Brown of “gross political cowardice”. He suspected the government did not want further scrutiny of sensitive aspects of the case which led the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to report in 2007 that the conviction against Megrahi may be unsafe.
Black pointed out the Inquiries Act 2005 allows the UK government to hold a joint inquiry with Holyrood on matters straddling both parliaments. “The security of the United Kingdom and foreign relations are non-devolved issues and if Gordon Brown is saying these are not areas that would be involved in a Lockerbie inquiry then the man is insane,” he said.
[This story has now been picked up on the Telegraph website and can be read here. The Sunday Telegraph publishes a very moving article about Rev John Mosey whose daughter, Helga, was one of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster. The last three paragraphs read:]
The Moseys know that they cannot "move on" from the terrorist attack that took their daughter's life until they know the truth about who killed her.
Megrahi's decision to drop his appeal denied them the chance to hear new evidence in court that might have given clues about the killers. They, and the other Lockerbie families, will continue to fight for an independent public inquiry.
"I don't know if we will ever get the truth about what happened," Mr Mosey says. "But we will never give up trying. We owe it to Helga."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)