The late Arnaud de Borchgrave and Lockerbie

[Arnaud de Borchgrave died on Sunday, 15 February 2015. Obituaries are to be found in The Washington Times, The New York Times and The Guardian. His contribution to the Lockerbie affair is recorded in the following two items on this blog:]

Friday, 1 January 2010

Gadhafi admitted it!

This is the subject-heading of an e-mail sent by Arnaud de Borchgrave to Frank Duggan and copied by the latter to me. It reads as follows:

"As Gaddafi explained it to me, which you are familiar with, it was indeed Iran's decision to retaliate for the Iran Air Airbus shot down by the USS Vincennes on its daily flight from Bandar Abbas to Dubai that led to a first subcontracting deal to Syrian intel, which, in turn, led to the 2nd subcontract to Libyan intel. As he himself said if they had been first at this terrorist bat, they would not have put Malta in the mix; Cyprus would have made more sense to draw attention away from Libya."

According to Arnaud de Borchgrave, Gaddafi made the admission, off the record, in the course of an interview in 1993. His published account [28 August 2009] reads:

"Megrahi was a small cog in a much larger conspiracy. After a long interview with Gaddafi in 1993, this editor at large of The Washington Times asked Libya's supreme leader to explain, off the record, his precise involvement in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec. 21, 1988, and for which Libya paid $2.7 billion in reparations. He dismissed all the aides in his tent (located that evening in the desert about 100 kilometers south of Tripoli) and began in halting English without benefit of an interpreter, as was the case in the on-the-record part of the interview.

"Gaddafi candidly admitted that Lockerbie was retaliation for the July 3, 1988, downing of an Iranian Airbus. Air Iran Flight 655, on a 28-minute daily hop from the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas in the Strait of Hormuz to the port city of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates on the other side of the Gulf, was shot down by a guided missile from the Aegis cruiser USS Vincennes. The Vincennes radar mistook it for an F-14 Tomcat fighter (which Iran still flies); 290 were killed, including 66 children. A year before, in 1987, the USS Stark was attacked by an Iraqi Mirage, killing 37 sailors. The Vincennes skipper, Capt. William Rogers, received the Legion of Merit, and the entire crew was awarded combat-action ribbons. The United States paid compensation of $61.8 million to the families of those killed on IR 655.

"Gaddafi told me, 'The most powerful navy in the world does not make such mistakes. Nobody in our part of the world believed it was an error.' And retaliation, he said, was clearly called for. Iranian intelligence subcontracted retaliation to one of the Syrian intelligence services (there are 14 of them), which, in turn, subcontracted part of the retaliatory action to Libyan intelligence (at that time run by Abdullah Senoussi, Gaddafi's brother-in-law). 'Did we know specifically what we were asked to do?' said Gaddafi. 'We knew it would be comparable retaliation for the Iranian Airbus, but we were not told what the specific objective was,' Gaddafi added.

"As he got up to take his leave, he said, 'Please tell the CIA that I wish to cooperate with America. I am just as much threatened by Islamist extremists as you are.'

"When we got back to Washington, we called Director of Central Intelligence Jim Woolsey to tell him what we had been told off the record. Woolsey asked me if I would mind being debriefed by the CIA. I agreed. And the rest is history."

On the assumption that this account of an off-the-record conversation in 1993 is accurate, it in no way affects the wrongfulness of the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. As I have tried (without success) to explain to US zealots in the past, the fact -- if it be the fact -- that Libya was in some way involved in Lockerbie does not entail as a consequence that any particular Libyan citizen was implicated. The evidence led at the Zeist trial did not justify the guilty verdict against Megrahi. On that basis alone his conviction should have been quashed had the recently-abandoned appeal gone the full distance. That conclusion is reinforced (a) by the material uncovered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and (b) by the material released on Mr Megrahi's website.

Saturday, 2 January 2010

Reaction to "Gadhafi admitted it!"

[The following comment on the "Gadhafi admitted it!" thread comes from Peter Biddulph. It was too long to be posted directly as a comment on that thread.]

The timing of this information is most strange.

According to Wikipedia and other sources, Arnaud de Borchgrave appears to have an impeccable background. According to him, the CIA debriefing arranged by Woolsey took place in 1993.

But I am informed by an expert on these matters that Gaddafi never, repeat never, was without at least one armed personal bodyguard. To be alone with an American journalist with many contacts in Washington would be, for Gaddafi, impossible.

And if this information was known in 1993, why on earth did the CIA, the FBI and the Scottish Crown office not know of it in the next seven years leading up to the trial?

Why was de Borchgrave not invited to be deposed or give evidence to the Lockerbie trial, or even an affidavit?

It might be said to be hearsay, and therefore not admissible in court.

But several hearsay issues and affidavits were extensively investigated by the court, notably the Goben Memorandum, and the account of the interview of bomb maker Marwan Khreesat by FBI Agent Edward Marshman. Even a hearsay account that Gaddafi confessed to the crime would have cast serious doubt on al-Megrahi's defence.

The original 1991 indictment could have been varied to reflect the latest knowledge. Indeed, the final version of the indictment was agreed by the US Department of Justice and the Scottish Crown Office in 2000, only three weeks before the trial commenced.

If the FBI did know it, why did they not mention any of this in a May 1995 Channel 4 discussion following the screening of the documentary The Maltese Double Cross? Buck Revell of the FBI became quite intense in answering Jim Swire's questions and those of presenter Sheena McDonald. But he said not a word about the Gaddafi "confession". Why?

Also, how come Marquise - as he says himself "Chief FBI Investigator of the Lockerbie bombing" - was not aware of it in the seven years leading up to the 2000 trial or the nine years since? That is, sixteen years of ignorance?

And why did CIA Vincent Cannistraro himself not mention it when interviewed on camera on at least two occasions in 1994 by Alan Francovich for the documentary film The Maltese Double Cross?

As head of the CIA team investigating Libya, Cannistraro would be the first to be briefed by the Langley central office. He was happy to provide hearsay evidence to the media and film camera against Oliver North and any Libyan or Iranian that got in his way. He spoke at length about green and brown timer boards, and potential witnesses.

To relate on camera the Gaddafi "confession" would have been greatly to Cannistraro's advantage, a slam-dunk in the public mind. Indeed, even a hint in the media would have ham-strung al-Megrahi’s defence before proceedings commenced.

But between 1993 and 2009 from Cannistraro not a word. And when it comes to America's interests, the CIA never follow Queensberry rules.

CIA [officer] Robert Baer too, as a Middle Eastern specialist has given no hint of this. Such information would surely have come within the "need to know" category. Yet he has maintained on two occasions that Iran commissioned the job and paid the PFLP-GC handsomely two days after the attack. His conclusion suggests strongly that the so-called fragment of the bomb was planted.

The real reasons for this late announcement, we believe, are as follows:

1. It is well known among those who study these things in the field that there are two candidates shortly to succeed Gaddafi. His son Saif, and his son-in law Sennusi. Meanwhile Sennusi is not top of the pops with Arab leaders in the region. They would love it if he were out of the frame. The Borchgrave revelation discredits Sennusi perfectly.

2. The SCCRC is shortly to publish information which some believe will cause serious embarrassment to the FBI And CIA. The Borchgrave email is huge smoke and mirrors, a spoiler.

It all looks highly suspicious. Just another carefully crafted phase in a long, long history of disinformation.

CIA evidence 'clears Libya' of Lockerbie

[This is the headline over an article published in the Sunday Herald on this date in 2002. It reads as follows:]

Megrahi's appeal team ignored 'evidence' from key CIA investigator that claims Iran was behind PanAm 103 bombing

One of the CIA's leading Lockerbie bomb investigators has come forward with compelling evidence that Libya was not behind the downing of PanAm 103 which killed 270 people.

Robert Baer, a retired senior CIA agent, offered to meet the defence team leading the appeal of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, who was convicted last year of the bombing. However, his offer was not accepted and the new evidence never raised in court.

The new evidence, according to Baer, shows Iran masterminded and funded the bombing; implicates the Palestinian terrorist unit, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), as the group behind the plot; and reveals that just two days after the December 21 1988 bombing the PFLP-GC received $11 million (£7.6m), paid into a Swiss bank account by Iran.

Legal experts say the new evidence should have been brought before the court, and are asking why Megrahi's defence didn't take up the offer.

Megrahi's appeal, which took place at a special Scottish court sitting at Camp Zeist in Holland, adjourned on Thursday for judges to consider whether to overturn the original verdict.

Baer claims he is breaking his silence now because of growing disillusionment with the CIA's counter-terrorist operations and the war on terror.

Baer, an anti-terrorist specialist, was one of the key CIA officers investigating Lockerbie. He says the CIA received definitive evidence that the PFLP-GC struck a deal with Iranian intelligence agents in July 1988 to take down an American airliner.

Baer also has details of an $11m payment made to the PFLP-GC. On December 23 1988 the money was paid into a bank account used by the terror group in Lausanne, Switzerland. It was transferred to another PFLP-GC account at the Banque Nationale de Paris and moved to the Hungarian Trade Development Bank.

A terrorist linked to the PFLP-GC, Abu Talb, who was later jailed for terrorist offences in Sweden, was also paid $500,000 (£350,000). The money went into an account in Talb's name in Frankfurt four months after the bombing, on April 25 1989.

Germany was a key base for the PFLP-GC in the late 1980s. Baer has the number of at least one of these bank accounts.

Talb and the PFLP-GC were to have been implicated by lawyers working for Megrahi and his co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, at the original trial, but little evidence was ever raised to show they were part of the Lockerbie plot.

On legal advice Baer is not disclosing his Lockerbie records, but the Sunday Herald has seen CIA paperwork that supports his claims. British and US intelligence have always publicly denied that the PFLP-GC played a part in the Lockerbie plot, saying raids by German police two months before the Lockerbie bombing took the terror group out of action.

Baer says, however, that these arrests were a mere hiccup in PFLP-GC plans as other members of the German unit rem ained at large. This theory also fits with claims that the bomb began its journey in Frankfurt, rather than Malta, where Megrahi was based.

PFLP-GC leader Hafez Dalkamoni and the group's chief bomb-maker, Marwan Khreesat, were arrested in Germany in October 1988 in possession of a Toshiba radio-cassette player containing a bomb. PanAm 103 flew from Frankfurt and was destroyed by a bomb built inside a Toshiba radio-cassette.

Timers matching the one used in the Lockerbie device were sold to both Libya and the East German secret service, the Stasi, which had close links to the PFLP-GC. 'I don't know what components the bomb contained,' Baer said, 'but there was very reliable information from multiple sources that (the PFLP-GC) were running around between East and West Germany and Sweden, trying to get the operation back on track. It's conceivable that the Stasi supplied components during a trip to East Germany.'

Baer said the components for the bomb were supplied by a terrorist known as Abu Elias, who was for a time the CIA's prime suspect but was never caught. 'He was the big centre of the investigation, but he was very elusive,' Baer said. Khreesat and Dalkamoni were on their way to meet Abu Elias when they were arrested in Germany. Abu Elias was a close associate of Abu Talb. Both lived in Sweden. [RB: More about Abu Elias can be found here and here.]

Talb had made a trip to Malta just weeks before the Lockerbie bombing. Clothes from a shop in Malta were packed in the suitcase which contained the PanAm 103 bomb.

Baer also claims the CIA has irrefutable intelligence that Talb and Dalkamoni were Iranian agents and were on a government roll of honour for their services to the 'Islamic revolutionary struggle against the west'. Baer added: 'Although it was not specific, Dalkamoni's citation praised him for achieving Iran's greatest- ever strike against the west'.

Iran had vowed 'the skies would rain with American blood' after a US battle cruiser, the USS Vincennes, accidentally shot down an Iranian Airbus over the Persian Gulf, killing 290 people, six months before the Lockerbie bombing.

'It doesn't take a genius to figure out where the $11m came from,' says Baer. He added that 'the information [would] be useful to the defence as much of it was of a type that would be admissible in court. Once the investigators had the timer evidence, which seemed to point to Libya, they stopped pursuing other leads -- that's the way most criminal investigations work. People sleep better at night if they think they have justice. Who wants an unsolved airplane bombing?'

Edinburgh University law professor Robert Black, the architect of the Lockerbie trial, said of Megrahi's defence not seeking to interview Baer: 'I don't know why they would act like this. Real hard evidence of a money transfer from Iran to the PFLP-GC is so supportive of the alternative theory behind the bombing that I'm at a loss to explain their actions.

'At the very least, you would interview the source of the information and make a decision once you have spoken to him. A lawyer's job is to provide a belt-and-braces defence for his client, so to refuse to even meet with Baer requires a lot of explaining.'

Copenhagen synagogue previously targeted by Lockerbie suspect Abu Talb

[The following are excerpts from an article datelined yesterday on the website of Frontpage Mag:]

It was a grim anniversary of sorts at the Great Synagogue in Copenhagen where a Jewish volunteer guard was shot keeping Muslim terrorist Omar El-Hussein out of a young girl’s Bat Mitzva.

Muslim terrorists had previously targeted the synagogue in 1985:

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) Bombs today destroyed the downtown office of a US airline and damaged a synagogue and Jewish home for the elderly, injuring 23 people, at least three seriously. Three Americans were among those suffering minor injuries, the US Embassy reported.

The bombings were the most serious acts of terrorism in recent memory in Denmark. The first bomb ripped open the Northwest Orient office, the only American airline office in the Danish capital. At least one other device was set off in a passageway bordering the synagogue and home for the elderly, in a narrow street deeper in the central city. The heavy wooden doors of the synagogue were blown down.

Seven residents of the nursing home adjacent to the synagogue were wounded.

While Islamic Jihad initially claimed responsibility, the actual perpetrators were a Muslim terrorist cell that had gained asylum in Sweden who belonged to a splinter group of the PLO. The leader of that cell, Mohammed Abu Talb, was alleged to be connected to the Lockerbie bombing. At trial, he claimed to be “not innocent” of the synagogue bombing.

A Swedish court reduced his sentence from life to thirty years and there are reports that he was already released.

Call for Lord Advocate to step back from Lockerbie case

[What follows is excerpted from a report in today’s edition of The Herald:]

The lawyer who was the architect of the Lockerbie trial in a foreign country believes the Lord Advocate must excuse himself from deciding whether to mount criminal proceedings against those who led the investigation.

Professor Robert Black QC, a former law academic at Edinburgh University, said it was particularly important that Scotland's top prosecutor, Frank Mulholland QC, step aside (...)

Three years ago, the Justice for Megrahi group, which believes the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was innocent, submitted nine allegations of criminality on the part of police, Crown officials and expert witnesses in the case.

A police report is expected to be submitted to the Crown Office in the summer, and it will then be for the Lord Advocate to decide whether to take further action.

Well-placed sources have indicated that at least some of the allegations appear to stand up to scrutiny, so Mr Mulholland, who as recently as the 26th anniversary of the bombing in December publicly defended the safety of the conviction, would face a difficult decision.

Prof Black said Mr Mulholland must avoid that scenario and step aside before the police report is submitted.

He added: "Given that any charges would be against police officers subject to direction by the Crown Office; forensic scientists instructed and called as witnesses by the Crown Office; and members of the Crown Office's prosecution team at the Lockerbie trial, there is an obvious conflict of interest involved in the current head of the Crown Office being the person to decide whether prosecutions should be commenced." (...)

A police spokesman said: "Police Scotland continue to progress live investigation and as such it would be inappropriate to comment further."

A spokesman for the Crown Office said: "The allegations made by Justice For Megrahi are being considered by Police Scotland in accordance with due process. It would be inappropriate to offer further comment at this stage."

Jet blast case was 'botched'

The following are items from today’s Scottish edition of The Sun on Sunday:

[The second of the above items reads in part:]

Three years ago, Dr Swire, 78, and the Justice for Megrahi campaign group submitted nine claims of wrongdoing to Holyrood.

Now a police dossier is expected to prove several key points.

A source said yesterday: “Investigators set about testing them.

“It seems some are broadly true but were the result of incompetence and could not be said to be criminal. But that doesn’t appear to be the case across the board.”

The report could uphold accusations that false evidence was given in Megrahi’s 2001 trial.

It will go to Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland in the summer, who will then decide if criminal charges should be brought.

At best disingenuous, at worst an outright lie

What follows is taken from an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2008:

Jack Straw, Lord Chancellor and Minister of Justice in the United Kingdom Government (and Foreign Secretary at the time of the Libya-UK prisoner transfer negotiations) has a letter published today in The Herald denying that any deal has been done with Libya regarding the repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi. A prisoner transfer agreement has been concluded with Libya, from which Megrahi is not specifically excluded, but any decision on whether he will benefit under it rests with the Scottish Government. [RB: The letter itself is no longer to be found on The Herald’s website. However, the coverage of the story on the BBC News website can be accessed here.]

None of what Mr Straw says is in any way controversial. But it avoids the issue: what were the Libyans led to expect and believe when the UK Foreign Office was negotiating the agreement; and why was the Scottish Government (host to the only Libyan prisoner in Britain about whom Libya is in any way concerned) kept in the dark? These issues are dealt with in earlier posts on this blog. See

http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2007/12/libyan-prisoner-transfer.html

and

http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/02/prisoner-transfer-again.html.

[RB: The second of these items contains the following passage:]

The truth of the matter is this. The UK Foreign Office (and officials in the office of the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair) entered into negotiations with Libya for a reciprocal prisoner transfer agreement. Both sides were perfectly well aware that the only Libyan prisoner in a British jail about whom the Libyans had the slightest concern was Megrahi. The Libyan negotiators believed, rightly believed, and were known by the UK negotiators to believe that the agreement they were drafting would cover Megrahi. The London Government did not have the courtesy to inform the Scottish Government (which is responsible for prisons and prisoners in Scotland) that these negotiations were taking place. When the Scottish Government found out about them and complained to the UK Government, the latter announced that (a) the proposed agreement was not intended to cover Megrahi and (b) even if it were, the final decision on the transfer of any Libyan prisoner in a Scottish jail would rest with the Scottish Government. The latter proposition was and is correct. The former was not: it was at best disingenuous and at worst (and probably more accurately) an outright lie.

The Justice Committee and the Crown Office

[The Official Report (Hansard) relating to the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee’s consideration on 3 February 2015 of Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) calling for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial can be accessed here. What follows is an excerpt:]

The Convener (Christine Grahame):

PE1370 is on an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction. The committee has received the record of the latest meeting between the Justice for Megrahi campaign and Police Scotland and correspondence from JFM highlighting recent comments by the Lord Advocate on the Megrahi investigation. Do members have any comments to make on the material that we have received, or are we content simply to note the updates and the developments with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission application that are referred to in the paper? I should say that the application to the court will be sub judice—that is a little cautionary line for you. Are members content to continue the petition until we see the outcome of the other matters that are on-going?

John Finnie:

I think that the committee is content to do so and I am pleased about that. However, it is important to pick up on some of the comments that were made by the Justice for Megrahi people, not least those on the role of the Lord Advocate in the broadest sense and not relating specifically to any on-going matter.

In September and December 2012 and, more recently, in December last year, the Lord Advocate compromised—to my mind—the potential for him to be viewed as an honest broker when it comes to receiving the report from Police Scotland. Although I am delighted that Police Scotland gets a ringing endorsement from the Justice for Megrahi committee for the diligent work that it is doing, there are challenges ahead that will relate not only to the delivery of the reports to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and that we might have some regard to in the future.

Gil Paterson (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP):

My point is similar but I go in the opposite direction, so I would need to get advice on this at some point. Setting aside the case in question and talking about the generality of people who have been convicted, I think that the Crown Office automatically assumes that they are guilty and will defend that position except when new evidence is brought forward for it to consider, perhaps for an appeal. My understanding has always been that, no matter what crime has been committed, the Crown Office cannot take a “mebbes aye, mebbes naw” attitude but must be clear that, if somebody has been convicted, that is how it is. My view is that the Crown Office will defend that position until new evidence comes forward, but I would need some advice on that.

The Convener:

I think that it is appropriate that, if somebody has been convicted, they are considered guilty—otherwise we would have turmoil within the justice system. However, I take your point and I have some comments to make on that myself.

Roderick Campbell (North East Fife) (SNP):

I highlight the fact that, as Deputy Chief Constable Livingstone says in the note that the committee has received, “an independent QC” was appointed to provide “the police investigation with an appropriate level of scrutiny prior to reporting the findings to Crown Office, which was clearly not the normal procedure.” There is an acceptance that it is an unusual situation. I think that Mr Finnie’s comments should be tempered with that point.

The Convener:

“Tempered” was the word that I was thinking about. Another issue—however we get to the nub of it—is who investigates the Crown Office. The Crown Office cannot investigate itself. I think that that is where you are going with your comments, John, is it not?

John Finnie:

Yes, indeed, and we looked at that area before. I should say that Mr Finnie always seeks to temper his comments and, believe you me, these are extremely tempered comments given what I would like to say.

There is an obligation on the committee to consider the issue when respected citizens are called “conspiracy theorists” and accusations that they make in good faith are described as deliberately false and misleading. That does not suggest that an open posture is being adopted by the COPFS.

The Convener:

Do you think that we are conspiracy theorists, John, as members of JFM?

John Finnie:

I do not consider myself to be a conspiracy theorist.

The Convener:

Neither do I.

Scottish Labour's "astonishing hypocrisy"

An item originally posted on this blog four years ago today:

Kenny MacAskill: I stand by Lockerbie decision

[This is the headline over a report by Ben Borland in today's edition of the Sunday Express. It reads in part:]

Kenny MacAskill yesterday broke his recent silence over the continuing Lockerbie saga and insisted he stood by his controversial decision to free the bomber.

In an exclusive hard-hitting interview with the Sunday Express, the defiant Justice Secretary insisted he was not involved in any “murky machinations” or deals and accused Scottish Labour of “astonishing hypocrisy”.

He also categorically denied that he had been swayed by “economic, diplomatic, or any other considerations” and said he acted in an “open and honest way” at all times.

And in a move designed to end conspiracy theories surrounding the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, Mr MacAskill said he planned to press ahead with changes to the law that would allow secret papers relating to Libyan’s appeal to be made public.

The Justice Secretary’s intervention in the on-going row puts his career on the line and comes amid mounting anger at the emergence of attempted back room deals ahead of Megrahi’s release in 2009.Documents released last week sparked accusations Holyrood ministers had brokered agreements with Westminster over air gun powers and legislative change to save millions in compensation for prisoners forced to ‘slop out’.

But Mr MacAskill told the Sunday Express yesterday: “The decision on Megrahi was mine to take and mine alone – and I did so according to the due process and practice of Scots Law, without regard to economic, diplomatic, or any other considerations.

“I rejected the prisoner transfer application, and granted compassionate release. Many people agree with that decision and many disagree, and I respect the views of all the relatives, in all of the 21 countries affected by the atrocity.

“But I hope that everyone accepts I took it in an open and honest way - in stark contrast to the murky machinations of the former UK Labour Government, who we now know changed their policy in secret and did everything they could to facilitate Megrahi’s release for commercial and political reasons.

"And the astonishing hypocrisy of Labour in Scotland who attacked a decision that their own government in London supported.”

Prime Minister David Cameron last week ruled out an inquiry despite a new report showing the previous Labour government had gone out of its way to help Libya in order to secure lucrative oil and military contracts. (...)

Mr MacAskill has now promised to publish full details of the 2007 Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) ruling Megrahi may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

The father-of-five was granted leave to appeal by the courts watchdog but was struck by illness and dropped the bid shortly before his release.

Mr MacAskill, who has rarely spoken publicly about the decision that will define his career, said: “We should be proud of our justice system in Scotland. We have nothing to hide – that is why I will publish a Bill soon in the new Parliament so that we can make this further report available.

“I believe that Megrahi was guilty, but I accept that many do not. We will never all agree on these matters, but I hope we can agree that no one in Scotland should have anything to fear from having the maximum possible information about this issue in the public domain.”

Campaigners described Mr Mac-Askill’s acknowledgment that many do not believe Megrahi was behind the 1988 disaster – in which 270 people were killed – as a significant development.

Dr Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter, Flora, died in the bombing, said: “Both MacAskill and Salmond have always stuck to the mantra that they absolutely believe in the guilt of Megrahi, although I don’t understand how they can be so sure when the SCCRC has said there may have been a miscarriage of justice.

“This is a very welcome modification acknowledging perhaps for the first time that doubts exist in the community. I think the SCCRC rulings might well be intensely embarrassing to the office of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office.”

[An interesting article headed Many shades of Gray as Megrahi row hypocrisy emerges appears in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It is by regular columnist Duncan Hamilton, one of my former students and a former SNP MSP. I wish he would now turn his journalistic talents towards the scandal of the Megrahi conviction and the shameful and incomprehensible failure of the SNP government to institute an independent inquiry.]

US policy informed by expert dunces

[What follows is an excerpt from an article by Bruce Fein published yesterday on the website of The Washington Times:]

US foreign policy is informed by expert dunces, who chronically give birth to calamities. (...)

Exemplary is the advice of Kenneth M Pollack, a senior fellow at the prestigious Brookings Institution, to bring stability and legitimacy to the government of Iraq through a Shiite-Sunni power sharing dispensation. Writing in The New York Times (“ISIS is Losing Iraq. But What Happens Next?” Feb 4, 2015), Mr Pollack insinuates that US national security would be profoundly impaired if Iraq falls into a Shiite-Sunni civil war.

That conclusion is far from self-evident, and Mr Pollack fails to articulate a single reason for believing that it is true. Numerous countries are plagued with civil strife irrelevant to the security of the United States. Think of Somalia, Libya, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Mali, the Central African Republic, Sudan, South Sudan, Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.

The United States does not revel in the misery of other peoples. But our national security would be no more implicated in a Shiite-Sunni civil war than it was by the Rwandan genocide of Tutus by Hutsi in 1994. (...)

In 1991, the United States encouraged Iraq’s Marsh Arabs to revolt against Saddam Hussein, and then abandoned them to Saddam’s mercy. The United State supported Saddam in his 1980-88 war with Iran, and then switched to overthrow and kill him in 2003. The United States normalized relations with Libya’s Col Muammar Gaddafi for destroying weapons of mass destruction, renouncing terrorism, and paying compensation for the Lockerbie bombing. Then we flipped and commenced war against Gaddafi in 2011, which led to his ouster and murder by our allies.

No Shiite or Sunni in Iraq with minimal intelligence would trust the United States not to double-cross them, for instance, abandoning Iraq’s Sunnis to cut a nuclear deal with Shiite Iran, or betraying Iraq’s Shiites to solidify relations with Saudi Arabia, including undiminished production of oil to keep international prices low and Russia, Venezuela, and Iran economically destitute.

Expert dunces need to be driven out of the nation’s foreign policy arena as Jesus drove out money changers from the Temple.

[Another relevant article by Bruce Fein can be accessed here.]