Vested interests deeply opposed to appeal continuing

[What follows is excerpted from a report published in The Independent on this date in 2009:]

… the only person convicted over the Lockerbie bombing, is expected to learn today that he will be released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds so that he can return to Libya, his homeland.

Al-Megrahi, 57, has prostate cancer and perhaps only three months to live. His fate is in the hands of Kenny MacAskill, Justice Secretary in the Scottish National Party (SNP) administration in Edinburgh. (...)

Al-Megrahi, anxious to spend his final days with his family, has become a pawn in a complex game of international chess. Suspicions that a deal has already been struck were fuelled by reports that he has been sending possessions to Libya from his specially-built cell in Greenock Prison.

In London, ministers dismiss conspiracy theories about a classic fix involving the UK and Scottish governments and Libya. They insist that the decision is purely a judicial one for the Scottish authorities. And yet there seems to be a coalition of overlapping interests pushing for the complicated case to be closed.

For its part, the British Government is reluctant to see the disclosure of further documents from foreign sources which al-Megrahi’s legal team want to be made public. “There are a number of vested interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal continuing as they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth behind Lockerbie,” claimed Christine Grahame, an outspoken SNP member of the Scottish Parliament who has met al-Megrahi several times in prison. She claims that “new information” would make clear al-Megrahi had nothing to do with the bombing. It might have come to light during an appeal in which the Crown is seeking to lengthen his 27-year minimum sentence.

Ms Grahame said that after the Libyan Government paid $803m in compensation to families of the bombing’s victims, the US and Britain were allowed to invest £800m in Libya’s oil industry. “There are dirty deals here,” she said.

The affair is traumatic for the families of the 270 people who died when Pan Am flight 103 exploded over the Dumfriesshire town of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, including 189 Americans. Some fear the release of al-Megrahi would mean the truth about Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity being buried forever. While relatives of many of the US victims believe the former Libyan intelligence officer is guilty, several of their Scottish counterparts are not convinced.

They would be alarmed if his release meant the end of their long quest.

With the spotlight on Edinburgh, London’s role has been largely eclipsed. The man who may have started the ball rolling is Tony Blair, on a visit to Col Gaddafi’s famous tent in Libya in 2004, when they broke the ice and agreed to negotiate a prisoner transfer agreement. Another option is for al-Megrahi to serve the rest of his sentence in a Libyan jail, although this is thought less likely than release on compassionate grounds.

What diplomats politely call “choreography” was stepped up last month when Gordon Brown discussed the case with Col Gaddafi at their first meeting, in the margins of a G8 summit in Italy. Their talks also covered oil prices, with Mr Brown expressing concern that the latest spike could choke off global economic recovery. Downing Street is adamant that the Prime Minister stressed he could not intervene in a judicial decision. But one Whitehall source admitted yesterday: “It was clear this case is very, very important to the Libyans.”

No plot would be complete without an appearance by Lord Mandelson. Although Mr Brown’s talks may have been more significant, the ubiquitous Business Secretary discussed the al-Megrahi case with Col Gaddafi’s son during his recent holiday in Corfu.

Yesterday Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, used rather undiplomatic language to make a last-minute appeal to Mr MacAskill for al-Megrahi to remain in prison. She said: “I knew a lot of these families. I talked with them about what a horror they experienced. I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime.”

There are suspicions in Scotland that Ms Clinton is playing to the domestic gallery. Alex Salmond, the SNP First Minister, insisted: “There will be no consideration of international power politics or anything else. It will be taken on the evidence in the interest of justice.”

The intense speculation has fuelled criticism of the SNP administration, which has had an unfortunate debut on the world stage. Mr MacAskill has been widely criticised for meeting al-Megrahi in prison on 5 August. That made it personal, and gave the rumour mill about a deal another turn.

Al-Megrahi’s release would provoke new demands by Lockerbie families for an independent inquiry into the bombing. But they are not confident of securing their long-standing aim. “We are back where we started 21 years ago,” said Rev John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, died in the attack.

Victims' families: worst possible outcome

[This is part of the headline over a report published on the website of The Guardian on this date in 2009. It reads as follows:]

Relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster said today they feared vital evidence that could shed more light on the attack would remain hidden after the courts in Scotland granted the bomber's request to drop his appeal.

The families of some of the people who were killed in the attack had hoped the hearings, granted by the Scottish authorities after a three-year investigation, would uncover new details about the bombing that killed 270 people.

"This is the worst possible decision for the relatives," said Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter was killed on board Pan Am flight 103, which exploded as it flew over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988. "There now seems little chance of this evidence being heard and scrutinised in public."

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of murder for his part in the bombing, and who now has terminal prostate cancer, has hinted strongly that he was secretly offered a deal to secure his quick, early, release from prison.

Appeal judges in Edinburgh were told yesterday that the 57-year-old was convinced that abandoning his long-running appeal against his conviction would "assist in the early determination" of the application to be sent back to Libya.

Maggie Scott QC, the head of Megrahi's legal team, increased suspicion of an unofficial deal by saying her client, who is now very weak, in severe pain and distressed, believed he would get home quickly only if he gave up the appeal.

She hinted that Megrahi believed that keeping the appeal "alive" meant the Scottish government would either block or delay his applications for compassionate release, including a separate prisoner transfer bid to be sent home to continue his sentence in a Libyan jail.

"His absolute priority in the little time he has left is to spend it with his family in his homeland," she told the court. "It's the appellant's belief that instructions to abandon his appeal will assist in the early determination of these applications."

Alex Salmond, the first minister, denied the claims, saying his government had "no interest whatsoever" in Megrahi abandoning his appeal, adding that the decision would be made by the justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, only on "the evidence received and the advice received".

He added: "There will be no consideration of international power politics or anything else, it will be taken on the evidence in the interest of justice."

Scotland's government has come under increasing pressure not to release Megrahi in recent days. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has phoned MacAskill urging him not to release the Libyan, and yeserday it emerged that seven US senators – including Edward Kennedy and John Kerry – had written to the justice secretary outlining their concerns. But expectations were growing last night that MacAskill was likely to free Megrahi, on compassionate grounds within days, after telling colleagues he was "very close" to a decision. It appeared that MacAskill had already ruled out using the prisoner transfer treaty after it emerged that he had made no attempt to clear away one significant obstacle to Megrahi's transfer.

The lord advocate, Elish Angiolini, is pursuing a separate appeal to get Megrahi's 27-year minimum sentence increased, but under the treaty no transfer can take place if criminal proceedings, including any appeals, are live. However, the next court hearing for Angiolini's appeal will take place on 8 September – at least a week after MacAskill's self-imposed deadline for a decision.

Legal sources said Angiolini had repeatedly told the Scottish government she would make a much quicker decision on dropping her appeal if MacAskill asked, but this request had never been made.

Megrahi was convicted of mass murder in 2001 for the 1988 bombing over Lockerbie, which killed all 259 people on board and 11 people in the Scottish town.

After protracted international pressure he was put on trial with his co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, under Scots law, at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. Megrahi was found guilty and ordered to serve a minimum of 27 years. Fhimah was found not guilty and freed.

Relatives of the victims said that though dropping the appeal meant many questions would go unanswered they would not give up their campaign to uncover the truth.

The Rev John Mosey, who lost his 19-year-old daughter, Helga, called the decision "incredibly frustrating" but not unexpected. "The relatives of those who died have been denied access to the evidence that was uncovered by a three-year investigation by the Scottish criminal cases review commission. Unfortunately it is what we expected from the beginning because the authorities – in Scotland, London and Washington – do not want any more information on this coming out."

Jean Berkley, whose son Alistair died in the bombing, agreed the decision was a blow but said the focus would now shift to getting a full independent inquiry. "The families are used to setbacks so we will continue the campaign, but this is difficult because people set lots of store by the appeal and now we are not going to hear the evidence that persuaded the [commission] to grant the hearing in the first place." Alistair's brother, Matt, said: "Many people with a deep understanding of this case have serious concerns about it which are unlikely to go away."

The Lockerbie scapegoat

This is the headline over an article by Tam Dalyell that was published in The Spectator on this date in 2002. It reads as follows:]

There is an innocent man languishing in the Barlinnie jail in Glasgow tonight, and, all too probably, he will be there every night for the next 19 years. He is alone, far removed from his culture and his religion, blamed and punished for the biggest mass murder in British history, on British soil: the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988. His name is Abdelbaset al Megrahi. Recently Jack Straw rejected Nelson Mandela's calls for Megrahi to be allowed to serve the rest of his sentence in a Muslim country. I am convinced that he is the victim of the most spectacular miscarriage of justice in British legal history.

Three senior judges — Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean — sitting in the Scottish Court in Zeist in the Netherlands without a jury, found Megrahi guilty in January 2001. The only evidence used to convict him was a few scraps of clothing found in the wreckage that were thought to have been wrapped around the bomb. These had been traced back to a shop in Malta where the owner, Tony Gauci, identified Megrahi from a photograph as the buyer. Inconsistencies within Gauci's testimony, such as that his initial description of the purchaser did not resemble Megrahi, and confusion over the date of the purchase were never resolved.

At no point did Megrahi get the chance to tell his story. When I went to see him with his solicitor, Mr Eddie McKechnie, in Barlinnie, he expressed his dismay that his previous defence team had prevailed upon him, against his every instinct, not to go into the witness box. Had he done so, he would have made the convincing case that he was not a member of the Libyan intelligence services, but a sanctions-buster, scouring Africa and South America and the Boeing Company for spare parts to allow Libyan Arab Airlines to continue operating in the face of sanctions.

Earlier this year Megrahi took his case to the appeal court, but the judges — Lord Cullen, Lord Kirkwood, Lord Macfadyen, Lord Nimrno Smith and Lord Osborne — did not address the issue of whether the evidence had been sufficient to establish Megrahi's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead they merely pointed out that his defence had accepted that there was enough evidence and had expressly disavowed any claim of 'miscarriage of justice'. I see their difficulty. It is one thing for the appeal court to tell a jury that they have arrived at an unreasonable verdict. It is another for one senior and four relatively junior judges to tell three of their most senior judicial colleagues, who have heard the evidence at first hand, that they have arrived at an absurd conclusion in finding Megrahi guilty. Whatever qualms they harboured, the appeal judges cannot have been unmindful of the fact that this would have made the Scottish legal process the laughing-stock of the world.

There should have been an inquiry. For an adversarial system of justice to arrive at the truth requires both of the adversaries to place before the court all information that was available to them. In the Lockerbie trial, the defence team of Abdelbaset al Megrahi chose not to do so. In such circumstances, the adversarial system simply does not work, and the objective becomes not to uncover the truth, but to find someone to shoulder the blame.

The British relatives of the Lockerbie victims were, as far back as 19 September 1989, offered an inquiry by the then secretary of state for transport. Cecil Parkinson — subject, he said, as they filed out of his room, to the agreement of colleagues. Somewhat sheepishly on 5 December 1989. Parkinson told the relatives that it had been decided at the highest level that there would be no inquiry.

For many years, I deduced that, since no other minister could at that time tell Cecil what to do in his own ministry, the 'highest level' must have been the prime minister. On 16 July 2002 I had the opportunity of asking Margaret Thatcher why she had refused an inquiry. She was mystified. She told me that it had not been put to her. I believe her. I suspect it was American Intelligence that prevailed.

The distinguished Austrian jurist Dr Hans Köchler, international observer, nominated by Kofi Annan wrote:

“As far as the material aspects of due process and fairness of the trial are concerned, the presence of at least two representatives of a foreign government in the courtroom during the entire period of the trial was highly problematic. The two state prosecutors from the US Department of Justice were seated next to the prosecution team. They were not listed in any of the official information documents about the court's officers produced by the Scottish Court Service, yet they were seen talking to the prosecutors while the court was in session, checking notes and passing on documents. For an independent observer watching this from the visitors' gallery, this created the impression of 'supervisors' handling vital matters of the prosecution strategy and deciding, in certain cases, which documents (evidence) were to be released in open court or what parts of information contained in a certain document were to be withheld (deleted)... Because of the role they played during the trial, the continued presence of the two US representatives introduced into the appeal proceedings a political element that should have been avoided.”

The brief given by the Foreign Office to their incoming new minister, Mike O'Brien (who, to his credit, has gone to Libya as the first British minister to do so for two decades, in response to my [17th!] Adjournment Debate on Lockerbie), was misleading. For example, Hansard, 23 July 2002, records O'Brien as saying in his prepared reply, 'The destruction of Pan Am 103 was followed by equally savage attacks on UTA flight 772 and the La Belle Disco.'

Surely the Foreign Office ought to have known that the Lockerbie tragedy happened two-and-a-half years after the incident at La Belle Disco. Given such casual and sloppy Foreign Office replies, why should those of us who have become 'Professors of Lockerbie Studies' over the last 14 years believe anything that the British and American governments tell us?

Two days after Lockerbie, $11 million was paid from sources in Iran to a bank in Lausanne. The money then moved to the Banque National de Paris, and onwards to the Hungarian Development Bank, ending up at the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, General Command — the original Lockerbie suspects two years before Libya came into the frame. Is this a coincidence? [RB: This aspect of the story is comprehensively debunked by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer here.]

I believe that Libya was used by the West as a scapegoat for raisons d'etat: the US and Britain did not want to enrage Iran and Syria as they launched the Gulf war against Iraq. I believe Megrahi was also a scapegoat, used by the West for the same reasons.

But while his friends — including his British relatives, the Austrian jurist Dr Hans Köchler, President Mandela, and determined new lawyers in the persons of Eddie McKechnie and Margaret Scott QC — keep on fighting, there is hope that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board or the European Commission on Human Rights could reverse injustice.

Lockerbie – the cover-up

[This is the headline over an article that was published in the Scottish edition of the Mail on Sunday on this date in 2009. It reads as follows:]

The wrong man was jailed for the Lockerbie bombing and the real suspect allowed to escape justice to satisfy political motives, a damning investigation can reveal.

The Scottish Mail on Sunday can today publish remarkable details from a report by two leading investigators which throws major doubt on the conviction of Libyan agent Abdel-baset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. He is expected to be freed from a Scottish prison this week after serving eight years of a life sentence for the bombing. The report would have formed the basis of Megrahi's appeal against his conviction, a case which will never be heard after he dropped his legal challenge in return for his early release.

The investigation finds that the man almost certain to have conducted the attack was Mohammed Abu Talb, a convicted Palestinian terrorist with the backing, finance, equipment and contacts to have carried out the atrocity. It also places Talb at the scene where parts of the suitcase bomb were bought – and in Britain when it exploded over Lockerbie. But instead of pursuing Talb and his Iranian backers, the report claims the American and British manhunt was ordered to find a link to Libya and its leader, Colonel Gaddafi.

In a damning verdict on the case, the investigators conclude:'We are convinced Mr … Megrahi's conviction was based on flawed evidence … Megrahi's conviction was based on fundamentally flawed evidence. We have never seen a criminal investigation in which there has been such a persistent disregard of an alternative and far more persuasive theory of the case.This leads us to believe the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing was directed off-course as a result of government interference.'

Talb, serving a life sentence in Sweden for a fatal bombing campaign in the Eighties, was a key witness in the prosecution case against Megrahi in the Scottish courts, for which he received immunity from prosecution. However, the investigation on behalf of Megrahi's defence team by a former UK terror chief and a former US prosecutor who has worked for the British government provides compelling evidence that Talb was the bomber. The report reveals that:

· Talb had clothing from the same Maltese shop as that packed in the suitcase that carried the bomb on board Pan Am Flight 103;

· Talb's alibi that he was in Sweden at the time of the bombing was false, he was in London meeting other terrorists with an unprimed bomb;

· Talb had bribed a corrupt employee at Heathrow to get a suit case through security unchecked;

· Talb was paid $500,000 only four months after the bombing.

Megrahi is expected to fly to Libya after being granted his freedom on compassionate grounds. Officials insist the move followed assurances he has terminal cancer and has only three months to live. However, it is also understood that a condition of Megrahi's release was that he dropped his appeal, because the UK Government and the Scottish justice system were keen to prevent embarrassing details about the case emerging.

At the centre of the alleged cover-up is evidence that Libya, then a pariah state to the US and Britain, was singled out for responsibility to suit political motives, when in fact the bombing was carried out by Talb on the orders and funding of Iran in revenge for the shooting down of its airliner by a US warship.

The Scottish Mail on Sunday has uncovered much of the evidence that would be a source of embarrassment. In recent years, we have revealed that critical evidence was manipulated and even planted, that the key witness was coached by detectives and rewarded for his ever-changing statements and that recent forensic tests conducted on crucial items of evidence shattered the Crown's case.

Now we have obtained documents which outline evidence that the leading player responsible for taking 270 lives in Lockerbie on December 21, 1988, was not Megrahi but Talb. The report carries weight because of the calibre of those who amassed the evidence - Jessica de Grazia, a former senior New York prosecutor who led an investigation for the UK Attorney General's office into the Serious Fraud Office, and Philip Corbett, a former deputy head of Scotland Yard's Anti-Terrorist Branch. Their access to informed sources in Middle East intelligence gives their report particular authority.

Instructed by Megrahi's defence team after his conviction in January 2001, de Grazia and Corbett placed Talb in key locations in Europe with terrorist leaders in the months prior to the Lockerbie bombing. Much of the evidence implicating Talb was known to the Crown and defence prior to the trial of Megrahi. Talb had links to at least two terror groups, in particular the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) and was a strong suspect. The PFLP-GC, funded by Iran and led by the Syrian Ahmed Jibril, was the first suspect in the Lockerbie case. A cell based in Europe in 1988 was led by Jibril's deputy, Hafez Dalkamoni, with Talb one of their most trusted lieutenants.

However, despite the belief that Iran was responsible, the outbreak of the first Gulf War in 1990 caused a major political shift in the investigation. A secret deal for Allied war-planes to use Iranian airspace to attack Iraq required the US and British governments to stop its pursuit of the Lockerbie bombers and their Iranian connections. Libya was instead chosen as the prime suspect.

When the focus of the investigation switched, the evidence gathered against Talb and the PFLP-GC was effectively discarded by Scottish and US investigators. However, de Grazia and Corbett say evidence almost certainly proved an Iranian-backed plot.

Five months before Lockerbie, the American vessel USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian Airbus over the Persian Gulf. All 290 people on board perished. Iran vowed vengeance and promised that the skies would run with the blood of Americans. Three months later, in October 1988, German secret police raided a flat in Germany where Dalkamoni's cell was making Semtex bombs contained in Toshiba radio-cassettes designed to bring down aircraft, identical to the device used in the Lockerbie attack two months later. Although the Germans seized five devices, the bombmaker Marwan Khreesat told them a sixth had been removed by Dalkamoni.

De Grazia and Corbett's investigation reveals that Dalkamoni and Talb had been friends since 1980 and met, including in Malta, in the weeks before the bombing. De Grazia was also told by intelligence sources that 'because of his abilities, Talb was given Lockerbie to carry out'. The investigation says the missing bomb from Germany was probably taken to Malta for safe-keeping before being packed, unprimed, by Talb before its journey to London.

A Maltese connection had also been a focal point of the prosecution's case during Megrahi's trial. They argued that shopkeeper Tony Gauci identified Megrahi as the buyer of clothes later packed in the bomb case. However, de Grazia and Corbett say that Gauci also identified Talb as the man who 'most resembled' the buyer. Although Gauci's evidence about Megrahi provided key eyewitness evidence to the prosecution's case, it emerged that the store owner had been given paid holidays to Scotland as well as being coached by investigators in his evidence. De Grazia and Corbett say Gauci's evidence against Talb would have been just as strong if it had been pursued. Their report says the most conclusive link between Talb and the clothing bought from Gauci's shop was the discovery of a cardigan in his flat in Sweden. The cardigan was traced to a manufacturer on the Maltese island of Gozo, a firm that supplied Gauci.

The investigation says, based on their evidence, the plan was to launch the attack from Malta but this was dropped because of security at the island's airport. Talb and his colleagues decided Heathrow's security would be easier to crack. It emerged after the bombing there had been a security breach at Heathrow when a lock was forced near Pan Am's airside berths. Corbett describes the probe into the breach as 'inadequate'. Their inquiries uncovered evidence that on an earlier visit to London, Talb bribed an employee to get an unchecked case airside.

Crucially, the report exposes Talb's alibi for December 21. He was not, as he claimed, caring for the children of a relative who was giving birth in a Swedish hospital. They found that on December 19 he sailed from Sweden to Britain, arriving in London on December 21, the day of the bombing. There he met other terrorists, including bomber Abu Elias and Martin Imandi, who are thought to have been in possession of the device left on Flight 103.

After the bombing, De Grazia and Corbett say more evidence emerges linking Talb and his terror cell to the atrocity. They highlight evidence obtained via ex-CIA agent Robert Baer that the Iranian government paid $11 million into a European bank account held by the PFLP-GC two days later. An account held by Talb in Frankfurt was later credited with $500,000. In their conclusions, De Grazia and Corbett recommend forensic scrutiny of the timer fragment that was the only physical evidence in the case that pointed to Libya. That work showed the fragment had never been near an explosion, shattering the case against Megrahi.

The evidence gathered by De Grazia and Corbett would have been the cornerstone of Megrahi's appeal which was expected to have posed a serious challenge to his conviction. However, on Tuesday, as part of the private understanding between the dying Megrahi and the Scottish Executive, his lawyers will drop his appeal. The move will effectively close the chapter on Lockerbie, denying the public the opportunity to hear the full story behind the horror of December 21,1988.

[RB: John Ashton has advised circumspection about accepting the De Grazia and Corbett findings.]

Lockerbie’s shadow

[This is the headline over a report published on this date in 2003 in the Saudi Arabian English-language newspaper Arab News. It reads as follows:]

If it is correct that Libya has finally agreed to pay $2.7 billion to the relatives of the 270 victims of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 above Lockerbie in December 1988 and, far more importantly, is to take responsibility for the attack, the implications are considerable and unsettling.

On one level, the end of international sanctions which is supposed to follow will come as a huge relief to the Libyan people, who have suffered 15 years of economic and political isolation. Unemployment is put at 30 percent and economic stagnation has robbed tens of thousands of bright young graduates of proper career opportunities. The recent liberalization of the private sector will doubtless accelerate once Libya returns to its former place in the world.

But on another level it remains deeply disturbing that a sovereign state is about to admit that it was involved in a heinous act of terrorism. Even though one of the two members of the Libyan intelligence service who were eventually tried for their part in placing the bomb remains in prison (his colleague was found not guilty by an international court), it hardly seems possible that this man alone was responsible.

The question is how a public letter of confession to the United Nations, which is what is being demanded of it, will in any way ease the position of the Libyan government. The authorities in Tripoli have no doubt all along reasoned that compliance with this demand would hardly be the end of the matter.

Col Qaddafi’s government therefore finds itself between a rock and a hard place. If it actually knows the truth behind the Lockerbie bombing, admitting involvement as part of a legal settlement, it is almost certain, despite any guarantees to the contrary, to ignite claims for a further and possibly more extreme reckoning. If in reality it has no real idea of what happened, it has done itself no service by failing for the last 15 years to try and establish what really took place in the run-up to that fateful December day.

Qaddafi has worked hard to restore Libya’s international reputation. Libya is shortly hosting the first Pan-African oil conference and chairing a meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission. Yet the shadow of Lockerbie has always hung over such efforts. The Libyans have hoped that time would distance them from the devastating accusation of being a state that sponsored terrorism. But the bereaved relatives of Pan Am Flight 103 have acted as a slowly burning fuse. The moment the Libyan government bows to their demand to admit responsibility for Lockerbie, another terrible detonation could take place.

Libya looks to be damned if it does and certain to continue to be damned it doesn’t.

[RB: Libya’s letter accepting “responsibility for the actions of its officials” was delivered that same day. It can be read here.]

The French DST: Yves Bonnet & Lockerbie

[This is the headline over an article posted today on the GOSINT website. It reads in part:]

The Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST; English: Directorate of Territorial Surveillance) was a directorate of the French National Police operating as a domestic intelligence agency. It was responsible for counterespionage, counterterrorism and more generally the security of France against foreign threats and interference.

It was created in 1944 with its headquarters situated at 7 rue Nélaton in Paris. On 1 July 2008, it was merged with the Direction centrale des renseignements généraux into the new Direction centrale du renseignement intérieur.

The DST Economic Security and Protection of National Assets department had units in the 22 regions of France to protect French technology. It operated for 20 years, not only on behalf of defense industry leaders, but also for pharmaceuticals, telecoms, the automobile industry, and all manufacturing and service sectors. [Wikipedia]

Yves Bonnet was the DST Director November 1982 to August 1985.

Yves Bonnet

In the following video, Bonnet makes a remarkable allegation: he claims that Libya is NOT responsible for Lockerbie!

[RB: The video can be viewed here.]

“Ce n’est pas un ouvrage* consacrée à l’activité terroriste de la Libye, parce que je pense que sur ce sujet comme sur beaucoup d’autres, on a largement dépassé les limites de la verité et même du crédible.

Je prends pour exemple cette affaire de Lockerbie et également l’affaire du Ténéré** qui ont été imputées à la Libye alors que tous les Services de Renseignements savent que ces attentats ont été commis par Ahmed Jibril sous l inspiration et le financement de l’Iran.

Et cela, on le sait. Les Services Américains le savent, le MOSSAD le sait, la DGSE le sait et d ailleurs le Directeur de la DGSE de l’époque — Claude Silberzahn — ne s’est pas privé de le dire.

On peut écrire “La Libye’ d’une autre façon; on peut l’écrire  ‘L’Alibi’.

Je pense que ce pays est devenu, de part le personalité de son principal dirigeant — Muamar Kadhafi — un pays cible assez commode.”

Here is a rough translation:

“This is not a book* about to the terrorist activities of  Libya, because I think that, on this subject as on many others, we have far exceeded the limits of the truth and indeed credibility.

Let me take, for example the Lockerbie case and also the case of the Ténéré** that were blamed on Libya when all intelligence services know that these attacks were committed by Ahmed Jibril under the inspiration and funding from Iran.

We know this. The American Intelligence Agencies know it, the MOSSAD knows it, the DGSE knows it  and, in fact,  the then Director of the DGSE – Claude Silberzahn – was not shy to say it out loud.

You know, in French, ‘La Libye” and “L’alibi” sound the same….

I think Libya has become, because of the personality of its chief – Muammar Gaddafi — a rather convenient target country.”

[RB: *Yves Bonnet published two books in 2009 (the year of the video interview). It is not clear, at least to me, which one he is referring to. Details of the books can be found here and here.

** The Ténéré region of Chad is where UTA flight 772 was destroyed by a bomb on 19 September 1989.]

Libya agrees Lockerbie deal

[This is the headline over a report carried on the BBC News website on this date in 2003. It reads in part:]

Lawyers acting for families of the Lockerbie bombing victims say they have reached agreement with Libya on the payment of compensation.

The deal to set up a $2.7bn (£1.7bn) fund was struck with Libyan officials after negotiations in London.

Once the money is in place, Libya is expected to write to the United Nations saying it takes responsibility for the attack on Pan Am flight 103. (...)

Under the deal Libya was expected to start transferring the compensation money - up to $10m for every victim - into a Swiss bank account immediately.

The US is then expected to write to the UN Security Council to say it believes Libya has met the conditions for lifting of sanctions, which were suspended in 1999.

Britain would circulate a draft resolution calling for that step to be taken.

Lawyer Mark Zaid, who represents about 50 of the Lockerbie families, has been involved in the negotiations with the Libyan government.

He told BBC Scotland that the potential $10m pay-out was conditional on three events.

"The lifting of UN sanctions will result in a $4m pay-out," he explained.

"The lifting of US sanctions will result in a $4m pay-out and then if Libya is removed from the US State Department's state sponsored list of terrorists $2m will be paid."

David Ben-Aryeah, a spokesman for UK relatives, said there were "serious misgivings" about whether the two later instalments would ever be paid.

"The UK relatives, who have honoured me with their trust and friendship, have had two basic demands from the very first days - truth and justice," he said.

"We have had a form of justice but we have not had anything approaching the truth.

"They asked the foreign secretary for a full and independent inquiry. He rejected that request."

Mr Zaid said he hoped that the families would be told some of the language being used by Libya in its proposed acceptance of responsibility at [a] briefing on Friday.

"It would not surprise me if there are families who are not satisfied with the language," he said.

"The fact of the matter is that this is a financial deal for Libya. All Libya cares about is to extricate itself from these sanctions and re-enter the international and particularly the US market.

"The statement of responsibility will be diplomatic legalese. That's the way the process works.

"It will be a statement, most likely, that can be interpreted one way or the other depending on who the reader is."

He predicted that it would not go far enough for some families, who may decide to go forward with civil litigation.

George Williams, one of the leaders of the group representing the American families, said the language contained in the letter to the UN would be crucial.

"If he is just going to blame it on an individual citizen of Libya and say that the government has nothing to do with it then that is not acceptable at all," he said.

"I would just as soon have the UN sanctions re-imposed and continue until Colonel Gaddafi curls up in a corner and dies."

However, he said the compensation deal was "pretty much done".

"The only thing that would satisfy us more would be to have Gaddafi's head delivered on a platter over to the US and let us all walk by it and spit on it," he said.

[RB: Further details are to be found in Q&A: The Lockerbie compensation deal published by BBC News on the same day.]