[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 Wikipaedia 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 admissable 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-Megrahis 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 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.
Peter Biddulph writes "it is well known that there are two candidates to succeed Gaddafi. His son Saif al-Islam and his son-in-law Abdullah Senoussi."
ReplyDeleteAbdullah Senoussi (convicted in absentia for the bombing of UTA772) is not Colonel Gaddafi's son-in-law but his brother-in-law and as a veteran of the 1969 revolution is unlikely to be of an age to succeed Colonel Gaddafi. A more likely rival to Seif Al Islam would be one of his siblings such as Moutassim Billah.
Colonel Gaddafi's alleged and detailed "confession" (despite his "halting English" - I believe the Colonel speaks English fluently)deals with the "Vincennes Incident" and seems quite consistent with the views of Vincent Cannistraro expressed in the early (unfabricated) part of The Maltese Double Cross and in Leppard's On the Trail of Terror in which he expresses his belief in a "hand-off" following the arrest of the Autumn Leaves group.
If the Colonel believed the shootdown of flight 655 was not a mistake I am baffled as to why he would mention the "Stark incident" and the claim is repeated that the Vincennes misidentified the radar contact as an Iranian F-14 Tomcat.
In his memoirs "Storm Centre" skipper Will Rodgers claims he had briefed that the Iranians had converted F-4s (the Vietnam era Phantom fighter-bomber)to an attack role.
And from left field...
ReplyDeleteFirst, I suggest that Mr. Biddulph seek better sources "among those who study these things in the field," to avoid peddling the kind of utter nonsense that he is peddling about Abdalla Senoussi. Every pre-pubescent Libyan schoolchild knows Abdalla Senoussi is married to the sister of Gaddafi's first (estranged) wife, which does not make him his son-in-law. For Libyans, that does not even make him "Gaddafi's brother-in-law," but I can understand that degree of subtlety is beyond the reach of some western "investigative reporters" and their "field experts." This kind of info-trash is intended for certain audiences and observers, to lessen their reliance on clairvoyance and ESP, and give their misinformation the appearance of credible, concrete facts.
My other comment relates to timing and presentation. Prof. Black clearly left out the important information of the date of Mr. Duggan's e-mail, which also left the door open for any careless and ill-informed people to get whatever burr up their canal that suited their cause. What other reason could there be for Mr. Biddulph to declare this a "late announcement"? Maybe he means lately discovered, because it certainly was not released lately and certainly was not one of a kind. Even the reference that Prof. Black chose to throw in is quite misleading because De Borchgrave had published similar statements earlier, one going back to August of 2009, specifically on the eve (Aug 31) of the 40th anniversary of Gaddafi's military coup.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/31/release-lubricated-by-oil/
And here is an older article going back to 2004, where Mr. A. de Borchgrave told essentially the same story.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/8/23958.shtml
That's from six years ago. Is that recent by the standards of "those who study these things in the field"?
And there are even older references to Gaddafi's admission, which came out in a leaked German document, reportedly heard from Gaddafi by a foreign policy advisor to the German chancellor. This item was widely circulated in western media as far back as 2001. Is that also considered recent, or is it just that the starved European fringe elements always point their tongues to the winds blowing from the west?
The e-mail from Arnaud de Borchgrave to Frank Duggan is dated December 31, 2009 at 6.15pm GMT. The e-mail from Frank Duggan to me is dated December 31, 2009 at 7.21pm GMT.
ReplyDeleteThe published account that I cited is the first that pops up if you google "Borchgrave, Lockerbie".
The Borchgrave story is not really exciting. Gaddafi admitted "it"? What? That it was an Iranian project? That Libyan intelligence helped somehow - how? - but without knowing what it was all about? All hot air! Mr Borchgrave obviously believes that terror actions are prepared like tenders for subcontractors on all continents.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if that story was true it would not touch Mr Megrahi as a person - as Professor Black pointed out.
It seems that minor details can sometimes cause louder arguments from readers. Professor Black obviously has put forward all the important points in this infamous case, so what does it matter what Senusi is to Gaddafi? I hardly think that every pre-pubescent child in Libya knows who he is, Suliman. Mine don't. In Western terms he is in fact his brother -in-law because he is married to the sister of Gaddaf's present wife, not his divorcee.
ReplyDeleteUm Salwan: Actually, the misinformation about Abdalla Senoussi's relation to Gaddafi has nothing to do with anything that Prof. Black put forth on his authority. The misinformation that Senoussi is Gaddafi's son-in-law was put forth by someone else in the context of relaying "widely held field expertise." The fact is, Senoussi's relation to Gaddafi is no secret, and it does not require any special insight. If the purported field experts could not get that even approximately right, then it serves as a good measure of their authority.
ReplyDeleteFurther, Mr. Senoussi's relation to Gaddafi, by Libyan standards as I said, is not a brother-in-law. And I would add now that even by the standards of native English speakers, the relation is only secondarily described by the term. Some find it less ambiguous to say co-brother-in-law. By the way, I said that Senoussi's wife is the sister of Gaddafi's estranged--not divorced--wife. And I really have no way of knowing whether you are even Libyan, let alone what your pre-pubescent children do or do not know. My rhetorical generalization is just that, certainly not to be compared with evident falsehoods that are hawked as expert knowledge.
Of course, you may disagree with all that, especially since you are satisfied that all the important points have been already put forward in this case. One wonders, what's the point if, as the old saying goes, "The pens have been lifted, and the sheets have dried up!"
Now I know why it is Robert Black and Jim Swire who have convinced me of the truth regarding Lockerbie. Probably because they are 'native English speakers', who put forward their arguments clearly. Not Libyans being sarcastic.Suliman, I don't have to prove that I'm Libyan or not to make a point. As for 'co-brother-in-law' ...never heard of it. Obviously an American word.
ReplyDeleteBelieve anything in the Washington Times at your peril. It is the most useful outlet for dubious information.
ReplyDeleteWhy does everyone seem to regard Mr Cainnistraro as Lockerbie investigator, and indeed Mr Baer. Mr Marquise, the FBI lead, (though I am not actually sure of the date of his appointment says that Mr Baer's claim that he investigated Lockerbie was not known to him, and he doubted whether he (Baer) had any more knowledge than he had read in the newspapers.
Interesting response. I'd rather not get tangled in the details of who's who. This 'grave guy's story has apparent flaws all over it, his pedigree and mouthpiece are bot encouraging, the accusation is bold, unsupported, and called on as evidence for something elsewhere unsupported. No, "Gaddafy admitted it" cannot be reported as fact.
ReplyDeleteThe allegations reported should be noted for the record. Possibly in the "possible fact" category, or more likely the "media manipulation" category.
Charles
ReplyDeleteCannistraro headed the CIA's investigation until 1991(?IIRC). It was not part of the criminal one the FBI was working on w/the Scots (but it did feed in, like with Giaka).
I haven't hears anything about Baer being onvolved in this, but then I haven't heard much about this. He may overplay his "secret knowledge," but even with just a newspaper-level awareness and the right smarts, he could form valuable opinions. He doesn't buy the Libyan villain story and says so, so he's okay in my book and a know-nothing to some.
Of course Baer is also the farsighted prophet of Iranian evils, and he shares his belief in Libya's innocence with Ariel Sharon and others... so there's different ways to get there.
Arnaud de Borchgrave puts me in mind of Richard Rich in Robert Bolt's screenplay of "A Man for all Seasons".
ReplyDeletePeter Biddulph, in advancing the bizarre theory that Arnaud de Borchgrave's unremarkable story was part of some devious CIA plot to damage Abdullah Senoussi's unlikely "candidacy" in the "succession" (which Suliman described as "utter nonsense"), was prefaced by the words "we believe." I wonder who he means by "we"?
p.s. I see no reason to doubt Mr Cannistraro's role as a Lockerbie investigator although "intelligence" and criminal investigation are two different things.
I understand Mr Baer claims to have been involved in some relevant financial investigations although on the evidence of his memoirs Mr Baer is himself an aviation terrorist!
According to Wikipaedia 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.
ReplyDelete== I suspect anyone with a story told them by the CIA that he then publishes. The CIA are clearly not credible, especially about anything to do with Lockerbie. My own version of that atrocity uses known facts and an interpretation of what the CIA says, for the main part, and re-interprets them.
But I am informed by an expert on these matters…
And if this information was known in 1993....
It might be said to be hearsay, and therefore not admissable in court.
== Hearsay evidence was admitted at Zeist, but really only when it suited the prosecution.
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.
== Good point
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.
== And then is was changed to exclude the conspiracy with Mr Fhimah, when it appeared to the prosecution he would be acquitted.
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?
== Perhaps the FBI did not known, though I doubt if Mr Revell was in ignorance. He got his son off 103
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?
== Mr Marquise will tell you that he has facts and therefore cannot be doubted!
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?
== Surely it would not have been helpful. A film is not a trial.