Wednesday 9 December 2015

“I wonder who killed our relatives?”

[The following are excerpts from an article published on this date in 2000 on the website of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs by Ambassador Andrew I Killgore, the magazine’s editor and publisher:]

“I wonder who killed our relatives?”—A middle-aged American man on a BBC-TV program about the Lockerbie trial.

Pan American Flight 103 was destroyed by an on-board explosive device over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec 21, 1988. All 259 persons on board, most of them Americans, and 11 people on the ground were killed.

Two Libyans, Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, are on trial for the crime. The trial is being conducted, by Scottish judges under Scottish law, at Camp Zeist, a former US military base near Amsterdam, the Netherlands. According to Scottish law, the three judges may reach a finding of guilty, not guilty or not proven.

The prosecution’s operating theory is that the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 was in retaliation for the US bombing of Tripoli in 1986, which itself was in retaliation for Libyan involvement in the bombing of a Berlin disco frequented by American servicemen. As often seems to be the case, however, the US and Libya were not the only countries involved in the ever-ratcheting rounds of retaliation. (...)

The trial of the two accused Libyans has taken some bizarre turns. The most astonishing development is that the prosecution’s highly touted key witness, the pseudonymous Libyan intelligence service defector Abdul Majid Giaka, proved on the witness stand to lack any credibility. Moreover, CIA cables reluctantly made available to the Court depicted Giaka as an unsavory character whom CIA personnel themselves had distrusted.

A BBC television broadcast showed a group of people leaving the courtroom on the day Giaka performed so badly on the witness stand. Many in the group were relatives of Pan Am 103’s victims attending the trial at the expense of the US Department of Justice’s Office of Victim Services. The quote at the beginning of this article, by a member of the group who appeared to be an American, reflected a puzzled doubt of the Libya-did-it scenario.

Even more puzzling, if that is possible, is that CIA agent Harold M Hendershot, brought to the stand to buttress Giaka’s shaky testimony, himself turned out to be vague and not very credible. In view of the fact that Hendershot had been deeply involved in the case from the time of the crash in December 1988, one is left with a growing sense of confusion, rather than answers, about Lockerbie.

The Lockerbie trial recessed at the end of October for several days while the Court considered how to handle a mass of new material on Lockerbie presented by an “unnamed country.” Whether the material in this weird new turn in the trial is helpful to the prosecution or defense is unknown, although University of Edinburgh criminal law professor Robert Black speculates that it must help the defense.

The twists and turns of Lockerbie raise intriguing questions, some of them troubling. If Libya did not bomb Pan Am 103, who did? Why would the United States present a case that didn’t hold up? Was the case ever expected to be brought to trial? Or was it basically a device for keeping Qaddafi in the doghouse with unproven charges?

Perhaps these twists and turns should not be unexpected, however—for the most significant surprise occurred on the day of the crash itself. According to its normal flight plan, Pan Am 103 “should” have blown up over the sea, where evidence of criminality never would have been found. Instead, unusually strong gale force winds that day led the pilot to fly north to get “above” the tempests—and thus to be over Scotland when the bomb exploded. Are the real criminals who blew up Pan Am 103 trembling in fear lest a fluke of nature that left evidence on the ground eventually will point to them?

2 comments:

  1. DOSSIERS LOCKERBIE, 2015 >>> After the crash of PanAm 103, the truth collapset...

    The prosecution’s operating theory that the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, was a revenge for the US bombing of Tripoli in 1986, was a mere allegation !

    In memory of clarification: Colonel Gaddafi's announcement 1986 > to the United States:

    After the bombing on Libya by the United States, on 15 April 1986, Leader Gaddafi gave among other things, the following announcement - via MEBO studio link, on radio 'Arab Voice' in Tripoli:

    "The country is now officially renamed the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah"...
    "Reconciliation between Libya and the United States was impossible so long as Reagan is in the White House; of the president he said, He is mad, He is foolish, He is an dog."

    Gaddafi said he had no plans to attack the United States or U.S. targets. He claimed that Reagan wanted to kill him. Gaddafi's speak was devoid of passion and even the celebrations appeared unusual. After two and a half years, therefore was no motive for revenge, like the attack to an U.S. airliner, as PanAm 103, over Lockerbie.
    +++

    The president change in office, January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993 President George H. W. Bush.

    Abdelbaset al Megrahi and Libya have nothing to do with the Lockerbie tragedy. Justice for both condemned !

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Telecommunication Switzerland. Webpage: www.lockerbie.ch

    ReplyDelete
  2. If Libya did not bomb Pan Am 103, who did? Why would the United States present a case that didn’t hold up? Was the case ever expected to be brought to trial? Or was it basically a device for keeping Qaddafi in the doghouse with unproven charges?

    This.

    Perhaps these twists and turns should not be unexpected, however — for the most significant surprise occurred on the day of the crash itself. According to its normal flight plan, Pan Am 103 “should” have blown up over the sea, where evidence of criminality never would have been found. Instead, unusually strong gale force winds that day led the pilot to fly north to get “above” the tempests — and thus to be over Scotland when the bomb exploded. Are the real criminals who blew up Pan Am 103 trembling in fear lest a fluke of nature that left evidence on the ground eventually will point to them?

    As I've said before, that's not true. Even if it had taken the more southerly route (and I've never seen any official confirmation that the "Daventry departure" taking the flight up across the Outer Hebrides wasn't perfectly standard) the plane couldn't have got anywhere near the Atlantic. It would still have been a fluke if it had landed in the Irish Sea. If you measure the distance flown, 38 minutes out of Heathrow on the southerly route crashes on Dublin. (I suppose Gaddafi's support for the IRA is difficult to square with this.)

    So many persistent factoids, it's like whack-a-mole. At least he didn't claim the plane was late.

    ReplyDelete