[On this date in 1995, Tam Dalyell MP received answers in the House of Commons to several written questions about Lockerbie. The following are three of the questions and answers:]
Mr Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs following the court case, Air Malta v Granada Television, and pursuant to the Prime Minister's answer of 31 January, Official Report, column 558, what evidence has been found to substantiate a Malta connection with the Lockerbie bombing.
Mr Douglas Hogg: Two Libyan nationals are accused of having placed, or having caused to be placed, the bomb which destroyed flight PA 103 on board an Air Malta flight from Luqa airport on 21 December 1988. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot comment on the detail of the evidence against the two accused while criminal proceedings are pending. The recent out-of-court settlement between Air Malta and Granada Television has no bearing on the prosecution case against the two accused. I understand that the story in relation to which Air Malta brought the action was based on allegations different in detail from those contained in the warrants for the arrest of the two Libyans accused.
Mr Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to evidence involving officials of countries other than Libya in relation to Lockerbie; and what efforts Her Majesty's Government have made to obtain such evidence concerning nationals of countries, other than Libya, undertaken on 20 January 1992, Official Report, column 159.
Mr Douglas Hogg: The Lockerbie investigators have given exhaustive consideration to all information relevant to the Lockerbie bombing. The possible involvement by nationals of a number of countries has been very closely investigated. Despite the unprecedented scale of the investigation, the available evidence does not support charges against the nationals of any country besides Libya. But the investigation remains open and any relevant new information will be considered.
Mr Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason Her Majesty's Government supported the United States decision that the Montreal convention, requiring attempts at conciliation and arbitration, should not be applied in relation to Pan Am 103 and Lockerbie; and what the preferred action was through the UN Security Council.
Mr Douglas Hogg: The question of the applicability of the Montreal convention is pending before the International Court of Justice. We and the US Government referred to the UN Security Council Libya's failure to surrender the two accused of the Lockerbie bombing in view of the frequently expressed concerns of the United Nations about the effect of terrorism on international peace and security.
Yes, once the case was just that to me - 'two Libyan nationals'.
ReplyDeleteWhy not? We all knew about Libya and Gadaffi, vs. us, the good guys. And we run fair trials.
Mr. Hogg:
"...exhaustive consideration to all information relevant to the Lockerbie bombing..."
If only he would have said 'selective consideration'. Maybe somebody will give him 'Adequately explained...' for his 73rd birthday?
"...the available evidence does not support charges against the nationals of any country besides Libya".
If only he would have said ', including Libya'
Now I understand the interesting advantage of thin evidence and ditto background knowledge: the case can be taken whereever it is most convenient. The less we know about the guy we grab, the less chance that there are good arguments against lynching him.
A couple of years earlier, in 1992:
Mr. Bernie Grant: "To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support the efforts of the Government of Libya to prosecute the Libyan nationals alleged to have committed offences in connection with the Lockerbie bombing; and if he will make a statement."
Mr. Hogg: "No. We believe that Libyan intelligence services are heavily involved in the functioning of the Libyan judiciary. As is clear from the Lord Advocate's announcement on 14 November, it is alleged that the Libyan intelligence services are implicated in the bombing of Pan Am 103. There can therefore be no confidence in the impartiality of a Libyan court."
The right thing to say again, and this time he is right without modifications.
I would also not trust a Libyan trial. Why should they be any better than we are?
Our investigative authorities, our indictions, our courts, our evidence, our selected judges, our verdicts.
And so few Tim Dalyells to ever bother putting question marks to any of it. Maybe because there is little to gain and much more to lose, in our popularity-based democracy.