Sunday 29 November 2009

British MPs, activist say Malta should defend itself on Lockerbie case

[This is the headline over an article by Caroline Muscat in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]

Two former British Labour and Conservative MPs have joined American political activist Noam Chomsky in calling on the Maltese government to defend the country's reputation.

Prof Chomsky and the British MPs are signatories to a letter sent to the government calling on Malta to support a demand for an inquiry by the UN General Assembly into the 1988 Pan Am bombing that claimed 270 lives.

The letter sent by the 'Justice for Megrahi' campaign, which includes relatives of the victims in the bombing, is also signed by South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for 43 years, and Teddy Taylor, MP for the Conservatives for 36 years, said they had doubts about the original verdict. They said if the Maltese government supported a UN inquiry, then it could clear the country's name and help the families of the victims establish the truth.

Prof Chomsky described the events surrounding the case of the convicted bomber Abdelbasset Al Megrahi as "a remarkable illustration of the conformism and obedience of intellectual opinion in the West".

He told The Sunday Times: "I think the trial was very seriously flawed, including crucially the alleged role of Malta. There is every reason to call for a very serious independent inquiry." (...)

The original conviction of Mr Al Megrahi had relied heavily on the testimony of Tony Gauci, the owner of a shop in Sliema who said the Libyan had bought clothes from his shop that were later found wrapped around the bomb.

But it has since emerged that Al Megrahi's defence team had argued in the recent appeal that the Maltese witness was paid "in excess of $2 million", while his brother Paul Gauci was paid "in excess of $1 million" for their co-operation. Neither has ever denied receiving payment.

The former British Conservative MP referred to Mr Gauci's testimony when speaking to The Sunday Times. He said if "our friends in Malta" were willing to pursue the issue at the UN and seek the truth that may have been flawed by "a statement of a resident of Malta who appears to have benefited enormously from his identification and who then moved to Australia", then the government would help relatives of the victims, and itself.

Mr Taylor recalled Malta's role in the Second World War, saying "British people my age have a very special regard for Malta as a centre of brave and trustworthy people who were willing to stand firm against fascism".

Mr Dalyell said: "I have believed since 1991 that the Crown Office in Edinburgh should have respected the stated view of the Maltese government, Air Malta, Luqa airport authorities and the Malta police that no unaccounted for luggage, let alone a bomb, was placed on the flight."

Although Malta has always denied any involvement in the act, it remains implicated by the government's refusal to take up the cause.

When Mr Gauci said in the original trial that he believed Mr Al Megrahi purchased clothes from his shop, it provided the prosecution with grounds to argue that the bomb had left from Malta and then transferred to the fateful flight.

Malta had provided ample evidence to support its contention that there was no unaccompanied luggage on Air Malta flight KM180 on December 21, 1988. But Malta's defence was trumped by Mr Gauci's testimony.

10 comments:

  1. Surely, whether Malta is willing to help depends totally on how much it relies on the UK and US.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Ruth,

    Yes, but no. Judging by your past comments (which I have yet to find any fault with, incidentally), I'd have thought you would be more supportive of Muscat's article.

    Malta is Malta and must do what Malta ultimately believes to be in Malta's interests. Frankly, short of getting Moscow and Peking on board behind this, it is just so much of the proverbial being let loose into the wind. Let's keep the little Davids of this world supplied with as much amo as they need to defeat Goliath. You never know, a well aimed shot might just do the trick!

    Quincey.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Almost two months ago Maltese Foreign Minister (and Deputy Prime Minister) Tonio Borg announced that he was "deeply considering" whether Malta would support a UN General Assembly Inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing. Since then, nothing except Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi's denial that Malta was being pressured by the U.S. not to back a UNGA Inquiry and Borg and Gonzi's insistence that "Malta had nothing to do with the terrorist attack".
    Whether or not Malta feel they have provided sufficient evidence to prove that the bomb suitcase was not ingested at Luqa, so long as al-Megrahi is considered to be guilty, Malta will inevitably be tainted by association. One would think that Malta would do anything possible towards removing that stain, but Malta is very, very small, and the United States is very, very big. The Maltese are not big on sticking their heads above parapets. The embarrassment of Gauci's allegedly 'bought' testimony is another reason that the Maltese government probably wish the whole thing would just go away. It is surprising that someone from the world's press or the Maltese government hasn't attempted to track Gauci down to offer him another $2m to tell the whole truth. I'm sure he'd gladly take it though one could never believe another word he said. He can't sleep well wherever he is, wondering who might get to him first.
    It is the Maltese people who must put pressure on their own government (and the opposition politicians) through the Maltese press to clear their name.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Gala,

    Spare your anger. Sharpen your blade and allow the Maltese to conduct their affairs in the manner that they know best. Muscat and others are doing all they can, which is far greater than I have noted in the UK or USA press.

    Riddle.

    ReplyDelete
  5. PS

    With the notable exceptions of: Private Eye, The Firm and the Glasgow Herald of course.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "DENIS PHIPPS: At Luqa there was a complete set of records of what had occurred, and that from those records ...
    VINCENT CANNISTRARO: They have vindicated themselves on paper in terms of the security procedures, but if their security personnel are suborned by hostile intelligence service, and they are completely vulnerable to whatever that hostile service would want to put on their aircraft, with baggage tags, without baggage tags. Once you have basically infiltrated the security apparatus there is no barrier to doing exactly what Fhimah and Megrahi did."

    http://plane-truth.com/Aoude/geocities/silence.html

    They aren't saying it aloud like this, these days, but that MUST still be the official story stood by in Washington and London. Malta was suborned into letting Lockerbie happen, says a paper from someone's locker (sorta) and Vince C and the cross-the-pond crew at large. Call on Malta to admit it! They're Tripoli's little b*tch and and happy about it!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr. Cannistraro´s comment about Malta is right and wrong at the same time. It is intelligence speculation and has no value in court. You could adapt Mr. Cannistraro´s argument to every single aspect of the Lockerbie case. For instance you can say there exists no document that shows that the three judges at Camp Zeist were not independent. But, of course, the CIA could have promised them a sum of money...
    The only thing that matters is evidence. And the prosecution did not deliver any evidence when it comes to the Sliema airport. It was not for the defense to show that there was no evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The only thing that matters is evidence. And the prosecution did not deliver any evidence when it comes to the Sliema airport. It was not for the defense to show that there was no evidence.

    There was evidence of course and it all ran counter to the magic evidence that superceded that. A driveway-driven-over piece of circuit board, a paper from a locker with all legit backups *deleted*, A lying Libyan shirker whose untrue stories must closely resemble reality anyway, and a $2 million Maltese ouija finger, teamed up together with the general might of the USA. No simple paperwork from a dinky island can dare compete!

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's December 7, or was until a bit ago here. That's an anniversary of the alleged purchase.
    http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/12/remember-remember-seven-december.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. And then, my own call on Malta to just Admit it already! You let Lockerbie happen, and it's looking more fishy all the time.
    http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/12/another-call-on-malta.html

    ReplyDelete