[This is the headline over an article just published on the Telegraph website. The following are excerpts.]
More than two decades have passed since Britain’s worst terrorist attack but the relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie bombing remain united by a single common goal: the pursuit of the truth.
This weekend 11 of them descended on Downing Street to urge the Prime Minister to order a public inquiry into the atrocity that claimed 270 lives when Pan Am flight 103 from Heathrow to New York was brought down over Scotland.
Pam Dix, a prominent campaigner, handed over a letter addressed to Gordon Brown calling for a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the need for a public inquiry and the main issues that it must address.
The families of those who died on Dec 21 1988 – 259 on the flight and 11 on the ground in Lockerbie – have been spurred into renewed action by the release in August, on humanitarian grounds, of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, 57, the only man convicted of the bombing. Megrahi, who has returned to his homeland of Libya, has terminal prostate cancer and may only have weeks, or even days, to live.
The relatives believe that a public inquiry offers the last realistic hope of finding out how and why their loves ones perished.
They are worried that without it their chances of learning the truth could end when Megrahi dies.
Ms Dix, whose brother Peter Dix, 35, was on the doomed Pan Am jet, said: “One of the central purposes of a full inquiry would be finally to scotch the many, often outlandish, conspiracy theories that exist around Lockerbie and why and how it happened. To take Megrahi and the criminal investigation: there are those who believe he is innocent, those who believe he is guilty and those somewhere in the middle – like me – who believe that they simply don’t know.
“Our adversarial system [of criminal law] means that it all hangs on the balance of reasonable doubt – it is not really about getting to the bottom of the matter. I found the trial process [in the Netherlands from 2000-01] baffling and very disappointing – my expectations were that it would at least take us further along the road to who might have been responsible.
“The UK has a fine tradition of public, independent inquiries that have been watershed events in changing our approach to the way in which an individual murder as well as disaster – the Herald of Free Enterprise, Stephen Lawrence, the Marchioness – for example, is investigated and how people are treated. These inquiries have all resulted in highly significant recommendations. The sad and unacceptable fact, however, is that such inquiries usually come about only because of the efforts of the bereaved and survivors. This must be wrong.”
Ms Dix said that, like the other relatives, she feels she owes it to her late brother, an Irishman, to press for major breakthroughs in the Lockerbie story. (...)
The Rev John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, died in the Lockerbie tragedy, said: “We are still waiting for answers to the big questions, notably why this happened despite 14 or 15 explicit warnings. This was a preventable disaster.”
Until Megrahi’s release, the relatives were pinning their hopes on the new evidence that had been due to be made public at his second appeal hearing.
The appeal had been permitted in 2007 after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission uncovered six separate grounds for believing the conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice. However, Megrahi dropped his appeal two days before his release to improve his chances of being allowed to gain his freedom.
Those supporting the relatives’ call for a public inquiry include senior lawyers Gareth Peirce, Michael Mansfield QC, and Prof Robert Black QC, the “architect” of the Lockerbie trial.
Elaine Wright, a retired consultant psychiatrist whose son Andrew Gillies-Wright, 24, was another Lockerbie victim, said: “From our earliest meetings, all we wanted to establish was the truth.
“But we still haven’t found out what really happened and we must not allow this opportunity [the publicity resulting from the release of Megrahi] to slip away.” (...)
However, there was little encouragement for the relatives from Downing Street yesterday . A spokesman said: “We have received the letter and we will be responding to it. But in the past, the Foreign Office has said that the Scottish courts have made a decision in the case – and we still have a convicted individual. It is our belief that nothing can be gained from a public inquiry.”
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Dix. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Dix. Sort by date Show all posts
Sunday 25 October 2009
Sunday 13 August 2017
UK and US Lockerbie relatives’ views diverge on Megrahi release
Preparations are under way to free the Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing from prison next week, after doctors said his terminal prostate cancer was in its final stages.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, sentenced to a minimum life term of 25 years in 2001 for killing 270 people in the bombing, is expected to be released on compassionate grounds in time to return home for the start of the festival of Ramadan next week.
It was reported last night that the Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, told the Libyan government to make preparations for Megrahi's imminent release and arrange his flight home.
MacAskill, who has the final say over whether Megrahi should be transferred or released, visited the Libyan last week in Greenock prison, near Glasgow.
The Scottish parole board has also been asked for its views on granting compassionate early release to the former Libyan agent.
Scottish government officials insisted last night that no decision had been made to release Megrahi, either to send him home on compassionate grounds or to grant a separate Libyan request for him to continue his sentence in Libya.
A Scottish government spokesman said: "We can confirm that no decision has been made on applications under the prisoner transfer agreement or compassionate early release by Mr Al Megrahi.
"Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill is still considering all the representations in both cases and hopes to make a decision this month."
Megrahi's release is being resisted by US relatives of some of the 270 people killed in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 on 21 December 1988.
American Susan Cohen, whose only child, 20-year-old Theodora, was one of 35 students from Syracuse University in New York on the flight, said any suggestion that Megrahi should be freed on compassionate grounds was "vile".
Speaking from her home in New Jersey, she said: "Any letting out of Megrahi would be a disgrace. It makes me sick, and if there is a compassionate release then I think that is vile.
"It just shows that the power of oil money counts for more than justice. There have been so many attempts to let him off. It has to do with money and power and giving [Libyan ruler Colonel Muammar] Gaddafi what he wants. My feelings, as a victim, apparently count for nothing."
She added: "This is just horrible. Compassion for him? How about compassion for my beautiful daughter? She deserves compassion not a mass murderer."
However, many British families believe Megrahi is innocent. The Libyan is part-way through an appeal against his 2001 conviction, at a trial held in the Netherlands heard under Scottish law. MacAskill cannot grant him a transfer while his appeal against his conviction goes through the courts. However if Megrahi were granted release on compassionate grounds he would not have to drop his appeal for this to be granted.
Pamela Dix, from UK Families Flight 103, said there had been a "lack of justice" for those killed in the tragedy.
Ms Dix, whose brother Peter was killed in the atrocity, told BBC2's Newsnight she was "baffled" by much of the evidence in the trial that led to Megrahi's conviction.
Asked whether his release would be a coup for Gaddafi on the 40th anniversary of his rise to power, she said: "That may well be the case. I'm not really in a position to judge the political situation in Libya."
Dix, said last night it was still far from clear whether Megrahi was innocent or guilty since the trial had left so many unanswered questions.
"Almost 21 years after the Lockerbie bombing, I would expect to know who did it, why they did it and how they did it. Instead, we're left in situation of really knowing very little about what happened."
Dr Jim Swire, who lost his 23-year-old daughter Flora, said it would be to Scotland's credit if the Libyan was released. "I am someone who does not believe he is guilty," he said. "The sooner he is back with his family the better.
"On reasonable human grounds it is the right thing to do and if it's true that he is to be returned on compassionate grounds then that would be more to Scotland's credit than returning him under the prisoner transfer agreement.
"It would mean that he can go to his family who he adores and live the last of his days on this planet with them."
Martin Cadman, who lost his son Bill, aged 32, in the disaster, concurred.
"I hope it is true as it's something we've been wanting for a long time," he said.
"I think he is innocent and even if he were not innocent I still think it's certainly the right thing to do on compassionate grounds."
Tuesday 27 October 2009
Scottish investigators review case of 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
[This is the headline over a report by Jennifer Glasse on the website of the radio station Voice of America. The report (which can be listened to on the same website) reads in part:]
Scottish police have just announced they are looking into evidence surrounding the 1988 bombing of an American airliner flying from London to New York. It exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. Some victims' families had been trying to convince British authorities to reopen the case, after the only person convicted of involvement, Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi dropped his appeal just before he was released by Scottish authorities because he is suffering from terminal cancer. (...)
Pamela Dix's brother Peter was one of the victims of Lockerbie. She has mixed feelings about Scottish authorities reviewing the criminal investigation. "I do have a concern that the criminal investigation may get in the way of a decision to hold a full public inquiry," she said.
Dix and some other family members say British officials have in the past used the Scottish criminal investigation as an excuse to not hold a public inquiry which they see as their best chance to find out how Lockerbie was allowed to happen and who was responsible. Prosecutors have always said that al-Megrahi wasn't acting alone. (...)
"...it is my professional opinion that on the evidence led at the trial Abdel Baset Megrahi was wrongly convicted. It's a question of law. It's not a question of opinion or of counting heads. It's a simple question of law," said Robert Black, a professor of Scots law (...)
The Scottish Criminal Cases review commission backs him up. In 2007 it issued a ruling giving six reasons why there is reason to believe that al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted. Al-Megrahi had been planning an appeal, but he dropped it just before he was released, opening the door for a possible public inquiry. Black says both the legal and political establishment in Scotland don't want an inquiry because they're afraid of what it will turn up. (...)
Many American victims' families disagree. They were outraged at al-Megrahi's release, and consider the case closed. But the Reverend John Mosey, whose 19-year-old daughter Helga was killed in the bombing, has his own idea who might be guilty. "Having attended the whole trial except maybe one and a half weeks in Poland, ten months, I came away feeling that, still feeling that, the Palestinian group- the PFLPGC and Ahmed Gabril, protected by the Syrians and financed by Iran, were guilty, but we can't prove that at this point," he said.
Dr. Jim Swire is the father of a woman killed in the bombing. He thinks the bomb was planted at London's Heathrow airport, not in Malta as prosecutors alleged. He points to a break-in in Heathrow's baggage area hours before Pan Am flight 103 left London. "When you add that to the fact that the plane that took off, and was blown up, took off and was loaded completely at the Heathrow Airport. And quite apart from the fact that I myself took a copy of the Lockerbie bomb on board a British Airways plane at that same airport in 1989 and wasn't stopped from doing so and flew to America with it. It seemed to us very obvious that there were major, major flaws in security at that airport," he said.
The news that Scottish authorities are pursuing possible new evidence in the case came as UK families of Lockerbie victims delivered a letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown asking for the public inquiry every former British government has denied them. Britain's foreign minister said this week if there is any question of an inquiry, it will be up to Scotland to address it.
[Time magazine's coverage of these recent "developments" can be read here. It is of interest principally because, unlike every other report I have seen, it points out that the email to relatives from Crown Official Lesley Miller announcing the police review of the case dates from [3rd] September 2009. How did it come about that the press publicised it only on 25 October, the very day that UK Families-Flight 103's call to the Prime Minister to set up a full independent inquiry was published? Further evidence, if any were needed, of a spoiling operation?]
Scottish police have just announced they are looking into evidence surrounding the 1988 bombing of an American airliner flying from London to New York. It exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. Some victims' families had been trying to convince British authorities to reopen the case, after the only person convicted of involvement, Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi dropped his appeal just before he was released by Scottish authorities because he is suffering from terminal cancer. (...)
Pamela Dix's brother Peter was one of the victims of Lockerbie. She has mixed feelings about Scottish authorities reviewing the criminal investigation. "I do have a concern that the criminal investigation may get in the way of a decision to hold a full public inquiry," she said.
Dix and some other family members say British officials have in the past used the Scottish criminal investigation as an excuse to not hold a public inquiry which they see as their best chance to find out how Lockerbie was allowed to happen and who was responsible. Prosecutors have always said that al-Megrahi wasn't acting alone. (...)
"...it is my professional opinion that on the evidence led at the trial Abdel Baset Megrahi was wrongly convicted. It's a question of law. It's not a question of opinion or of counting heads. It's a simple question of law," said Robert Black, a professor of Scots law (...)
The Scottish Criminal Cases review commission backs him up. In 2007 it issued a ruling giving six reasons why there is reason to believe that al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted. Al-Megrahi had been planning an appeal, but he dropped it just before he was released, opening the door for a possible public inquiry. Black says both the legal and political establishment in Scotland don't want an inquiry because they're afraid of what it will turn up. (...)
Many American victims' families disagree. They were outraged at al-Megrahi's release, and consider the case closed. But the Reverend John Mosey, whose 19-year-old daughter Helga was killed in the bombing, has his own idea who might be guilty. "Having attended the whole trial except maybe one and a half weeks in Poland, ten months, I came away feeling that, still feeling that, the Palestinian group- the PFLPGC and Ahmed Gabril, protected by the Syrians and financed by Iran, were guilty, but we can't prove that at this point," he said.
Dr. Jim Swire is the father of a woman killed in the bombing. He thinks the bomb was planted at London's Heathrow airport, not in Malta as prosecutors alleged. He points to a break-in in Heathrow's baggage area hours before Pan Am flight 103 left London. "When you add that to the fact that the plane that took off, and was blown up, took off and was loaded completely at the Heathrow Airport. And quite apart from the fact that I myself took a copy of the Lockerbie bomb on board a British Airways plane at that same airport in 1989 and wasn't stopped from doing so and flew to America with it. It seemed to us very obvious that there were major, major flaws in security at that airport," he said.
The news that Scottish authorities are pursuing possible new evidence in the case came as UK families of Lockerbie victims delivered a letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown asking for the public inquiry every former British government has denied them. Britain's foreign minister said this week if there is any question of an inquiry, it will be up to Scotland to address it.
[Time magazine's coverage of these recent "developments" can be read here. It is of interest principally because, unlike every other report I have seen, it points out that the email to relatives from Crown Official Lesley Miller announcing the police review of the case dates from [3rd] September 2009. How did it come about that the press publicised it only on 25 October, the very day that UK Families-Flight 103's call to the Prime Minister to set up a full independent inquiry was published? Further evidence, if any were needed, of a spoiling operation?]
Thursday 31 March 2016
Lockerbie’s dirty secret
[This is the headline over an article by Paul Foot that was published in The Guardian on this date in 2004. It reads as follows:]
As he basks in the success of his controversial visit to Libya, the prime minister has to grapple at once with an awkward letter. It was delivered on Monday by UK Families Flight 103 representing most of the British families bereaved by the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. The letter starts by reminding Blair that the families supported his visit to Libya in the expectation that the talks with Colonel Muammar Gadafy would lead to more information about the bombing. Moreover, the letter says, their support for the visit was widely used by ministers to justify the visit to Libya. Yet the visit has not led to any more information about the bombing.
And recent letters to the secretary of the group, Pamela Dix - whose brother died at Lockerbie - from Baroness Symons, minister of state at the Foreign Office, and from the Crown Office in Edinburgh, have argued that any further questions to the Libyans about Lockerbie would not be helpful. In short, ministers took the credit of the families' support without asking a single question about Lockerbie to justify that support. In a sense of deep outrage, the families are asking the prime minister for a meeting to discuss Lockerbie as a matter of urgency.
More people died at Lockerbie than in Madrid, and you would have thought that the government, if only as proof of its horror at terrorism, would be keen to question its new friends in Tripoli about the bombing. Not so, apparently. So the only hard information the families have is that Abdul Basset al-Megrahi, a Libyan official, apparently working in intelligence, was convicted in January 2001 of bombing the airliner. How he accomplished this feat is still a mystery. The details of the crime did not emerge at the trial, which was held by Scottish judges sitting without a jury in Holland. It lasted 18 months and cost an estimated £50m.
Megrahi's co-accused was acquitted, so the prosecution's suggestion that the two men conspired to bomb the plane cannot be right. Indeed, the crucial evidence that the bomb was put on a feeder flight at Malta and was transferred twice, at Frankfurt and at Heathrow, was so thin it was derisory.
No one knows whether anyone else took part in this sophisticated crime of terror. One man has been convicted. The Libyan government has forked out many millions in compensation. And that, apparently, is the end of the matter. Many of the bereaved relatives, including Dix, are increasingly disturbed at the behaviour of ministers who talk business and politics to the Gadafy regime, but are not remotely interested in pressing anyone in it to tell the whole story about Lockerbie.
There is, in my opinion (not necessarily shared by the families), an explanation for all this, an explanation so shocking that no one in high places can contemplate it. It is that the Lockerbie bombing was carried out not by Libyans at all but by terrorists based in Syria and hired by Iran to avenge the shooting down in the summer of 1988 of an Iranian civil airliner by a US warship. This was the line followed by both British and US police and intelligence investigators after Lockerbie. Through favoured newspapers like the Sunday Times, the investigators named the suspects - some of whom had been found with home-made bombs similar to the one used at Lockerbie.
This line of inquiry persisted until April 1989, when a phone call from President Bush senior to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher warned her not to proceed with it. A year later, British and US armed forces prepared for an attack on Saddam Hussein's occupying forces in Kuwait. Their coalition desperately needed troops from an Arab country. These were supplied by Syria, which promptly dropped out of the frame of Lockerbie suspects. Libya, not Syria or Iran, mysteriously became the suspect country, and in 1991 the US drew up an indictment against two Libyan suspects. The indictment was based on the "evidence" of a Libyan "defector", handsomely paid by the CIA. His story was such a fantastic farrago of lies and fantasies that it was thrown out by the Scottish judges.
In Britain, meanwhile, Thatcher, John Major and Blair obstinately turned down the bereaved families' requests for a full public inquiry into the worst mass murder in British history.
It follows from this explanation that Megrahi is innocent of the Lockerbie bombing and his conviction is the last in the long line of British judges' miscarriages of criminal justice. This explanation is also a terrible indictment of the cynicism, hypocrisy and deceit of the British and US governments and their intelligence services. Which is probably why it has been so consistently and haughtily ignored.
[RB: This was Paul Foot’s last piece on Lockerbie. He died less than four months later.]
Monday 21 December 2009
Parts of SCCRC report likely to be published
Some details of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's review into the case of the Lockerbie bomber may be made public next year.
The commission investigation concluded Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's conviction may have been unsafe.
The Scottish government has passed an order through the Criminal Procedure Act 1995 that would allow information to be released in February 2010. (...)
It is thought the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) will not be able to reveal much of the detail of its considerable research, since those who provided the information must give their consent.
Gerard Sinclair, the SCCRC chief executive, said: "The Statutory Instrument permits the commission to disclose information only with the consent of those who have provided the information.
"In considering whether it is entitled to disclose information, the commission will also have to have regard to other relevant matters, including the European Court of Human Rights, and data protection legislation and all other relevant law."
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said: "The Scottish government has always been clear that as much information as possible in this case is published where relevant and where appropriate consents are given.
"The order laid today allows the SCCRC to disclose information it holds and it is now for them to decide what, if anything, they release." (...)
A Lockerbie relative, Pamela Dix, said the reports of Megrahi's worsening condition added to the continuing ordeal of relatives still seeking answers.
Ms Dix, whose brother Peter was among the dead, said: "It really builds the extreme sense of frustration that this whole year has brought.
"The lack of resolution around the criminal aspect of Lockerbie is almost now complete."
She told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland: "With Megrahi's death we will never know whether if he is truly innocent as he protests and as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board considered he might be, or guilty as a Scottish court convicted him."
And she said: "I just find it immensely frustrating to have to sit here in the middle and not know."
[From a report on the BBC News website.]
The commission investigation concluded Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's conviction may have been unsafe.
The Scottish government has passed an order through the Criminal Procedure Act 1995 that would allow information to be released in February 2010. (...)
It is thought the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) will not be able to reveal much of the detail of its considerable research, since those who provided the information must give their consent.
Gerard Sinclair, the SCCRC chief executive, said: "The Statutory Instrument permits the commission to disclose information only with the consent of those who have provided the information.
"In considering whether it is entitled to disclose information, the commission will also have to have regard to other relevant matters, including the European Court of Human Rights, and data protection legislation and all other relevant law."
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said: "The Scottish government has always been clear that as much information as possible in this case is published where relevant and where appropriate consents are given.
"The order laid today allows the SCCRC to disclose information it holds and it is now for them to decide what, if anything, they release." (...)
A Lockerbie relative, Pamela Dix, said the reports of Megrahi's worsening condition added to the continuing ordeal of relatives still seeking answers.
Ms Dix, whose brother Peter was among the dead, said: "It really builds the extreme sense of frustration that this whole year has brought.
"The lack of resolution around the criminal aspect of Lockerbie is almost now complete."
She told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland: "With Megrahi's death we will never know whether if he is truly innocent as he protests and as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board considered he might be, or guilty as a Scottish court convicted him."
And she said: "I just find it immensely frustrating to have to sit here in the middle and not know."
[From a report on the BBC News website.]
Thursday 24 February 2011
Gaddafi ordered Lockerbie bombing, claims ex-Libyan minister
[This is the headline over the report in today's edition of The Herald on the claim by the former Libyan justice minister that Colonel Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing. It reads in part:]
Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who resigned on Monday amid violent clashes between protesters and security forces, said: “I have proof that Gaddafi gave the order about Lockerbie.”
Mr Abdel-Jalil, who has not revealed yet what the proof is, quit over the “excessive use of force” used against demonstrators during anti-regime uprisings across the north African state.
The Scottish Government said yesterday it never doubted the safety of the conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset al Megrahi, 58, who was controversially freed from prison on compassionate grounds in August 2009 as he was suffering from prostate cancer. (...)
Pamela Dix, from the group UK Families Flight 103, who lost her brother Peter in the bombing, said of the latest development: “If this is true, it is shocking. It really rocks to the core the way that the UK Government has dealt with the whole Lockerbie issue, which is to sweep it under the carpet.
“It is really incredible. I would be really interested to know what evidence he has got. Perhaps he is trying to ingratiate himself with the US.”
Ms Dix also called for a fresh investigation into the bombing in light of the claims.
She said: “If he has really got evidence, the Crown Office in Scotland should investigate. If this is a lead, they should be following this up.”
[The Scotsman's report on the issue can be read here. A related article in the same newspaper headined "Yes or no: Was he really behind act of mass murder?" can be read here.
There was a visit to this blog yesterday from within Libya, the first such visit for over a week.
Because I have to make a trip from the Roggeveld Karoo to Cape Town to pick up a Scottish visitor, it is unlikely that I shall be in a position to make further posts to this blog until Saturday 26 February.]
Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who resigned on Monday amid violent clashes between protesters and security forces, said: “I have proof that Gaddafi gave the order about Lockerbie.”
Mr Abdel-Jalil, who has not revealed yet what the proof is, quit over the “excessive use of force” used against demonstrators during anti-regime uprisings across the north African state.
The Scottish Government said yesterday it never doubted the safety of the conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset al Megrahi, 58, who was controversially freed from prison on compassionate grounds in August 2009 as he was suffering from prostate cancer. (...)
Pamela Dix, from the group UK Families Flight 103, who lost her brother Peter in the bombing, said of the latest development: “If this is true, it is shocking. It really rocks to the core the way that the UK Government has dealt with the whole Lockerbie issue, which is to sweep it under the carpet.
“It is really incredible. I would be really interested to know what evidence he has got. Perhaps he is trying to ingratiate himself with the US.”
Ms Dix also called for a fresh investigation into the bombing in light of the claims.
She said: “If he has really got evidence, the Crown Office in Scotland should investigate. If this is a lead, they should be following this up.”
[The Scotsman's report on the issue can be read here. A related article in the same newspaper headined "Yes or no: Was he really behind act of mass murder?" can be read here.
There was a visit to this blog yesterday from within Libya, the first such visit for over a week.
Because I have to make a trip from the Roggeveld Karoo to Cape Town to pick up a Scottish visitor, it is unlikely that I shall be in a position to make further posts to this blog until Saturday 26 February.]
Monday 17 August 2009
The truth about Lockerbie? That’s the last thing the Americans want the world to know.
By Tam Dalyell
Former Labour MP for Linlithgow and former Father of the House of Commons.
Why have US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her officials responded to the return of Megrahi with such a volcanic reaction? The answer is straightforward. The last thing that Washington wants is the truth to emerge about the role of the US in the crime of Lockerbie. I understand the grief of those parents, such as Kathleen Flynn and Bert Ammerman, who have appeared on our TV screens to speak about the loss of loved ones. Alas all these years they have been lied to about the cause of that grief.
Not only did Washington not want the awful truth to emerge, but Mrs Thatcher, a few - very few - in the stratosphere of Whitehall and certain officials of the Crown Office in Edinburgh, who owe their subsequent careers to the Lockerbie investigation, were compliant.
It all started in July 1988 with the shooting down by the warship USS Vincennes of an Iranian airliner carrying 290 pilgrims to Mecca - without an apology.
The Iranian minister of the interior at the time was Ali Akbar Mostashemi, who made a public statement that blood would rain down in the form of ten western airliners being blown out of the sky.
Mostashemi was in a position carry out such a threat - he had been the Iranian ambassador in Damascus from 1982 to 1984 and had developed close relations with the terrorist gangs of Beirut and the Bekaa Valley - and in particular terrorist leader Abu Nidal and Ahmed Jibril, the head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command.
Washington was appalled. I believe so appalled and fearful that it entered into a Faustian agreement that, tit-for-tat, one airliner should be sacrificed. This may seem a dreadful thing for me to say. But consider the facts. A notice went up in the US Embassy in Moscow advising diplomats not to travel with Pan Am back to America for Christmas.
American military personnel were pulled off the plane. A delegation of South Africans, including foreign minister Pik Botha, were pulled off Pan Am Flight 103 at the last minute.
Places became available. Who took them at the last minute? The students. Jim Swire's daughter, John Mosey's daughter, Martin Cadman's son, Pamela Dix’s brother, other British relatives, many of whom you have seen on television in recent days, and, crucially, 32 students of the University of Syracuse, New York.
If it had become known - it was the interregnum between Ronald Reagan demitting office and George Bush Snr entering the White House - that, in the light of the warning, Washington had pulled VIPs but had allowed Bengt Carlsson, the UN negotiator for Angola whom it didn't like, and the youngsters to travel to their deaths, there would have been an outcry of US public opinion.
No wonder the government of the United States and key officials do not want the world to know what they have done.
If you think that this is fanciful, consider more facts. When the relatives went to see the then UK Transport Secretary, Cecil Parkinson, he told them he did agree that there should be a public inquiry.
Going out of the door as they were leaving, as an afterthought he said: 'Just one thing. I must clear permission for a public inquiry with colleagues'.
Dr Swire, John Mosey and Pamela Dix, the secretary of the Lockerbie relatives, imagined that it was a mere formality. A fortnight later, sheepishly, Parkinson informed them that colleagues had not agreed.
At that time there was only one colleague who could possibly have told Parkinson that he was forbidden to do something in his own department. That was the Prime Minister. Only she could have told Parkinson to withdraw his offer, certainly, in my opinion, knowing the man, given in good faith.
Fast forward 13 years. I was the chairman of the all-party House of Commons group on Latin America. I had hosted Dr Alvaro Uribe, the president of Colombia, between the time that he won the election and formally took control in Bogota.
The Colombian ambassador, Victor Ricardo, invited me to dinner at his residence as Dr Uribe wanted to continue the conversations with me.
The South Americans are very formal. A man takes a woman in to dinner. To make up numbers, Ricardo had invited a little old lady, his neighbour. I was mandated to take her in to dinner. The lady was Margaret Thatcher, to whom I hadn't spoken for 17 years since I had been thrown out of the Commons for saying she had told a self-serving fib in relation to the Westland affair.
I told myself to behave. As we were sitting down to dinner, the conversation went like this. 'Margaret, I'm sorry your "head" was injured by that idiot who attacked your sculpture in the Guildhall.'
She replied pleasantly: 'Tam, I'm not sorry for myself, but I am sorry for the sculptor.' Raising the soup spoon, I ventured: 'Margaret, tell me one thing - why in 800 pages...'
'Have you read my autobiography?' she interrupted, purring with pleasure.
‘Yes, I have read it very carefully. Why in 800 pages did you not mention Lockerbie once?' Mrs Thatcher replied: 'Because I didn't know what happened and I don't write about things that I don't know about.'
My jaw dropped. 'You don't know. But, quite properly as Prime Minister, you went to Lockerbie and looked into First Officer Captain Wagner's eyes.'
She replied: 'Yes, but I don't know about it and I don't write in my autobiography things I don't know about.'
My conclusion is that she had been told by Washington on no account to delve into the circumstances of what really happened that awful night. Whitehall complied. I acquit the Scottish judges Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean at Megrahi's trial of being subject to pressure, though I am mystified as to how they could have arrived at a verdict other than 'Not Guilty' -or at least 'Not Proven'.
As soon as I left the Colombian ambassador's residence, I reflected on the enormity of what Mrs Thatcher had said. Her relations with Washington were paramount. She implied that she had abandoned her natural and healthy curiosity about public affairs to blind obedience to what the US administration wished. Going along with the Americans was one of her tenets of faith.
On my last visit to Megrahi, in Greenock Prison in November last year, he said to me: 'Of course I am desperate to go back to Tripoli. I want to see my five children growing up. But I want to go back as an innocent man.'
I quite understand the human reasons why, given his likely life expectancy, he is prepared, albeit desperately reluctantly, to abandon the appeal procedure.
[This is the text of an article that appeared yesterday in the Scottish edition of The Mail on Sunday. It does not appear on the newspaper's website. Also not appearing there is a long article in the same edition by Marcello Mega headlined "Lockerbie: the fatal cover-up". If some kind reader were to send me a digital version, I would post it -- or excerpts from it -- here.
Marcello Mega's article is now available online. It can be read here.]
Former Labour MP for Linlithgow and former Father of the House of Commons.
Why have US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her officials responded to the return of Megrahi with such a volcanic reaction? The answer is straightforward. The last thing that Washington wants is the truth to emerge about the role of the US in the crime of Lockerbie. I understand the grief of those parents, such as Kathleen Flynn and Bert Ammerman, who have appeared on our TV screens to speak about the loss of loved ones. Alas all these years they have been lied to about the cause of that grief.
Not only did Washington not want the awful truth to emerge, but Mrs Thatcher, a few - very few - in the stratosphere of Whitehall and certain officials of the Crown Office in Edinburgh, who owe their subsequent careers to the Lockerbie investigation, were compliant.
It all started in July 1988 with the shooting down by the warship USS Vincennes of an Iranian airliner carrying 290 pilgrims to Mecca - without an apology.
The Iranian minister of the interior at the time was Ali Akbar Mostashemi, who made a public statement that blood would rain down in the form of ten western airliners being blown out of the sky.
Mostashemi was in a position carry out such a threat - he had been the Iranian ambassador in Damascus from 1982 to 1984 and had developed close relations with the terrorist gangs of Beirut and the Bekaa Valley - and in particular terrorist leader Abu Nidal and Ahmed Jibril, the head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command.
Washington was appalled. I believe so appalled and fearful that it entered into a Faustian agreement that, tit-for-tat, one airliner should be sacrificed. This may seem a dreadful thing for me to say. But consider the facts. A notice went up in the US Embassy in Moscow advising diplomats not to travel with Pan Am back to America for Christmas.
American military personnel were pulled off the plane. A delegation of South Africans, including foreign minister Pik Botha, were pulled off Pan Am Flight 103 at the last minute.
Places became available. Who took them at the last minute? The students. Jim Swire's daughter, John Mosey's daughter, Martin Cadman's son, Pamela Dix’s brother, other British relatives, many of whom you have seen on television in recent days, and, crucially, 32 students of the University of Syracuse, New York.
If it had become known - it was the interregnum between Ronald Reagan demitting office and George Bush Snr entering the White House - that, in the light of the warning, Washington had pulled VIPs but had allowed Bengt Carlsson, the UN negotiator for Angola whom it didn't like, and the youngsters to travel to their deaths, there would have been an outcry of US public opinion.
No wonder the government of the United States and key officials do not want the world to know what they have done.
If you think that this is fanciful, consider more facts. When the relatives went to see the then UK Transport Secretary, Cecil Parkinson, he told them he did agree that there should be a public inquiry.
Going out of the door as they were leaving, as an afterthought he said: 'Just one thing. I must clear permission for a public inquiry with colleagues'.
Dr Swire, John Mosey and Pamela Dix, the secretary of the Lockerbie relatives, imagined that it was a mere formality. A fortnight later, sheepishly, Parkinson informed them that colleagues had not agreed.
At that time there was only one colleague who could possibly have told Parkinson that he was forbidden to do something in his own department. That was the Prime Minister. Only she could have told Parkinson to withdraw his offer, certainly, in my opinion, knowing the man, given in good faith.
Fast forward 13 years. I was the chairman of the all-party House of Commons group on Latin America. I had hosted Dr Alvaro Uribe, the president of Colombia, between the time that he won the election and formally took control in Bogota.
The Colombian ambassador, Victor Ricardo, invited me to dinner at his residence as Dr Uribe wanted to continue the conversations with me.
The South Americans are very formal. A man takes a woman in to dinner. To make up numbers, Ricardo had invited a little old lady, his neighbour. I was mandated to take her in to dinner. The lady was Margaret Thatcher, to whom I hadn't spoken for 17 years since I had been thrown out of the Commons for saying she had told a self-serving fib in relation to the Westland affair.
I told myself to behave. As we were sitting down to dinner, the conversation went like this. 'Margaret, I'm sorry your "head" was injured by that idiot who attacked your sculpture in the Guildhall.'
She replied pleasantly: 'Tam, I'm not sorry for myself, but I am sorry for the sculptor.' Raising the soup spoon, I ventured: 'Margaret, tell me one thing - why in 800 pages...'
'Have you read my autobiography?' she interrupted, purring with pleasure.
‘Yes, I have read it very carefully. Why in 800 pages did you not mention Lockerbie once?' Mrs Thatcher replied: 'Because I didn't know what happened and I don't write about things that I don't know about.'
My jaw dropped. 'You don't know. But, quite properly as Prime Minister, you went to Lockerbie and looked into First Officer Captain Wagner's eyes.'
She replied: 'Yes, but I don't know about it and I don't write in my autobiography things I don't know about.'
My conclusion is that she had been told by Washington on no account to delve into the circumstances of what really happened that awful night. Whitehall complied. I acquit the Scottish judges Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean at Megrahi's trial of being subject to pressure, though I am mystified as to how they could have arrived at a verdict other than 'Not Guilty' -or at least 'Not Proven'.
As soon as I left the Colombian ambassador's residence, I reflected on the enormity of what Mrs Thatcher had said. Her relations with Washington were paramount. She implied that she had abandoned her natural and healthy curiosity about public affairs to blind obedience to what the US administration wished. Going along with the Americans was one of her tenets of faith.
On my last visit to Megrahi, in Greenock Prison in November last year, he said to me: 'Of course I am desperate to go back to Tripoli. I want to see my five children growing up. But I want to go back as an innocent man.'
I quite understand the human reasons why, given his likely life expectancy, he is prepared, albeit desperately reluctantly, to abandon the appeal procedure.
[This is the text of an article that appeared yesterday in the Scottish edition of The Mail on Sunday. It does not appear on the newspaper's website. Also not appearing there is a long article in the same edition by Marcello Mega headlined "Lockerbie: the fatal cover-up". If some kind reader were to send me a digital version, I would post it -- or excerpts from it -- here.
Marcello Mega's article is now available online. It can be read here.]
Sunday 27 July 2014
"We still don’t know why Pan Am 103 was bombed and who ordered it"
[What follows is an excerpt from a long article about the MH17 disaster in today’s edition of The Sunday Telegraph:]
For the relatives and friends of those who died, including ten British citizens and more than 80 children, the uncertainty and confusion will be deeply upsetting. While the most likely scenario points to the involvement of Russian-backed rebels, the question remains whether Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, should also be held to account.
Pam Dix, whose brother died in the Lockerbie bombing, fears that victims’ relatives will suffer ongoing anxiety in the search for the truth.
In the case of Lockerbie, in which a Pan Am jet was blown up over the Scottish town, one Libyan intelligence official was jailed for murder but doubts remain 25 years on about the conviction with many blaming Iran rather than Libya for the atrocity.
“The situation for the families from MH17 is agonising – waiting for news of whether they can get the bodies back, for information about what happened, who did it and why,” said Mrs Dix.
“At least after Lockerbie we could travel to the site to see the debris for ourselves, and investigators could have access in order to establish as many facts as they could.
“Twenty-five years later we still don’t know why Pan Am 103 was bombed and who ordered it. For the MH17 families the investigation will be just if not more frustrating. The political situation in Ukraine and Russia means it could be years before any proper information or evidence emerges.”
[A detailed consideration of the available evidence can be found in this article from 21st Century Wire. Its conclusions are very different from The Telegraph’s.]
Friday 23 July 2010
Scots defend Lockerbie convict’s release
[This is the heading over a post by Robert Mackey on The Lede, the news blog of The New York Times. It reads in part:]
Scotland’s government will not be providing any new documents on the release of the Libyan man convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 to a Senate panel investigating the matter, it said in a statement on Wednesday night.
The Scottish government also declined a request from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to have Scotland’s justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, appear next week at a hearing that will look into allegations that BP might have lobbied for the return of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi to Libya in order to secure an oil contract with the Libyan government. BP denies that it lobbied for Mr Megrahi’s release but said that it did press for a prisoner transfer agreement to be completed.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond wrote in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that his government, which has authority over justice matters and made the decision to release Mr Megrahi last year, had already published all of the relevant documents under its control. He added: “The only significant documents that we have not published are US government representations and some correspondence from the UK government, where permission was declined. The Scottish government is, and has always been, willing to publish these remaining documents if the US and UK governments are willing to give permission for that to be done.”
Mr. Salmond also insisted that even if BP might have lobbied the government of the United Kingdom to complete a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, his regional authority was not involved in those discussions and eventually decided to release Mr Megrahi on compassionate grounds because of a terminal illness rather than transfer him to Libyan custody. He wrote:
"My understanding is that the recent interest from the Committee and from other Senators stems mainly from concerns over any role played by BP in al-Megrahi’s release. I can say unequivocally that the Scottish government has never, at any point, received any representations from BP in relation to al-Megrahi. That is to say we had no submissions or lobbying of any kind from BP, either oral or written, and, to my knowledge, the subject of al-Megrahi was never raised by any BP representative to any Scottish Government Minister. That includes the Justice Minister to whom it fell to make the decisions on prisoner transfer and compassionate release on a quasi-judicial basis. [...]
"If your Committee is concerned about BP’s role or the [prisoner transfer agreement] then it is BP and the previous UK administration that should be the focus of your inquiries. There is nothing the Scottish Government can add to this since we have had no contact with BP at any point in the process of considering al-Megrahi’s position."
While outrage over the release of Mr. Megrahi in the United States has returned to the headlines with the new focus on BP, continued doubts about his guilt by some legal experts and family members of the victims of the bombing in Britain have led them to call for “an inquiry into the atrocity itself.” Pamela Dix, whose brother, Peter Dix, was killed in the bombing wrote on the Guardian’s Web site that an inquiry was needed because, “The families have faced years of denials and obfuscation, as we have painstakingly sought answers to the many unanswered questions about Lockerbie. The BP issue is just another element in the shameful way in which the truth behind Britain’s biggest mass murder has been hidden.”
[The post ends with a reprise of concerns about the soundness of Mr Megrahi's conviction that had been outlined in a post on The Lede in August 2009 and quotations from Gareth Peirce's article in London Review of Books.]
Scotland’s government will not be providing any new documents on the release of the Libyan man convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 to a Senate panel investigating the matter, it said in a statement on Wednesday night.
The Scottish government also declined a request from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to have Scotland’s justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, appear next week at a hearing that will look into allegations that BP might have lobbied for the return of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi to Libya in order to secure an oil contract with the Libyan government. BP denies that it lobbied for Mr Megrahi’s release but said that it did press for a prisoner transfer agreement to be completed.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond wrote in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that his government, which has authority over justice matters and made the decision to release Mr Megrahi last year, had already published all of the relevant documents under its control. He added: “The only significant documents that we have not published are US government representations and some correspondence from the UK government, where permission was declined. The Scottish government is, and has always been, willing to publish these remaining documents if the US and UK governments are willing to give permission for that to be done.”
Mr. Salmond also insisted that even if BP might have lobbied the government of the United Kingdom to complete a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, his regional authority was not involved in those discussions and eventually decided to release Mr Megrahi on compassionate grounds because of a terminal illness rather than transfer him to Libyan custody. He wrote:
"My understanding is that the recent interest from the Committee and from other Senators stems mainly from concerns over any role played by BP in al-Megrahi’s release. I can say unequivocally that the Scottish government has never, at any point, received any representations from BP in relation to al-Megrahi. That is to say we had no submissions or lobbying of any kind from BP, either oral or written, and, to my knowledge, the subject of al-Megrahi was never raised by any BP representative to any Scottish Government Minister. That includes the Justice Minister to whom it fell to make the decisions on prisoner transfer and compassionate release on a quasi-judicial basis. [...]
"If your Committee is concerned about BP’s role or the [prisoner transfer agreement] then it is BP and the previous UK administration that should be the focus of your inquiries. There is nothing the Scottish Government can add to this since we have had no contact with BP at any point in the process of considering al-Megrahi’s position."
While outrage over the release of Mr. Megrahi in the United States has returned to the headlines with the new focus on BP, continued doubts about his guilt by some legal experts and family members of the victims of the bombing in Britain have led them to call for “an inquiry into the atrocity itself.” Pamela Dix, whose brother, Peter Dix, was killed in the bombing wrote on the Guardian’s Web site that an inquiry was needed because, “The families have faced years of denials and obfuscation, as we have painstakingly sought answers to the many unanswered questions about Lockerbie. The BP issue is just another element in the shameful way in which the truth behind Britain’s biggest mass murder has been hidden.”
[The post ends with a reprise of concerns about the soundness of Mr Megrahi's conviction that had been outlined in a post on The Lede in August 2009 and quotations from Gareth Peirce's article in London Review of Books.]
Monday 16 August 2010
Lockerbie families call for fresh investigation
I am grateful to a reader of this blog (and a welcome commentator) for drawing my attention to a video on the website of the Daily Record, one of Scotland's largest-circulation and fiercely Labour-supporting tabloids. In it Pam Dix, spokesman for the Lockerbie relatives group UK Families Flight 103 expresses the group's support for a full independent inquiry into the Lockerbie case.
I am grateful to another reader and welcome commentator for drawing my attention to an article by Joan Burnie headed "We must unlock truth on atrocity" in her Friday Column in the Daily Record on 23 July. The following are excerpts:
There is something distasteful about willing Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to die, no matter how evil he may or may not be.
As malignant as the cancer spreading through Megrahi's body is this baying for his corpse, with the bloodlust of a crowd at a public stoning.
It is understandable that the families of the victims want vengeance but let's not pretend that they matter a jot to the real players in all of this.
They are pawns in a game of global politics, duplicity and corporate might.
The main focus of the debate is ludicrous, anyway.
Doctors can't give a survival time in cancer cases. They are not gods.
From the moment of diagnosis, cancer is a waiting game. (...)
In the meantime, the elephant in the room - the real issue of whether Megrahi was even behind the bombing - has been pushed conveniently to one side.
It is barely mentioned and yet it is the most important issue of all.
Do we really want Megrahi to die when he will take the truth to his grave?
On June 28, 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission completed their investigation, having concluded that there was evidence of a potential miscarriage of justice.
It is more than likely that Megrahi was innocent and, as someone who believes that, I am glad he will spend his dying days at home in Libya. (...)
It is a grave pity that, with all the backroom dealing, his appeal didn't go ahead.
And that's the key, because it was never in the interests of the UK or American governments to have the truth outed in a courtroom.
The US government, who now so piously condemn the release of Megrahi, forget their part in covering up the truth, the witnesses paid off, allegedly, with the authority of the FBI. (...)
If the families of the Lockerbie victims matter at all, why haven't their calls for a full public inquiry into the atrocity been answered?
Instead, they have been lied to and their need for answers has been ignored. What a tragedy. What an utter betrayal.
Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter was killed in the bombing of Pan Am 103, claims the families have "faced years of denials and obfuscation".
Jim Swire, whose beautiful young daughter Flora died in the disaster, is convinced the wrong man was jailed.
At the heart of all of this is not that Megrahi should lose his life but that on Wednesday, December 21, 1988, 270 victims of the Lockerbie bombing lost theirs.
Their families deserve to know why they died and, for all the millions thrown at them, that is the only compensation that counts.
I am grateful to another reader and welcome commentator for drawing my attention to an article by Joan Burnie headed "We must unlock truth on atrocity" in her Friday Column in the Daily Record on 23 July. The following are excerpts:
There is something distasteful about willing Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to die, no matter how evil he may or may not be.
As malignant as the cancer spreading through Megrahi's body is this baying for his corpse, with the bloodlust of a crowd at a public stoning.
It is understandable that the families of the victims want vengeance but let's not pretend that they matter a jot to the real players in all of this.
They are pawns in a game of global politics, duplicity and corporate might.
The main focus of the debate is ludicrous, anyway.
Doctors can't give a survival time in cancer cases. They are not gods.
From the moment of diagnosis, cancer is a waiting game. (...)
In the meantime, the elephant in the room - the real issue of whether Megrahi was even behind the bombing - has been pushed conveniently to one side.
It is barely mentioned and yet it is the most important issue of all.
Do we really want Megrahi to die when he will take the truth to his grave?
On June 28, 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission completed their investigation, having concluded that there was evidence of a potential miscarriage of justice.
It is more than likely that Megrahi was innocent and, as someone who believes that, I am glad he will spend his dying days at home in Libya. (...)
It is a grave pity that, with all the backroom dealing, his appeal didn't go ahead.
And that's the key, because it was never in the interests of the UK or American governments to have the truth outed in a courtroom.
The US government, who now so piously condemn the release of Megrahi, forget their part in covering up the truth, the witnesses paid off, allegedly, with the authority of the FBI. (...)
If the families of the Lockerbie victims matter at all, why haven't their calls for a full public inquiry into the atrocity been answered?
Instead, they have been lied to and their need for answers has been ignored. What a tragedy. What an utter betrayal.
Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter was killed in the bombing of Pan Am 103, claims the families have "faced years of denials and obfuscation".
Jim Swire, whose beautiful young daughter Flora died in the disaster, is convinced the wrong man was jailed.
At the heart of all of this is not that Megrahi should lose his life but that on Wednesday, December 21, 1988, 270 victims of the Lockerbie bombing lost theirs.
Their families deserve to know why they died and, for all the millions thrown at them, that is the only compensation that counts.
Sunday 10 August 2014
The last thing that Washington wants is the truth about Lockerbie
[On the occasion of Tam Dalyell‘s 82nd birthday, I was trawling through posts on this blog that mentioned him and came upon one from 17 August 2009 headed The truth about Lockerbie? That’s the last thing the Americans want the world to know. Here are some excerpts:]
Why have US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her officials responded to the return of Megrahi with such a volcanic reaction? The answer is straightforward. The last thing that Washington wants is the truth to emerge about the role of the US in the crime of Lockerbie. (...)
Not only did Washington not want the awful truth to emerge, but Mrs Thatcher, a few - very few - in the stratosphere of Whitehall and certain officials of the Crown Office in Edinburgh, who owe their subsequent careers to the Lockerbie investigation, were compliant.
It all started in July 1988 with the shooting down by the warship USS Vincennes of an Iranian airliner carrying 290 pilgrims to Mecca - without an apology.
The Iranian minister of the interior at the time was Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, who made a public statement that blood would rain down in the form of ten western airliners being blown out of the sky.
Mohtashemi was in a position carry out such a threat - he had been the Iranian ambassador in Damascus from 1982 to 1984 and had developed close relations with the terrorist gangs of Beirut and the Bekaa Valley - and in particular terrorist leader Abu Nidal and Ahmed Jibril, the head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command.
Washington was appalled. I believe so appalled and fearful that it entered into a Faustian agreement that, tit-for-tat, one airliner should be sacrificed. This may seem a dreadful thing for me to say. But consider the facts. A notice went up in the US Embassy in Moscow advising diplomats not to travel with Pan Am back to America for Christmas. (...)
Places became available. Who took them at the last minute? The students. Jim Swire's daughter, John Mosey's daughter, Martin Cadman's son, Pamela Dix’s brother, other British relatives, many of whom you have seen on television in recent days, and, crucially, 32 students of the University of Syracuse, New York.
If it had become known - it was the interregnum between Ronald Reagan demitting office and George Bush Snr entering the White House - that, in the light of the warning, Washington had pulled VIPs but had allowed [Bernt] Carlsson, the UN negotiator for [Namibia] whom it didn't like, and the youngsters to travel to their deaths, there would have been an outcry of US public opinion.
No wonder the government of the United States and key officials do not want the world to know what they have done.
If you think that this is fanciful, consider more facts. When the relatives went to see the then UK Transport Secretary, Cecil Parkinson, he told them he did agree that there should be a public inquiry.
Going out of the door as they were leaving, as an afterthought he said: 'Just one thing. I must clear permission for a public inquiry with colleagues'.
Dr Swire, John Mosey and Pamela Dix, the secretary of the Lockerbie relatives, imagined that it was a mere formality. A fortnight later, sheepishly, Parkinson informed them that colleagues had not agreed.
At that time there was only one colleague who could possibly have told Parkinson that he was forbidden to do something in his own department. That was the Prime Minister. Only she could have told Parkinson to withdraw his offer, certainly, in my opinion, knowing the man, given in good faith.
[Tam then tells the story of a conversation he had with Margaret Thatcher at a dinner in 2001 hosted by the Colombian ambassador:]
Raising the soup spoon, I ventured: 'Margaret, tell me one thing - why in 800 pages...'
'Have you read my autobiography?' she interrupted, purring with pleasure.
‘Yes, I have read it very carefully. Why in 800 pages did you not mention Lockerbie once?' Mrs Thatcher replied: 'Because I didn't know what happened and I don't write about things that I don't know about.'
My jaw dropped. 'You don't know. But, quite properly as Prime Minister, you went to Lockerbie and looked into First Officer Captain Wagner's eyes.'
She replied: 'Yes, but I don't know about it and I don't write in my autobiography things I don't know about.'
My conclusion is that she had been told by Washington on no account to delve into the circumstances of what really happened that awful night. Whitehall complied. I acquit the Scottish judges Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean at Megrahi's trial of being subject to pressure, though I am mystified as to how they could have arrived at a verdict other than 'Not Guilty' -or at least 'Not Proven'.
As soon as I left the Colombian ambassador's residence, I reflected on the enormity of what Mrs Thatcher had said. Her relations with Washington were paramount. She implied that she had abandoned her natural and healthy curiosity about public affairs to blind obedience to what the US administration wished. Going along with the Americans was one of her tenets of faith.
On my last visit to Megrahi, in Greenock Prison in November last year, he said to me: 'Of course I am desperate to go back to Tripoli. I want to see my five children growing up. But I want to go back as an innocent man.'
I quite understand the human reasons why, given his likely life expectancy, he is prepared, albeit desperately reluctantly, to abandon the appeal procedure.
Friday 14 August 2009
Claims of Lockerbie cover-up as only man convicted of bombing drops appeal
Relatives of Lockerbie victims were denied their final chance of discovering the truth yesterday when the only man convicted of the atrocity abruptly dropped his appeal.
The decision of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who is expected to be freed from prison in Scotland next week allowing his return to Libya, sparked charges of a top-level cover-up.
Politicians, relatives and experts accused the Scottish government of striking a deal with the convicted terrorist: that in return for his repatriation he would abandon an appeal that might have exposed a grave miscarriage of justice. “It’s pretty likely there was a deal,” said Oliver Miles, a former British Ambassador to Libya, who told The Times that the British and Scottish governments had been very anxious to avoid the appeal.
Christine Grahame, a member of the Scottish Parliament, said: “There are a number of vested interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal because they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth behind Lockerbie.”
Robert Black, the Edinburgh law professor who was one of the architects of al-Megrahi’s trial before a special Scottish court in the Netherlands, said: “There would have been strong pressure from civil servants in the justice department and the Crown Office to bring this appeal to an end . . . I’m convinced they have never wanted it to go the full distance. Legitimate concerns about the events leading up to his conviction will not be heard.” (...)
The Libyan’s decision to drop his appeal gives Mr MacAskill the slightly less controversial option of transferring him to a Libyan jail under a prisoner transfer agreement that Britain and Libya finalised in April. Such transfers cannot take place until all legal proceedings have ended.
Either way the Obama Administration will be angered, and the victims’ relatives will be deprived of an appeal that they saw as their last chance, short of the independent public inquiry that they have long demanded, of finding out who really killed their sons, daughter, spouses and parents when Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie in December 1988.
They and other experts have long doubted the evidence used to convict al-Megrahi and asked how a single man could have carried out such a deadly attack. They have questioned whether Syria or Iran was really responsible. (...)
Pamela Dix, of Woking, Surrey, whose brother died in the bombing, said she felt “great disappointment . . . At the moment there is no other process or procedure ongoing to tell us how the bombing was carried out, why it was done, the motivation for it and who ordered it.”
Martin Cadman, of Burnham Market in Norfolk, who lost his son, said: “If this means that this is the end of the story then I’m very disappointed. It’s been nearly 21 years since the event and where are we? Nowhere.”
Al-Megrahi’s lawyers said he had dropped his appeal because his health had deteriorated sharply, though Scottish law would permit the appeal to continue even after his death.
Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, strenuously denied that any pressure had been put on him. “We have no interest in pressurising people to drop appeals. Why on earth should we? That’s not our position — never has been,” he said.
But the Scottish government faced a wave of scepticism. Mr Miles called al-Megrahi’s original trial “deeply flawed” and said that both Scottish and British governments wanted no appeal because it would be very embarrassing.
Ms Grahame, a backbench member of Mr Salmond’s Scottish Nationalist Party, had visited al-Megrahi in prison and said he was desperate to clear his name. She claimed to have seen a leaked e-mail from the Scottish justice department showing that senior officials were pressing him to drop his appeal.
Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP who has long proclaimed al-Megrahi’s innocence, said: “If he abandons his appeal, it means that Lockerbie will be one of those mysteries like the assassination of President Kennedy that will remain unsolved for a long time — possibly forever.”
He added: “It would come as a mighty relief to officials at the Crown Office in Edinburgh, to certain officials in the stratosphere of Whitehall, and above all to officials in Washington.”
[The above are excerpts from a report in The Times. The full text can be read here.]
The decision of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who is expected to be freed from prison in Scotland next week allowing his return to Libya, sparked charges of a top-level cover-up.
Politicians, relatives and experts accused the Scottish government of striking a deal with the convicted terrorist: that in return for his repatriation he would abandon an appeal that might have exposed a grave miscarriage of justice. “It’s pretty likely there was a deal,” said Oliver Miles, a former British Ambassador to Libya, who told The Times that the British and Scottish governments had been very anxious to avoid the appeal.
Christine Grahame, a member of the Scottish Parliament, said: “There are a number of vested interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal because they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth behind Lockerbie.”
Robert Black, the Edinburgh law professor who was one of the architects of al-Megrahi’s trial before a special Scottish court in the Netherlands, said: “There would have been strong pressure from civil servants in the justice department and the Crown Office to bring this appeal to an end . . . I’m convinced they have never wanted it to go the full distance. Legitimate concerns about the events leading up to his conviction will not be heard.” (...)
The Libyan’s decision to drop his appeal gives Mr MacAskill the slightly less controversial option of transferring him to a Libyan jail under a prisoner transfer agreement that Britain and Libya finalised in April. Such transfers cannot take place until all legal proceedings have ended.
Either way the Obama Administration will be angered, and the victims’ relatives will be deprived of an appeal that they saw as their last chance, short of the independent public inquiry that they have long demanded, of finding out who really killed their sons, daughter, spouses and parents when Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie in December 1988.
They and other experts have long doubted the evidence used to convict al-Megrahi and asked how a single man could have carried out such a deadly attack. They have questioned whether Syria or Iran was really responsible. (...)
Pamela Dix, of Woking, Surrey, whose brother died in the bombing, said she felt “great disappointment . . . At the moment there is no other process or procedure ongoing to tell us how the bombing was carried out, why it was done, the motivation for it and who ordered it.”
Martin Cadman, of Burnham Market in Norfolk, who lost his son, said: “If this means that this is the end of the story then I’m very disappointed. It’s been nearly 21 years since the event and where are we? Nowhere.”
Al-Megrahi’s lawyers said he had dropped his appeal because his health had deteriorated sharply, though Scottish law would permit the appeal to continue even after his death.
Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, strenuously denied that any pressure had been put on him. “We have no interest in pressurising people to drop appeals. Why on earth should we? That’s not our position — never has been,” he said.
But the Scottish government faced a wave of scepticism. Mr Miles called al-Megrahi’s original trial “deeply flawed” and said that both Scottish and British governments wanted no appeal because it would be very embarrassing.
Ms Grahame, a backbench member of Mr Salmond’s Scottish Nationalist Party, had visited al-Megrahi in prison and said he was desperate to clear his name. She claimed to have seen a leaked e-mail from the Scottish justice department showing that senior officials were pressing him to drop his appeal.
Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP who has long proclaimed al-Megrahi’s innocence, said: “If he abandons his appeal, it means that Lockerbie will be one of those mysteries like the assassination of President Kennedy that will remain unsolved for a long time — possibly forever.”
He added: “It would come as a mighty relief to officials at the Crown Office in Edinburgh, to certain officials in the stratosphere of Whitehall, and above all to officials in Washington.”
[The above are excerpts from a report in The Times. The full text can be read here.]
Sunday 28 July 2013
"Dirty dealing" by UK Government over Megrahi prisoner transfer agreement
[An article in today’s edition of The Sunday Telegraph discloses that the UK Government linked its conclusion of a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya to an arms-export deal. It reads in part:]
An email sent by the then British ambassador in Tripoli details how a prisoner transfer agreement would be signed once Libya “fulfils its promise” to buy an air defence system.
The disclosure is embarrassing for members of the then Labour government, which always insisted that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s release was not linked to commercial deals.
The email, which contained a briefing on the UK’s relations with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, was sent on June 8 2008 by Sir Vincent Fean, the then UK ambassador, to Tony Blair’s private office, ahead of a visit soon after he stepped down as prime minister.
Mr Blair flew to Tripoli to meet Gaddafi on June 10, in a private jet provided by the dictator, one of at least six visits Mr Blair made to Libya after quitting Downing Street.
The briefing, which runs to 1,300 words, contains revealing details about how keen Britain was to do deals with Gaddafi. It also suggests that:
Þ the UK made it a key objective for Libya to invest its £80 billion sovereign wealth fund through the City of London
Þ the UK was privately critical of then President George Bush for “shooting the US in the foot” by continuing to put a block on Libyan assets in America, in the process scuppering business deals
Þ the Department for International Development was eager to use another Libyan fund worth £130 million to pay for schemes in Sierra Leone and other poverty-stricken countries.
The release of Megrahi in August 2009 caused a huge furore, with the Government insisting he had been released on compassionate grounds because he was suffering from terminal cancer, and that the decision was taken solely by the Scottish government. (...)
Libya had been putting pressure on the UK to release Megrahi and in May 2007, just before he left Downing Street, Mr Blair travelled to Sirte to meet Gaddafi and Al-Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmoudi, Libya’s then prime minister.
At that meeting, according to Sir Vincent’s email, Mr Blair and Mr Baghdadi agreed that Libya would buy the missile defence system from MBDA, a weapons manufacturer part-owned by BAE Systems. The pair also signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) for a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA), which the Libyans believed would pave the way for Megrahi’s release.
The British government initially intended the agreement to explicitly exclude Megrahi. However, ministers relented under pressure from Libya.
In December 2007, Jack Straw, then justice secretary, told his Scottish counterpart that he had been unable to secure an exclusion, but said any application to transfer Megrahi under the agreement would still have to be signed off by Scottish ministers.
With Mr Blair returning a year later — as a guest of Gaddafi on his private jet — the government appears to have used the chance to press its case for the arms deal to be sealed. At the time, Britain was on the brink of an economic and banking crisis, and Libya, through the Libyan Investment Authority, had billions of pounds in reserves.
Sir Vincent wrote: “There is one bilateral issue which I hope TB [Tony Blair] can raise, as a legacy issue. On 29 May 07 in Sirte, he and Libya’s PM agreed that Libya would buy an air defence system (Jernas) from the UK (MBDA). One year on, MBDA are now back in Tripoli (since 8 June) aiming to agree and sign the contract now — worth £400 million, and up to 2,000 jobs in the UK. (...)
“Linked (by Libya) is the issue of the 4 bilateral Justice agreements about which TB signed an MoU with Baghdadi on 29 May. The MoU says they will be negotiated within the year: they have been. They are all ready for signature in London as soon as Libya fulfils its promise on Jernas.”
The PTA was signed in November 2008 by Bill Rammell, a foreign office minister.
The disclosure of the email, which was obtained by The Sunday Telegraph as a result of a Freedom of Information request, angered the relatives of victims of the bombing.
Pam Dix, whose brother Peter died at Lockerbie, said: “It appears from this email that the British government was making a clear correlation between arms dealing with Libya and the signing of the prisoner transfer agreement.
“We were told Megrahi’s release was a matter strictly for the Scottish government but this shows the dirty dealing that was going on behind the scenes.”
Lord Mandelson, who was business secretary when Megrahi was released, said he was unaware of any possible links between commercial deals and negotiations over a release.
He said: “Based on the information that I was given at the time, I made clear the government’s position. I was not aware of the correspondence covered in this FOI request.”
An email sent by the then British ambassador in Tripoli details how a prisoner transfer agreement would be signed once Libya “fulfils its promise” to buy an air defence system.
The disclosure is embarrassing for members of the then Labour government, which always insisted that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s release was not linked to commercial deals.
The email, which contained a briefing on the UK’s relations with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, was sent on June 8 2008 by Sir Vincent Fean, the then UK ambassador, to Tony Blair’s private office, ahead of a visit soon after he stepped down as prime minister.
Mr Blair flew to Tripoli to meet Gaddafi on June 10, in a private jet provided by the dictator, one of at least six visits Mr Blair made to Libya after quitting Downing Street.
The briefing, which runs to 1,300 words, contains revealing details about how keen Britain was to do deals with Gaddafi. It also suggests that:
Þ the UK made it a key objective for Libya to invest its £80 billion sovereign wealth fund through the City of London
Þ the UK was privately critical of then President George Bush for “shooting the US in the foot” by continuing to put a block on Libyan assets in America, in the process scuppering business deals
Þ the Department for International Development was eager to use another Libyan fund worth £130 million to pay for schemes in Sierra Leone and other poverty-stricken countries.
The release of Megrahi in August 2009 caused a huge furore, with the Government insisting he had been released on compassionate grounds because he was suffering from terminal cancer, and that the decision was taken solely by the Scottish government. (...)
Libya had been putting pressure on the UK to release Megrahi and in May 2007, just before he left Downing Street, Mr Blair travelled to Sirte to meet Gaddafi and Al-Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmoudi, Libya’s then prime minister.
At that meeting, according to Sir Vincent’s email, Mr Blair and Mr Baghdadi agreed that Libya would buy the missile defence system from MBDA, a weapons manufacturer part-owned by BAE Systems. The pair also signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) for a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA), which the Libyans believed would pave the way for Megrahi’s release.
The British government initially intended the agreement to explicitly exclude Megrahi. However, ministers relented under pressure from Libya.
In December 2007, Jack Straw, then justice secretary, told his Scottish counterpart that he had been unable to secure an exclusion, but said any application to transfer Megrahi under the agreement would still have to be signed off by Scottish ministers.
With Mr Blair returning a year later — as a guest of Gaddafi on his private jet — the government appears to have used the chance to press its case for the arms deal to be sealed. At the time, Britain was on the brink of an economic and banking crisis, and Libya, through the Libyan Investment Authority, had billions of pounds in reserves.
Sir Vincent wrote: “There is one bilateral issue which I hope TB [Tony Blair] can raise, as a legacy issue. On 29 May 07 in Sirte, he and Libya’s PM agreed that Libya would buy an air defence system (Jernas) from the UK (MBDA). One year on, MBDA are now back in Tripoli (since 8 June) aiming to agree and sign the contract now — worth £400 million, and up to 2,000 jobs in the UK. (...)
“Linked (by Libya) is the issue of the 4 bilateral Justice agreements about which TB signed an MoU with Baghdadi on 29 May. The MoU says they will be negotiated within the year: they have been. They are all ready for signature in London as soon as Libya fulfils its promise on Jernas.”
The PTA was signed in November 2008 by Bill Rammell, a foreign office minister.
The disclosure of the email, which was obtained by The Sunday Telegraph as a result of a Freedom of Information request, angered the relatives of victims of the bombing.
Pam Dix, whose brother Peter died at Lockerbie, said: “It appears from this email that the British government was making a clear correlation between arms dealing with Libya and the signing of the prisoner transfer agreement.
“We were told Megrahi’s release was a matter strictly for the Scottish government but this shows the dirty dealing that was going on behind the scenes.”
Lord Mandelson, who was business secretary when Megrahi was released, said he was unaware of any possible links between commercial deals and negotiations over a release.
He said: “Based on the information that I was given at the time, I made clear the government’s position. I was not aware of the correspondence covered in this FOI request.”
Sunday 25 October 2009
Lockerbie questions
[This is the headline over a leader in the edition of The Herald for Monday, 26 October. It reads in part:]
Even if the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is guilty as charged, he must have had co-conspirators. (...)
The news that a police review of the entire body of evidence is being undertaken following the dropping of the freed Libyan’s second appeal is, therefore, welcome, even if it falls short of a full cold case review. Forensic science has been refined considerably since the original investigation and it is possible that further tests on certain items could yield new leads, provided that they have not been contaminated. A cloud of uncertainty continues to hang over this case, robbing the relatives of the 270 people who died that night of the bleak satisfaction of knowing that justice had been done and lessons learned. (...)
This police review of the Lockerbie case raises several questions. Given how much uncertainty surrounds what happened, would a major wide-ranging investigation not be more appropriate? And is it right to entrust such a review to just four officers from the Dumfries and Galloway force, headed by an officer who was involved in the original investigation? A limited review that does little more than cover old ground would serve little purpose except, possibly, to delay the wide-ranging independent government inquiry into the atrocity demanded by relatives of the British victims. As Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the disaster, argues in a letter published in The Herald today, the “ongoing criminal investigation” has been repeatedly used to deny relatives the full inquiry they demand and deserve.
Yesterday the British and Scottish Governments continued to play pass the parcel over who should call an inquiry. UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was a matter for the Scots because “that’s the way our system works”, while a Scottish Government spokesman insisted that any inquiry had to be convened “by those with required powers”. The telephone has been in common use in Britain for more than 100 years. It is not beyond the wit of ministers in London and Edinburgh to agree on the format, structure and remit of a Lockerbie inquiry that hopefully would answer some remaining questions without turning into the open-ended Bloody Sunday-style affair.
Truth is not the only victim to consider here. Those bereaved by this atrocity have waited too long for answers. As Pamela Dix, whose brother died at Lockerbie, put it: “It is unfinished business.”
[The letter from Dr Swire referred to above is not available on the newspaper's website. But, as sent, it reads as follows:]
After more than 20 years, the Crown Office has just announced that the Lockerbie Criminal Investigation is to re-examine the available evidence and assess new channels of investigation. Their announcement coincides to the day with the public announcement by the UK Lockerbie families group 'UK Families-Flight 103' that they are yet again demanding (this time of Gordon Brown), a full inquiry into the failure to protect their loved ones and the identity of the perpetrators.
The 'ongoing criminal investigation' has been repeatedly used as a reason for denying us the full inquiry into the truth as to why our families were not protected back in 1988, to which we are entitled under Human Rights law and now the Inquiries Act 2005.
If further serious meaningful investigation really is to be pursued by the police and Crown Office (CO) as to who else may have contributed to the ruthless murder of our families back in 1988 I would be the first to applaud it. Abu Talb, a potential incriminee has now been released from jail and according to the Crown Office itself was not granted immunity against prosecution over Lockerbie, though appearing as a witness at Zeist. That might be no bad place to start looking for the truth. Trouble is, if he bought 'the clothes from Gauci's shop' then Megrahi clearly didn't. Honest further investigation is almost bound to embarrass the Zeist verdict, on which the CO's reputation, and that of its members past and present heavily depends.
'Who else' I write. Interested parties should go to the website of the London Review of Books (lrb.co.uk) and read the article by Gareth Peirce, one of England's foremost miscarriage of justice and human rights lawyers. Her article is titled 'The framing of Al Megrahi'. There they will find an erudite critism of the trial.
After that they might like to consider the words of the UN's specially appointed International Observer at the Lockerbie trial, Professor Hans Koechler of Vienna, who found the verdict against Megrahi 'incomprehensible' and a 'travesty of justice'. He was also forthright enough to say that the verdict could not have been reached without 'deliberate malpractice on the part of Scotland's Crown Office'.
That is a weighty charge, which the CO has not publicly contested, nor have Scottish or UK politicians.
Then interested parties might like to press for the public UK showing of Lockerbie Revisited, a brilliant documentary film by Gideon Levy of the Netherlands which has just won a major international prize, yet which no one in the UK has yet had the guts to screen outside the privilege of the Scottish Parliament, under the redoubtable wing of Christine Grahame MSP.
Forgive me, if for now the jury is out as to what the Crown Office are really up to. Let us not forget that very serious issues still surround the conduct of the Crown Office throughout this case, and the verdict against Al Megrahi in particular.
Even if the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is guilty as charged, he must have had co-conspirators. (...)
The news that a police review of the entire body of evidence is being undertaken following the dropping of the freed Libyan’s second appeal is, therefore, welcome, even if it falls short of a full cold case review. Forensic science has been refined considerably since the original investigation and it is possible that further tests on certain items could yield new leads, provided that they have not been contaminated. A cloud of uncertainty continues to hang over this case, robbing the relatives of the 270 people who died that night of the bleak satisfaction of knowing that justice had been done and lessons learned. (...)
This police review of the Lockerbie case raises several questions. Given how much uncertainty surrounds what happened, would a major wide-ranging investigation not be more appropriate? And is it right to entrust such a review to just four officers from the Dumfries and Galloway force, headed by an officer who was involved in the original investigation? A limited review that does little more than cover old ground would serve little purpose except, possibly, to delay the wide-ranging independent government inquiry into the atrocity demanded by relatives of the British victims. As Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the disaster, argues in a letter published in The Herald today, the “ongoing criminal investigation” has been repeatedly used to deny relatives the full inquiry they demand and deserve.
Yesterday the British and Scottish Governments continued to play pass the parcel over who should call an inquiry. UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was a matter for the Scots because “that’s the way our system works”, while a Scottish Government spokesman insisted that any inquiry had to be convened “by those with required powers”. The telephone has been in common use in Britain for more than 100 years. It is not beyond the wit of ministers in London and Edinburgh to agree on the format, structure and remit of a Lockerbie inquiry that hopefully would answer some remaining questions without turning into the open-ended Bloody Sunday-style affair.
Truth is not the only victim to consider here. Those bereaved by this atrocity have waited too long for answers. As Pamela Dix, whose brother died at Lockerbie, put it: “It is unfinished business.”
[The letter from Dr Swire referred to above is not available on the newspaper's website. But, as sent, it reads as follows:]
After more than 20 years, the Crown Office has just announced that the Lockerbie Criminal Investigation is to re-examine the available evidence and assess new channels of investigation. Their announcement coincides to the day with the public announcement by the UK Lockerbie families group 'UK Families-Flight 103' that they are yet again demanding (this time of Gordon Brown), a full inquiry into the failure to protect their loved ones and the identity of the perpetrators.
The 'ongoing criminal investigation' has been repeatedly used as a reason for denying us the full inquiry into the truth as to why our families were not protected back in 1988, to which we are entitled under Human Rights law and now the Inquiries Act 2005.
If further serious meaningful investigation really is to be pursued by the police and Crown Office (CO) as to who else may have contributed to the ruthless murder of our families back in 1988 I would be the first to applaud it. Abu Talb, a potential incriminee has now been released from jail and according to the Crown Office itself was not granted immunity against prosecution over Lockerbie, though appearing as a witness at Zeist. That might be no bad place to start looking for the truth. Trouble is, if he bought 'the clothes from Gauci's shop' then Megrahi clearly didn't. Honest further investigation is almost bound to embarrass the Zeist verdict, on which the CO's reputation, and that of its members past and present heavily depends.
'Who else' I write. Interested parties should go to the website of the London Review of Books (lrb.co.uk) and read the article by Gareth Peirce, one of England's foremost miscarriage of justice and human rights lawyers. Her article is titled 'The framing of Al Megrahi'. There they will find an erudite critism of the trial.
After that they might like to consider the words of the UN's specially appointed International Observer at the Lockerbie trial, Professor Hans Koechler of Vienna, who found the verdict against Megrahi 'incomprehensible' and a 'travesty of justice'. He was also forthright enough to say that the verdict could not have been reached without 'deliberate malpractice on the part of Scotland's Crown Office'.
That is a weighty charge, which the CO has not publicly contested, nor have Scottish or UK politicians.
Then interested parties might like to press for the public UK showing of Lockerbie Revisited, a brilliant documentary film by Gideon Levy of the Netherlands which has just won a major international prize, yet which no one in the UK has yet had the guts to screen outside the privilege of the Scottish Parliament, under the redoubtable wing of Christine Grahame MSP.
Forgive me, if for now the jury is out as to what the Crown Office are really up to. Let us not forget that very serious issues still surround the conduct of the Crown Office throughout this case, and the verdict against Al Megrahi in particular.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)