As Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi returns to a hero's welcome in Libya, Statfor look at the evidence for his guilt.
Libya: A Hero's Welcome
Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report
August 26, 2009
...
Like Osama bin Laden’s initial denial of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, al-Megrahi’s claims of innocence have served as ready fuel for conspiracy theorists, who claim he was framed by the U.S. and British governments. However, any conspiracy to frame al-Megrahi and his Libyan masters would have to be very wide ranging and, by necessity, reach much further than just London and Washington. For example, anyone considering such a conspiracy must also account for the fact that in 1999 a French court convicted six Libyans in absentia for the 1989 bombing of UTA Flight 772. The six included Abdullah al-Sanussi, Gadhafi’s brother-in-law and head of the ESO.
Getting two or more governments to cooperate on some sort of grand conspiracy to frame the Libyans and exonerate the Iranians and Syrians is hard to fathom. Such cooperation would have to involve enough people that, sooner or later, someone would spill the beans — especially considering that the Pan Am 103 saga played out over multiple U.S. administrations. As seen by the current stir over CIA interrogation programs, administrations love to make political hay by revealing the cover-ups of previous administrations. Surely, if there had been a secret ploy by the Reagan or Bush administrations to frame the Libyans, the Clinton or Obama administration would have outed it. The same principle applies to the United Kingdom, where Margaret Thatcher’s government oversaw the beginning of the Pan Am 103 investigation and Labour governments after 1997 would have had the incentive to reveal information to the contrary.
While the U.S. and British governments work closely together on a number of intelligence projects, they are frequently at odds on counterterrorism policy and foreign relations. From our personal experience, we believe that it would be very difficult to get multiple U.S. and British administrations from different political parties to work in perfect harmony to further this sort of conspiracy. Due to the UTA investigation and trial, the conspiracy would have to somehow involve the French government. While the Americans working with the British is one thing, the very idea of the Americans, British and French working in perfect harmony on any sort of project — much less a grand secret conspiracy to frame the Libyans — is simply unimaginable. It is much easier to believe that the Libyans were guilty, especially in light of the litany of other terror attacks they committed or sponsored during that era.
Had the IED in the cargo hold of Pan Am 103 exploded over the open ocean, it is very unlikely that the clothing from Malta and the fragment of the MEBO timer would have ever been recovered — think of the difficulty the French have had in locating the black box from Air France 447 in June of this year. In such a scenario, the evidence linking al-Megrahi and the Libyan government to the Pan Am bombing might never have been discovered and plausible deniability could have been maintained indefinitely.
The evidence recovered in Scotland and al-Megrahi’s eventual conviction put a dent in that deniability, but the true authors of the attack — al-Megrahi’s superiors — were never formally charged. Without al-Megrahi’s cooperation, there was no evidence to prove who ordered him to undertake the attack, though it is logical to conclude that the ESO would never undertake such a significant attack without Gadhafi’s approval.
Now that al-Megrahi has returned to Libya and is in Libyan safekeeping, there is no chance that any death-bed confession he may give will ever make it to the West. His denials will be his final words and the ambiguity and doubt those denials cast will be his legacy. In the shadowy world of clandestine operations, this is the ideal behavior for someone caught committing an operational act. He has shielded his superiors and his government to the end. From the perspective of the ESO, and Moammar Gadhafi, al-Megrahi is indeed a hero.
12 comments:
In the interest of balance..
Robert Black QC believed al_Megrahi was innocent. He also believed the release was agreed to bring the upcoming appeal to an end.
'Robert Black QC, the Edinburgh law professor who is credited as the architect of al-Megrahi's specially convened trial in the Netherlands held under Scots law, said a deal may have been struck to prevent the evidence being heard.
"I think there would have been strong pressure from civil servants in the justice department and the Crown Office to bring this appeal to an end," Professor Black said. "I am convinced they have never wanted it to go the full distance."
"If that has happened that is a tragedy for the Scottish criminal justice system because that will mean legitimate concerns about the events leading up to his conviction will not be heard."
Christine Grahame, the SNP MSP who has met al-Megrahi in Greenock prison, also believes he had been pressured into the decision to drop his appeal.
She said there should now be a full public inquiry into the case.
"I know from the lengthy discussions I had with him that he was desperate to clear his name, so I believe that the decision is not entirely his own," she said. '
full report in the Times here
Also, UN monitor critised the dismissal of al-Megrahi's appeal in 2002. Here's the BBC news report.
'Professor Köchler, 53, who teaches philosophy at the University of Innsbruck in Austria, was one of five UN observers who followed the Lockerbie case.
They were appointed as part of the deal between the UN and Libya which allowed the extradition of al-Megrahi and a co-accused, who was found not guilty at the trial last year, to face the charges.
The observers are not bound to report back formally to the UN but Professor Köchler said that under the circumstances, he felt compelled to do so.
He told BBC Radio Scotland's Newsdrive programme: "I am sorry to admit that my impression is that justice was not done and that we are dealing here with a rather spectacular case of a miscarriage of justice.
"I am at a loss to explain how this decision of the appeal court can have been passed unanimously in light of some of the questions asked and analysis presented by one or the other of the appeal court judges during the appeal.
"I see a kind of gap between how the sessions of the appeal court went and the unanaimity of this decision... which did not give any credence at all to any of the grounds of appeal which were presented.
"I base my observation only on logic and reason."
"Frankly speaking I am not convinced, I was not convinced when I read the opinion of the court after the trial last year and I was not convinced when I went through the text presented today.
"I am not convinced at all that the sequence of events that led to this explosion of the plane over Scotland was as described by the court. Everything that is presented is only circumstantial evidence."
Asked if he spoke for the entire UN observation team, he said: "Based on the informal conversations we had today - you can imagine that we have spoken to each other after the verdict - I have the impression that this concern is shared by the large majority of the observers."'
Interesting. For me, this is the crucial question. If al-Megrahi's conviction was not sound, he shouldn't have been in prison in the first place. If it was, I heard John Bolton on Newsnight recently saying he'd served two weeks in prison for every death, an outrage against justice. I'd agree with Bolton that mass murderers don't deserve compassion.
Read the full Stratfor report. They agree that the evidence is circumstantial, but conclude that al-Megrahi's guilt is very likely.
There's the usual suggestion that this release is a realpolitik "all about oil" UK-gov-influenced decision. Quite possible, I'd guess, but I don't really know enough to say.
Marcel Berlins on al-Megrahi:
Compassion, conviction and lingering doubt
Marcel Berlins
The Guardian, Monday 31 August 2009
Article history
What if Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was innocent of the Lockerbie bombing? The furore over his release has concentrated on two issues: whether or not he deserved to be freed on compassionate grounds – the reason given by the Scottish justice secretary – and whether, behind the scenes, lurked the real motive for granting his freedom, which was all about oil and Britain's trading relationship with Libya.
Megrahi's return to Libya seemed conveniently to have sidelined another potentially embarrassing question: was he the victim of a miscarriage of justice? Was the decision to free him at least partly based on the Scottish desire to avoid having that question answered? Of course, no one connected with the decision, whether in Scotland, Whitehall or Downing Street, could admit, or even hint, that guilt or innocence was a factor. Officially, he was a properly convicted prisoner, no question.
It is not just Megrahi himself insisting on his innocence. For many years, the case has induced unease in the Scottish legal world. Evidence has emerged that appears to cast some doubt on the verdict. No one is saying the material absolutely proves Megrahi's innocence, but it has been enough to raise the possibility of wrongful conviction.
Jim Swire, the father of one of the Lockerbie victims, who led the campaign of bereaved British relatives to discover the truth about the tragedy, now believes that an injustice occurred – so do many families of British victims (though this doubt is not shared by families on the American side).
Robert Black QC, one of Scotland's most eminent advocates, who has studied the case, is of the same view. More importantly, in 2007, the independent Scottish criminal cases review commission (SCCRC) referred the Megrahi case to the Scottish appeal court, finding sufficient grounds to suggest a miscarriage. The court would not have been obliged to grant the appeal, but it has usually done so on previous SCCRC referrals. The court was due to hear the appeal later this year, but Megrahi formally withdrew it during the flurry of activity leading to his release.
His lawyer has made it clear that he did so because it was felt that continuing the appeal – which would have gone on after his death – might have prejudiced his chances of being sent home. In the last few days Megrahi himself has reiterated his claim to innocence.
If he was wrongly convicted, all sorts of new questions arise, not least who was the real bomber and whether Libya was the instigator of the attack. It is probably too late to uncover the whole truth, but should we not try? If he didn't do it, there would at least be a sort of vindication of the decision to release him, even if for the wrong reasons.
Is there any way still open to consider the evidence which might have overturned Megrahi's conviction? His Scottish lawyer says he will make the dossier public. But who would evaluate it? It would not be satisfactory to leave matters in uncertainty. There is a strong case for an independent inquiry."
Am intrigued to know what this new evidence might be. The fact that a Libyan intelligence officer proclaims his innocence is irrelevant - he'd be doing that if he were guilty.
But it seems to be relevant to Berlins et al that R Black QC believes he is innocent.
Peter Hitchens in The Mail on Sunday on the Lockerbie bomber controversy:
'The deal with terrorists that truly was squalid
As if to commemorate the original Phoney War of 1939-40, we are now having another one about Libya and Colonel Gaddafi. You normally see posturing like this only at a Paris fashion show, all strutting, pouting and striking attitudes.
Look, there was a real occasion in this country when we did a squalid deal with terrorists. We didn’t even get any oil concessions in return.
In fact we got nothing and they got everything. It didn’t involve the release of one ill and doubtfully guilty person, but the release of hundreds of healthy, wholly guilty criminals and the wrongful elevation of various bloodstained ruffians to taxpayer-financed public office.
This was sanctified at the time as The Good Friday Agreement. I opposed it, almost alone in the British media (perhaps I was also the only journalist who read it) and have ever afterwards been told off by pious persons for being against ‘peace’.
Interestingly enough, Colonel Gaddafi was involved in that too, having given the IRA training and explosives with which it murdered lots of innocent people. But we seemed to have forgiven him for that, without any fuss.
The political party now raging against the release of the supposed Lockerbie Bomber, demanding inquiries and the rest, was prominent in actively supporting the Good Friday surrender.
The government of the USA, likewise, pushed hard for its acceptance. For these bodies to complain about the release of Megrahi is worse than ordinary hypocrisy. It is a special kind of brazen humbug, deserving of total contempt. Anyway, Megrahi was freed to prevent an appeal, which would have shown he was innocent and exposed the reasons behind the whole disgraceful cover-up of the real culprits.
Meanwhile, the truly important national controversy – Afghanistan – goes undiscussed while good men die."
Interesting. I wonder who PH considers the real culprits to be?
I have some vague recall that Hitchens argued that many experts believe Iran and Syria were involved. Can't find the quote though so might have misremembered it.
My instinct is not to believe a word arch-conspiracist Pilger says, but wouldn't it be interesting if he and P.Hitchens agreed on this?
One thing you can be sure of though - Pilger's only concern in pinning this on Iranian-supporting Palestinians is to embarrass his usual enemies. He has no problem supporting such types when it suits him.
Megrahi was framed
John Pilger
New Statesman
03 September 2009
...
[Paul] Foot reported that most of the staff of the US embassy in Moscow who had reserved seats on Pan Am flights from Frankfurt cancelled their bookings when they were alerted by US intelligence that a terrorist attack was planned. He named Margaret Thatcher the "architect" of the cover-up after revealing that she killed the independent inquiry her transport secretary Cecil Parkinson had promised the Lockerbie families; and in a phone call to President George Bush Sr on 11 January 1990, she agreed to "low-key" the disaster after their intelligence services had reported "beyond doubt" that the Lockerbie bomb had been placed by a Palestinian group, contracted by Tehran, as a reprisal for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by a US warship in Iranian territorial waters. Among the 290 dead were 66 children. In 1990, the ship's captain was awarded the Legion of Merit by Bush Sr "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer".
Perversely, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, Bush needed Iran's support as he built a "coalition" to expel his wayward client from an American oil colony. The only country that defied Bush and backed Iraq was Libya. "Like lazy and overfed fish," wrote Foot, "the British media jumped to the bait. In almost unanimous chorus, they engaged in furious vilification and open warmongering against Libya." The framing of Libya for the Lockerbie crime was inevitable. Since then, a US defence intelligence agency report, obtained under Freedom of Information, has confirmed these truths and identified the likely bomber; it was to be the centrepiece of Megrahi's defence.
...
Apologies the following post is a bit of a digression. JP dismissed Pilger as an arch conspiracist in the post above. I think most of us agree that conspiracies are the work of nutters and cranks, but sometimes I wonder if we are a bit rash in dismissing counter theories and arguments that the official stories might not tell the whole truth.
Take the news the other week that Margaret Thatcher secretly told Gorbachev - contrary to her public position - that she didn't want the Berlin wall torn down and Germany to be reunified. She sought to make her plea remain private but it has been revealed in minutes from a 20 year old secret Kremlin meeting. Now imagine if someone had suggested at the time that Thatcher and Reagan both secretly wanted the Berlin Wall to remain in place in spite of their public pronouncements. I think we would have dismissed them as conspiracy nuts...and yet that was the truth. It makes me wonder whether many of the things we believe to be the case now might turn out to be very different from what we'd all assumed.
I did say it was not strictly on topic...
For more on this story, and another example of the convergence between Hitchens and a more left wing writer here is Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday and Mick Hume (previously of Living Marxism) both writing on the news that Thatcher secretly defended the Berlin Wall.
A key witness in the Lockerbie trail allegedly received payments from the US Government.
"The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing released evidence today claiming to show that a key witness at his trial received payments from the US after giving evidence.
The claim is made in documents published online by Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in support of his attempt to clear his name of involvement in the worst terrorist attack on British soil.
It refers to concerns raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) about the safety of Megrahi's conviction for killing 270 people in the Lockerbie bombing on 21 December 1988.
The documents would have formed part of an appeal, which Megrahi, who is terminally ill, agreed to drop in return for his release on compassionate grounds.
The commission found police memos suggesting that Tony Gauci, the only witness to link the Libyan to the alleged plot, expressed an interest in being paid to give evidence. He also received payments from the US department of justice after the trial, the new documents claim to show."
Full report here
Post a Comment