June 5 2011
This rare update is spurred by an excellent video I just saw from Journeyman productions - not sure if they made it or who they are - it says 2003, which seems right - but it's a rare video on Libya and Lockerbie that gives real insight.
The $10 billion mentioned was never paid. It was set at 2.7 billion in 2003, and settled up by, I think, 2008 to a slightly different tune. I don't have the details handy, but lawyers got a lot of it.
The video mentions this as being no admission of guilt but rather the government's purchase of "a license" to simply be allowed back into the world economy (see 7:25). Further, Libya agreed to drop its own claims over the 1986 US bombing, by "mad dog" Reagan, of Tripoli and Benghazi, that killed around fifty innocents. This was in retaliation for another attack the Libyans have sworn they never carried out, and the effects are covered touchingly in the video. Note the contrast of the victims of that bombing in seeking justice compared to those whose case was against Libya, and who had it muscled through to amazingly painful effects for Libya, by the best of Anglo-American imperial might.
Of course, as Professor Black explains here in part, that case itself is weak and unreliable, the judgment confirming it perverse. See the rest of this site for a fuller exploration of the depth of unreliability dug out by the Lockerbie case. But they paid up anyway, because the sanctions rested on the perverse verdict and those were quite real.
Detente did follow from 2003-2011, greased along with Tripoli swearing off all terroorism, real or imagined, abandonimg all WMD programs, including a nuclear deterrent, promising reforms in Libya, and opening to foreign oil companies. But the companies weren't fully happy, the system was still too Libyan, and plots still simmered under the surface, and now ...
It's insane to think eight years later, all paid-up, the country is finally being destroyed completely anyways. At least $60 billion (perhaps more like $100 billion) in Libyan government funds - for military, civilian, and all uses - was just frozen by the US and a handful of other countries. And the NATO bombs are falling across non-rebel Libya. This is all officially based on some muddled humanitarian concern that can only be answered by Gaddafi "leaving" and taking his system - women empowerment, massive benefits for citizens at large, limited foreign control, etc. - with him. This is all being handed to us sewn together wrong, and I'm still working on fixing that, as much as I can, at my new blog The Libyan Civil War: Critical Views.
Showing posts with label Family of victims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Family of victims. Show all posts
Terrorists 1 and 2! Ah, I see you’ve met!
Reflections on the Libya conflict, Gaddafi, bin Laden, and their shared history
March 21
edits March 22
Note: I only come across as so totaly pro-Gaddafi in the sense of shouting what others won't even whisper. I mean to excuse no atrocity or abuse by Gaddafi's regime that is real and unwarranted in the circumstances. I only seek to add just this, below, to the global discussion on the Libya conflict.
---
Paul Hudson, father of a Lockerbie victim and co-president of the Families of Pan Am 103/Lockerbie – a separate group from Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc. - posted a press release about a week ago, on the eve of the UN vote about a no-fly zone over Libya. It’s a pretty militant dispatch filled with minor inaccuracies (Libya was not on Bush's “axis of evil,” for one) and the usual annoying spin the U.S. family members of 103 victims are so well-known for. Something about believing that their children were killed by Gaddafi’s regime might have something to do with that.
As others have been doing, he seems to believe every report from the rebel side and hears none from the other, and falls back on alarmist tactics to urge sterner measures against the Gaddafi regime. He called for immediate military strikes and recognition of the new government in Benghazi, to prevent a “genocide” against the “peaceful protesters.” Out inaction in this war has the danger of "starting a war," he cautioned.
Hudson’s advice and the thousands who share the same view has apparently made it happen. The United States, UK, and France pushed through a 10-0 vote at the United Nations security council on the imposition of an enforced no-fly zone. And it has just-now-noticed additions specifying Gaddafi’s forces can also not drive tanks, or do anything ground based that threatens “civilian targets.” The meaning of civilian is unclear; it seems by the news reports of actions taken so far to include protesters, and also the half of Libya now under rebel control, and also their advancing forces. Witness the famously photographed rebel fighter jet shot down over Benghazi. Officially (by rebel accounts) this was shot down by Gaddafi's forces, who were close enough to both shoot it and to be threatened by it. They were guilty of breaking the cease-fire, an unprecedented one-sided one, with an open-ended military license to back it up, in the middle of a rather sudden mass defection and war that is not clearly understood by most people (myself included).
Clearly what’s needed is to rush into this fray before we can figure out what the hell’s going on there. Make no mistake, supporting the protesters is an urgent and a humanitarian impulse, we’re told by the US ambassador to the UN: "the violence must stop, the killing must stop, and the people of Libya must be protected and have the opportunity to express themselves freely." And as a French government spokesman clarified, the “free expression” referred to is "go(ing) all the way in their drive for freedom, which means bringing down the Kadhafi regime." [source]
What a novel concept, sure to be introduced here or there, in the heartlands of revolutionary enlightenment freedom themselves. Following this overseas trial run, of course. Or perhaps not.
It's not an entirely savory bunch we are going in to protect, either. There are the deep-east-Libyan Arab racists among them, identifying African “mercenaries” often just by skin color, venting their dislike of Gaddafi’s pan-African ideas by cutting down immigrant workers and lifetime citizens alike in the dozens, according to a number of reports. [see here and here] Many others escaped such harm only by fleeing quickly enough.
But then there’s Daffy Qadhafi’s loony charge that al Qaeda, its north African branch at least, is behind the revolt. He said this from the beginning, to a general response in the west of hysterical laughter. As impassioned commentator David Rothscum aptly put it “ we consider him to be a schizophrenic autistic nutcase of course.” It doesn't help that he added that they were tripping on hallucinogens, of course, in a surreal and contradictory twist.
Again on the eve of serious bombardment, Gaddafi tried to explain to the world: "If you come here to carry out air strikes, you are not coming to protect the human rights of civilians, you are... going to be opening the door to al Qaeda." Strangely, as President Obama orders missiles, his anti-terrorism Czar John Brennan, for one, concedes there is cause for just that concern, as with any Muslim nation being destabilized. Or perhaps more so. Early on in the Libyan uprising, it was reported on CNN and elsewhere that Al Qaeda's North African wing offered through a website to "do whatever we can to help" the rebels. This tends to go against Gaddafi's idea they had initiated the revolt. But just now, they've issued a "warning against America" to the rebels of their stripe.
Brennan was however all but sure of renewed terrorism if Gaddafi remains. Indeed, he might be more angry, for some reason, and so must go, opening the door for someone. And clearly Gaddafi’s death machine and bin Laden’s are in the same group to Americans and the French – Arabic speaking airliner-scale terrorist bad guys, and the worst two among them. As Mr. Hudson noted
The two Libyan agents accused of bombing Flight 103, Abdelbaset al Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah, were indicted in 1991 on flimsy and dubious evidence. Of three witnesses against the accused, at least two were paid $2 million each, and still managed to provide almost zero credible evidence between them. The trial judges themselves in 2000 dismissed one of them, the star witness Giaka, for likely mass-fabrication, and acquitted the accomplice, convicting Megrahi alone for a crime he couldn't do alone. This itself was decided on reasoning seriously questioned on official review in 2007. Gaddafi and Libya never did "admit" to this crime, this alleged Libyan plot on Malta. There’s also much better circumstantial evidence and a truckload of cover-up indicators pointing elsewhere.
Nonetheless, back in the early 1990s, the politically leveraged indictments led into demands for a trial Libya couldn’t agree to, leading to a UN air embargo and steep sanctions. These caused an unknown number – reportedly thousands - of preventable Libyan deaths, possibly included in Mr. Hudson’s numbers as Gaddafi’s fault. This only ended after the two accused surrendered for a compromise trial in 1999. Mr. Hudson noted an agreement to limit the trial’s fallout, unjustly he thinks.
David Shayler is our troublesome source for this, a former MI5 officer, who is now certifiably nuts. But this 2002 article by Martin Bright in the UK Guardian makes quite clear that he had at least one dynamite conspiracy find earlier on: the UK MI6 (foreign intelligence) worked in the mid-1990s with al Qaeda's north African network, in Libya, on a plot to assassinate Gaddafi. The cell there, called the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), included one Anas al-Liby ("the Libyan"), a fairly senior member close to bin Laden in his days in Sudan. As Bright explained the LIFG's bold and British-sponsored move:
Shayler was on trial for revealing some genuine secret or other (I'm unclear what), and his explanation of why, this Libya plot he had to expose, was called “pure fantasy” by the government. But during the trial amazing lengths were gone to to keep it all quiet. Public Interest Immunity certificates were issued, Mr. Shayler was barred from saying or entering anything about it, the media was gagged from reporting on it, and so on. The article explained:
Al-Liby remained in the fight until he was killed in Pakistan, in 2008. But some of his affiliates remained in Libya, mostly the heavily Islamist western half that now, it's proudly boasted, "has never accepted Gaddafi's rule." In fact, he's sometimes referred to there, perhaps literally, as the "anti-Christ." Many eastern citizens were crushed following the 1996 plot, in a harsh crackdown that saw record executions in excess of 1,000.
The government has taken a different tone on the LIFG today, a softer one, to respect international criticism of human rights abuses. Now they are "rehabilitating" the terrorists rather than executing as before. Nonetheless, as reported, "the LIFG in 2007 reaffirmed its determination to topple Kadhafi's regime and to replace it with an Islamic state, and also stated its affiliation to Al-Qaeda."
Under these peoples' influence, parts of neglected western Libya have spawned at least two things of note in the last decade. One is the highest rate of al Qaeda volunteers, per capita, in the Arab world, and now the mutiny against Gaddafi. A further 110 rehabilitated LIFG members were released, as scheduled, a day before the planned "day of rage" that started the revolt in February. And now, some of al-Liby's offspring are, or had better be, planning a coalition government over Africa’s largest oil deposits, if they are to replace a long-despised “terrorist” regime. Or just hold onto what the allies up north seem to think they have a right to.
Now of course, all the rebels are not al Qaeda fanatics, but just how many are is unclear. As David Wood reported for the Huffington Post:
And similarly, not all of the protesters we're protecting are war criminals. But some apparently are. An amateur video (view with discretion) shows rows of dead Libyan soldiers "who refused to obey orders to shoot their fellow Libyans and they were executed by the regime and its mercenaries.” it was the major incident you heard about, the one near al-Baida, where 130 of Gaddafi's soldiers were killed somehow, surely added to the figures against him, and claimed by the rebels as a platoon of martyrs for their freedom fight. Refusing orders to kill innocents, faces blown off. The world was moved.
But another video, shown on Libyan state TV from footage intercepted somehow, shows a number of the same soldiers (apparently, by clothing, build, etc.) and their captors before the killing. From that it seems the rebels themselves themselves blew the heads off of these helpless prisoners, and passed off the edited cut to an accepting world * as another predictable Gaddafi slaughter. Or we have to give the regime very high marks for rapid and convincing video fakery. (Please see the explanation of this at my favorite skeptics forum).
Well, now with some help from northerners, seizing the sky again from a murderous tyrant, the rebels might have the whole regime on its way to being just as bound and helpless as those claimed “martyrs” near al-Baida. Amid the pools of blood at slaughter's end, we’ll hear the explanation – as usual, it was all Gaddafi’s fault. The world will cheer for the freedom fighters. And then some other things will happen, who knows what.
* (Previously I’d noted here the alleged work of the extra-brutal Palestinian terror group PFLP-GC in Bosnia, fighting alongside proto-al Qaeda elements for Bosnian freedom from Serbian rule. Starting in May 1992, some of these terrorist elements reportedly killed civilians and conducted other false flag atrocities blamed on Serb forces and used to help win NATO air support to protect human rights. [source] It is my belief that the PFLP-GC also organized or at least equipped the murder of Mr. Hudson’s daughter in 1988, despite Libya taking the blame.)
March 21
edits March 22
Note: I only come across as so totaly pro-Gaddafi in the sense of shouting what others won't even whisper. I mean to excuse no atrocity or abuse by Gaddafi's regime that is real and unwarranted in the circumstances. I only seek to add just this, below, to the global discussion on the Libya conflict.
---
Paul Hudson, father of a Lockerbie victim and co-president of the Families of Pan Am 103/Lockerbie – a separate group from Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc. - posted a press release about a week ago, on the eve of the UN vote about a no-fly zone over Libya. It’s a pretty militant dispatch filled with minor inaccuracies (Libya was not on Bush's “axis of evil,” for one) and the usual annoying spin the U.S. family members of 103 victims are so well-known for. Something about believing that their children were killed by Gaddafi’s regime might have something to do with that.
As others have been doing, he seems to believe every report from the rebel side and hears none from the other, and falls back on alarmist tactics to urge sterner measures against the Gaddafi regime. He called for immediate military strikes and recognition of the new government in Benghazi, to prevent a “genocide” against the “peaceful protesters.” Out inaction in this war has the danger of "starting a war," he cautioned.
Hudson’s advice and the thousands who share the same view has apparently made it happen. The United States, UK, and France pushed through a 10-0 vote at the United Nations security council on the imposition of an enforced no-fly zone. And it has just-now-noticed additions specifying Gaddafi’s forces can also not drive tanks, or do anything ground based that threatens “civilian targets.” The meaning of civilian is unclear; it seems by the news reports of actions taken so far to include protesters, and also the half of Libya now under rebel control, and also their advancing forces. Witness the famously photographed rebel fighter jet shot down over Benghazi. Officially (by rebel accounts) this was shot down by Gaddafi's forces, who were close enough to both shoot it and to be threatened by it. They were guilty of breaking the cease-fire, an unprecedented one-sided one, with an open-ended military license to back it up, in the middle of a rather sudden mass defection and war that is not clearly understood by most people (myself included).
Clearly what’s needed is to rush into this fray before we can figure out what the hell’s going on there. Make no mistake, supporting the protesters is an urgent and a humanitarian impulse, we’re told by the US ambassador to the UN: "the violence must stop, the killing must stop, and the people of Libya must be protected and have the opportunity to express themselves freely." And as a French government spokesman clarified, the “free expression” referred to is "go(ing) all the way in their drive for freedom, which means bringing down the Kadhafi regime." [source]
What a novel concept, sure to be introduced here or there, in the heartlands of revolutionary enlightenment freedom themselves. Following this overseas trial run, of course. Or perhaps not.
It's not an entirely savory bunch we are going in to protect, either. There are the deep-east-Libyan Arab racists among them, identifying African “mercenaries” often just by skin color, venting their dislike of Gaddafi’s pan-African ideas by cutting down immigrant workers and lifetime citizens alike in the dozens, according to a number of reports. [see here and here] Many others escaped such harm only by fleeing quickly enough.
But then there’s Daffy Qadhafi’s loony charge that al Qaeda, its north African branch at least, is behind the revolt. He said this from the beginning, to a general response in the west of hysterical laughter. As impassioned commentator David Rothscum aptly put it “ we consider him to be a schizophrenic autistic nutcase of course.” It doesn't help that he added that they were tripping on hallucinogens, of course, in a surreal and contradictory twist.
Again on the eve of serious bombardment, Gaddafi tried to explain to the world: "If you come here to carry out air strikes, you are not coming to protect the human rights of civilians, you are... going to be opening the door to al Qaeda." Strangely, as President Obama orders missiles, his anti-terrorism Czar John Brennan, for one, concedes there is cause for just that concern, as with any Muslim nation being destabilized. Or perhaps more so. Early on in the Libyan uprising, it was reported on CNN and elsewhere that Al Qaeda's North African wing offered through a website to "do whatever we can to help" the rebels. This tends to go against Gaddafi's idea they had initiated the revolt. But just now, they've issued a "warning against America" to the rebels of their stripe.
Brennan was however all but sure of renewed terrorism if Gaddafi remains. Indeed, he might be more angry, for some reason, and so must go, opening the door for someone. And clearly Gaddafi’s death machine and bin Laden’s are in the same group to Americans and the French – Arabic speaking airliner-scale terrorist bad guys, and the worst two among them. As Mr. Hudson noted
"[Gaddafi is] the admitted No. 2 international terrorist, second only to Osama Bin Laden, having caused the murder of hundreds of Americans, French, UK and other innocent citizens in the bombings of U.S. bound Pan Am 103 killing 270, UTA flight 772 killing 170, the La Belle Disco bombing in Berlin, dozens of other terrorist attacks, and delivering large shipments of plastic explosives for IRA terrorist bombings, plus killing thousands of his own people who regularly disappear into his torture chambers or are assassinated abroad. (...)I’m confident some portion of that list is true, but at the very least the deadliest among them and the one that brought Mr. Hudson into such impartial and scholarly contact with this ring of terror, has been sadly misattributed. (see: the rest of this site).
The two Libyan agents accused of bombing Flight 103, Abdelbaset al Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah, were indicted in 1991 on flimsy and dubious evidence. Of three witnesses against the accused, at least two were paid $2 million each, and still managed to provide almost zero credible evidence between them. The trial judges themselves in 2000 dismissed one of them, the star witness Giaka, for likely mass-fabrication, and acquitted the accomplice, convicting Megrahi alone for a crime he couldn't do alone. This itself was decided on reasoning seriously questioned on official review in 2007. Gaddafi and Libya never did "admit" to this crime, this alleged Libyan plot on Malta. There’s also much better circumstantial evidence and a truckload of cover-up indicators pointing elsewhere.
Nonetheless, back in the early 1990s, the politically leveraged indictments led into demands for a trial Libya couldn’t agree to, leading to a UN air embargo and steep sanctions. These caused an unknown number – reportedly thousands - of preventable Libyan deaths, possibly included in Mr. Hudson’s numbers as Gaddafi’s fault. This only ended after the two accused surrendered for a compromise trial in 1999. Mr. Hudson noted an agreement to limit the trial’s fallout, unjustly he thinks.
Prior to turnover of the Pan Am 103 indicted terrorists for trial, a letter by former UN Secretary Kofi Annan stated that the U.S. and UK had agreed not to pursue the case so as to destabilize the Gaddafi regime.Yes, political assassination was a genuine concern, as that was likely the US and UK goal in framing and pursuing the two Libyan agents. And this wasn’t the only thing the Anglo-American alliance has used to destabilize or kill the colonel. Cruise missile accidentally hit his house in 1986, killing a a bay daughter of his. Another thisng once used, a decade later, was the no. 1 terrorist on Hudson’s list – Osama bin Laden and his once obscure al Qaeda network.
David Shayler is our troublesome source for this, a former MI5 officer, who is now certifiably nuts. But this 2002 article by Martin Bright in the UK Guardian makes quite clear that he had at least one dynamite conspiracy find earlier on: the UK MI6 (foreign intelligence) worked in the mid-1990s with al Qaeda's north African network, in Libya, on a plot to assassinate Gaddafi. The cell there, called the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), included one Anas al-Liby ("the Libyan"), a fairly senior member close to bin Laden in his days in Sudan. As Bright explained the LIFG's bold and British-sponsored move:
The assassination attempt on Gadaffi was planned for early 1996 in the Libyan coastal city of Sirte. It is thought that an operation by the Islamic Fighting Group in the city was foiled in March 1996 and in the gun battle that followed several militants were killed. In 1998, the Libyans released TV footage of a 1996 grenade attack on Gadaffi that they claimed had been carried out by a British agent.The west played that down, and the escaped British agent al-Liby took part in the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998. For this he was indicted in 2000 and fled, from asylum in the UK (Manchester). With a $25 million bounty on his head, he wound up in the Afghanistan area, joining the post-9/11 Jihad.
Shayler was on trial for revealing some genuine secret or other (I'm unclear what), and his explanation of why, this Libya plot he had to expose, was called “pure fantasy” by the government. But during the trial amazing lengths were gone to to keep it all quiet. Public Interest Immunity certificates were issued, Mr. Shayler was barred from saying or entering anything about it, the media was gagged from reporting on it, and so on. The article explained:
Astonishingly, despite suspicions that he was a high-level al-Qaeda operative, al-Liby was given political asylum in Britain and lived in Manchester until May of 2000 when he eluded a police raid on his house and fled abroad. The raid discovered a 180-page al-Qaeda 'manual for jihad' containing instructions for terrorist attacks.The MI6 officer who ran this fiasco were named, but thought to be relocated and re-named by then. The operation is said to have hampered Libya's efforts to arrest Osama himself, or take a hard-line against his nascent network. Indeed, Muammar Gaddafi's terrorist regime was the first in the world, in May 1998, to declare bin Laden a wanted criminal. Shayler had insisted it, and supporting evidence came out in the 2002 book Forbidden Truth by Dasquie and Brisard. Thus, the West's obsession with Gaddafi could have had some role in allowing the attacks of September 11, 2001 and others, before and since.
Al-Liby remained in the fight until he was killed in Pakistan, in 2008. But some of his affiliates remained in Libya, mostly the heavily Islamist western half that now, it's proudly boasted, "has never accepted Gaddafi's rule." In fact, he's sometimes referred to there, perhaps literally, as the "anti-Christ." Many eastern citizens were crushed following the 1996 plot, in a harsh crackdown that saw record executions in excess of 1,000.
The government has taken a different tone on the LIFG today, a softer one, to respect international criticism of human rights abuses. Now they are "rehabilitating" the terrorists rather than executing as before. Nonetheless, as reported, "the LIFG in 2007 reaffirmed its determination to topple Kadhafi's regime and to replace it with an Islamic state, and also stated its affiliation to Al-Qaeda."
Under these peoples' influence, parts of neglected western Libya have spawned at least two things of note in the last decade. One is the highest rate of al Qaeda volunteers, per capita, in the Arab world, and now the mutiny against Gaddafi. A further 110 rehabilitated LIFG members were released, as scheduled, a day before the planned "day of rage" that started the revolt in February. And now, some of al-Liby's offspring are, or had better be, planning a coalition government over Africa’s largest oil deposits, if they are to replace a long-despised “terrorist” regime. Or just hold onto what the allies up north seem to think they have a right to.
Now of course, all the rebels are not al Qaeda fanatics, but just how many are is unclear. As David Wood reported for the Huffington Post:
U.S. officials declined to discuss the make-up of the anti-Gaddafi forces in eastern Libya, and U.S. intelligence agencies declined to comment publicly.It’s presumably hoped that the "undesirable elements" will be co-opted or weeded out one way or another after things have settled and freedom is realized.
And similarly, not all of the protesters we're protecting are war criminals. But some apparently are. An amateur video (view with discretion) shows rows of dead Libyan soldiers "who refused to obey orders to shoot their fellow Libyans and they were executed by the regime and its mercenaries.” it was the major incident you heard about, the one near al-Baida, where 130 of Gaddafi's soldiers were killed somehow, surely added to the figures against him, and claimed by the rebels as a platoon of martyrs for their freedom fight. Refusing orders to kill innocents, faces blown off. The world was moved.
But another video, shown on Libyan state TV from footage intercepted somehow, shows a number of the same soldiers (apparently, by clothing, build, etc.) and their captors before the killing. From that it seems the rebels themselves themselves blew the heads off of these helpless prisoners, and passed off the edited cut to an accepting world * as another predictable Gaddafi slaughter. Or we have to give the regime very high marks for rapid and convincing video fakery. (Please see the explanation of this at my favorite skeptics forum).
Well, now with some help from northerners, seizing the sky again from a murderous tyrant, the rebels might have the whole regime on its way to being just as bound and helpless as those claimed “martyrs” near al-Baida. Amid the pools of blood at slaughter's end, we’ll hear the explanation – as usual, it was all Gaddafi’s fault. The world will cheer for the freedom fighters. And then some other things will happen, who knows what.
* (Previously I’d noted here the alleged work of the extra-brutal Palestinian terror group PFLP-GC in Bosnia, fighting alongside proto-al Qaeda elements for Bosnian freedom from Serbian rule. Starting in May 1992, some of these terrorist elements reportedly killed civilians and conducted other false flag atrocities blamed on Serb forces and used to help win NATO air support to protect human rights. [source] It is my belief that the PFLP-GC also organized or at least equipped the murder of Mr. Hudson’s daughter in 1988, despite Libya taking the blame.)
Debate Call: Suliman
February 7 2011
This challenge is inspired by a recent string of comments at The Lockerbie Case by “Frank” (Duggan, it seems) and others. The first smears were against the blog’s administrator, Lockerbie trial “architect” Professor Robert Black. Few specifics weregiven, but it seems they were suggesting he was paid by Libya to tell lies. No proof or evidence, no lies identified.
And then smearing Dr. Jim Swire, Justice for Megrahi, and Robert Forrester, veteran anti-Gaddafi propagandist “Suliman” made a notable appearance. “Swire, Forrester and Co. should be treated as undeclared agents of a foreign terrorist syndicate, until proven otherwise.” I’ve left that issue, his "evidence", and my response, for the buried comments there. I look forward to Suliman’s speculation as to what further sinister designs this decision proves.
I'll start with the comment he started out responding to, edited slightly:
Select responses from Suliman (in block-quotes) and my responses:
What I see coming from Dr. Swire is generally correct, honest, and insightful. By his actions he seems sincere is his desire, despite setbacks and persistent criticism and smears, to find the truth of who killed his daughter Flora all those years ago. So I see no reason to suspect the kind of dishonesty or whatever exactly it is Suliman is suggesting lies at the heart of Swire's unpopular work. Rather, I'm half-suspecting about the opposite.
Another little-noted problem with accepting this money, if it's joined to the dichotomy Suliman proposes, is that it might bias one's public and even private view on Libya's guilt. Of the hundreds of American relatives who took the settlement, none raises a public voice about the valid questions that proliferate. Coincidence? Or has the money somehow hushed them up?
To Suliman, it seems, the epic $2.7 billion settlement is only a reward for those who toe the line, and not meant to subsidize free-thinking.
So, Suliman, to conclude:
Count the specific facts of Megrahi's guilt you cited in that three-post screed: Gauci, Giaka, Bollier, timer fragment, 1986 bombing study, … zero. All that was a formality to get to the finish line of a guilty verdict, forever after to be the only point of reference to ever be cited. And you surely know this consciously as you do just that.
I have no gripe with your overall gripe with Libya. I don't mean to apologize for them in general on things I don't know. But on what I do know, the Lockerbie case, you've got nothing real behind the legal technicalities.
The challenge: Of the many facts that must be true for al-Megrahi to be guilty, one crucial point is the date of the clothing purchase, which can only be established from the account of the witness to the sale, Tony Gauci, compared to other reliable and accepted records. You know this, Suliman. What relevant evidence was ever adduced to support December 7 as the date?
I believe I've now addressed all of your points the best I can. What will be your excuse this time to fail in returning the favor?
This challenge is inspired by a recent string of comments at The Lockerbie Case by “Frank” (Duggan, it seems) and others. The first smears were against the blog’s administrator, Lockerbie trial “architect” Professor Robert Black. Few specifics weregiven, but it seems they were suggesting he was paid by Libya to tell lies. No proof or evidence, no lies identified.
And then smearing Dr. Jim Swire, Justice for Megrahi, and Robert Forrester, veteran anti-Gaddafi propagandist “Suliman” made a notable appearance. “Swire, Forrester and Co. should be treated as undeclared agents of a foreign terrorist syndicate, until proven otherwise.” I’ve left that issue, his "evidence", and my response, for the buried comments there. I look forward to Suliman’s speculation as to what further sinister designs this decision proves.
I'll start with the comment he started out responding to, edited slightly:
Caustic Logic said...
By omission, Suliman and the other Dugganista-types out there acknowledge these points raised by Swire, Black, et al. are darn good ones.
- Gauci's buyer was clearly not Megrahi, but he was paid at least $2 million just to let it be fudged to seem that way.
- The crucial witness Giaka was thoroughly discredited.
- The third important witness was Edwin Bollier.
- There's no normal evidence for an unaccompanied bag from Malta, strong contradictory evidence, and no known accomplice to smuggle it aboard.
- An even more rational alternative theory, apparently hushed-up and obscured by the case that did emerge.
All they can complain about is that the people raising these extremely valid points might have been paid by Libya to tell the truth. Or are perhaps compelled by some moral failings (of the type evidenced by taking Libya's settlement, which is only to reward those who toe the line, not to subsidize free thought) to probe for more accurate answers and deeper truth.
Unless there's some important unstated middle part there where the actions so inspired are themselves somehow erred or unethical.
Select responses from Suliman (in block-quotes) and my responses:
You are attempting to paint me in a certain corner, and your rationale is not anything I said but things I did not say!Yes indeed. Any of the above. And I predict that he will continue working on the legal technicality side of this, avoiding like a plague facts of the 3-D world in which Flight 103 was physically blown up and people physically died. Of course his and others' refusal to address the facts doesn’t actually prove they know they go against established beliefs. However, the endless dodging is consistent with that, and I suspect such a fear motivates Suliman's avoidance.
What Mr. Larson and others will not touch of course is my explicit challenge to them to justify--by any means--their claims about the personal dignity of those rejecting a court ruling while accepting--voluntarily and enjoying--the financial loot that flowed from it. Go ahead, Mr. Larson, call me whatever makes you feel safe and comfortable in your escape from defending your partner Swire's dignity.I’ll show him wrong and touch it. In itself, on a sliding scale of human "dignity," as he seems to mean it here, accepting the settlement money from people you don't believe guilty is not at the very top. Marina De Larrocochea refused it. Martin Cadman refused it. But I don't know enough of the circumstances surrounding this to judge him over it. Didn't he try to give it back but wasn't allowed?
What I see coming from Dr. Swire is generally correct, honest, and insightful. By his actions he seems sincere is his desire, despite setbacks and persistent criticism and smears, to find the truth of who killed his daughter Flora all those years ago. So I see no reason to suspect the kind of dishonesty or whatever exactly it is Suliman is suggesting lies at the heart of Swire's unpopular work. Rather, I'm half-suspecting about the opposite.
Another little-noted problem with accepting this money, if it's joined to the dichotomy Suliman proposes, is that it might bias one's public and even private view on Libya's guilt. Of the hundreds of American relatives who took the settlement, none raises a public voice about the valid questions that proliferate. Coincidence? Or has the money somehow hushed them up?
To Suliman, it seems, the epic $2.7 billion settlement is only a reward for those who toe the line, and not meant to subsidize free-thinking.
Tell me: How dignified is it to reject the court ruling and pocket the money?How dignified is it to convince yourself (or have someone else do it?) that you’d better keep quiet about the huge lie you can faintly sense around your loved one's death? Because, after all, you profited from this version being true in the court sense. If you come to rely on that money, and accept the kind of moral dictate Suliman personifies, you'll be locked into silence. And if you break the unwritten gag order, as we can see, you’ll be smeared as a morally corrupt, money-grubbing, terrorist supporter. Mass complicity is thus purchased and enforced, intentionally or not, and the alternate reality first planned by the CIA in early 1989 remains in place.
So, Suliman, to conclude:
But at the end of your contrivances, you need to address the things I do say, not the things I don't say.Says you, trying still to avoid being forced into the actual evidence that your villains didn’t really have anything to do with that bombing. It's a lie of admirable size, but the world is waking up to it. You just keep hitting the snooze button. Time to stop.
Count the specific facts of Megrahi's guilt you cited in that three-post screed: Gauci, Giaka, Bollier, timer fragment, 1986 bombing study, … zero. All that was a formality to get to the finish line of a guilty verdict, forever after to be the only point of reference to ever be cited. And you surely know this consciously as you do just that.
I have no gripe with your overall gripe with Libya. I don't mean to apologize for them in general on things I don't know. But on what I do know, the Lockerbie case, you've got nothing real behind the legal technicalities.
The challenge: Of the many facts that must be true for al-Megrahi to be guilty, one crucial point is the date of the clothing purchase, which can only be established from the account of the witness to the sale, Tony Gauci, compared to other reliable and accepted records. You know this, Suliman. What relevant evidence was ever adduced to support December 7 as the date?
I believe I've now addressed all of your points the best I can. What will be your excuse this time to fail in returning the favor?
No One Seriously doubts the Libyan's guilt?
The doubters and their Doubts
Last update Feb 10 2011
This will be a running-updated post to gather the best quotes from the best minds on this case. My emphasis is on support for Megrahi's innocence and/or the trial's inadequacies. The list is not all-inclusive - I've eliminated a few whose sincerity or sanity I find questionable enough. I've not listed any Libyans, nor their lawyers. Just people who at least presumably should have no ulterior motive to express such doubts. In many cases I'm listing names first, and then later finding quotes. Those of direct relation to the victims (8) can be found searching "PA103 victim."
If anyone has any snappy submissions, even from you, I'll include them. Use comments form below or e-mail them in.
1 - Lucy Adams. Chief Reporter, The Herald (Scotland).
3 - Jack Anderson. Renowned American journalist.
5 - Robert Baer. Former CIA operative, specialty in Iran. Believes Iran, not Libya, was responsible for the bombing.
6 - Ian Bell. British columnist, described by Robert Black as "probably the most consistently interesting columnist writing in the print media in Scotland today."
7 - David Ben-Aryeah. Scottish journalist, researcher, adviser to the families of British victims, consultant for The Maltese Double Cross (1994).
10 - Matt Berkley. Son of Jean, brother of PA103 victim Alastair. Involved in advocating for Megrahi's second appeal, among other things.
12 - John Biewen. Reporter, with Ian Ferguson, on the Shadow over Lockerbie series for American Radio Works in 1999.
13 – Benedict Birnberg. Prominent attorney. Signed 10/10 e-petition.
14 - Robert Black, QC. FRSE, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law in the University of Edinburgh from 1981. Born and raised in Lockerbie, deeply interested in the case since 1993, and referred to as the "architect of the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist" due to legal diplomacy he helped arrange for it. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign. Proprietor, The Lockerbie Case blog. Presented for the 10/10 e-petition at parliament, November 9 2010.
16 - Tonio Borg. Prominent Maltese Politician, Minister of Justice, Deputy Prime Minister, etc.
18 - Dr. Ludwig de Braeckeleer. PhD (nuclear sciences), Lockerbie researcher of some achievement.
20 - Martin Cadman. Father of PA103 victim William Cadman.
26 - Dr. David Fieldhouse. Volunteer on the scene of the Lockerbie crash, swears one of the bodies he identified was later stricken from the record. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign, signed 10/10 e-petition.
27 - Robert Fisk.
29 - Graham Forbes. Chairman of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission. Headed an detailed review of the evidence brought and not brought at trial, and methodology.
33 - Lawrence Gonzi. Current Prime Minister of Malta.
39 - David Horovitz. Onetime editor, Jerusalem Post. See "David Frum."
40 - Otto Hostettler. Swiss journalist.
41 - Father Pat Keegans. Parish priest for Lockerbie at the time of the crash, not far from being killed by it. Has a long history with victims' familes, had addresses read at annual memorials until 2008, snubbed in '09 for stating his belief in Megrahi's innocence. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign. Presented for the 10/10 e-petition at parliament, November 9 2010.
44 - Dr. Morag Kerr. Lockerbie researcher and commentator. Committee member (secretary depute) and signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign. Signed 10/10 e-petition.
46 - Noel Koch. Pentagon guy, national defense and security stuff, going way back. Recently ousted from a post at the Pentagon.
"It was decided by the two governments, by the United States and the United Kingdom, that Libya had been responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103. I have never believed that, and I don't believe the case will stand against the Libyans. [...] My own conviction from the outset was that the Syrians and Iranians were pre-eminently responsible for this." [to Shadow Over Lockerbie, 1999]
47 - Dr. Hans Köchler. Professor, University of Innsbruck, Austria. Pioneer in cultural dialog between Islam and the West, president of UN-affiliated International Progress Organization (IPO), primary international observer at Zeist trial.
50 - Magnus Linklater. Prominent journalist and editor of numerous UK papers, most recently the Scotsman, published expert on Scottish history, politics, and culture.
52 - Hector L. MacQueen. Emminent professor of Scots law, signed 10/10 e-petition to Scotland.
58 - Eddie McDaid. Lockerbie researcher and commentator, JFM signatory.
59 - Rik McHarg. Communications hub coordinator: Lockerbie crash sites. JFM signatory.
60 - Iain McKie. Former police officer and father of wrongly accused Shirley McKie. Crusader for the wrongly convicted, co-founder and signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign, signed various petitions, etc. Presented for the 10/10 e-petition at parliament, November 9 2010.
68 - David Morrison. Brilliant Socialist writer. Penned a damning critique of the Zeist trial in 2000. [source – PDF]
70 - Reverend John Mosey. Father of PA103 victim Helga Mosey.
78 - Rosario Priore. Former Italian public prosecutor, famous for handling the Ustica bombing, 1980.
80 - Dr. Theresa Ransford. PhD, OBE, poet. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign.
81 - Anthony Robson. Scottish solicitor.
83 – Kenneth Roy. Signed 10/10 e-petition.
84 - Michael Scharf. Legal counsel to US State Department, 1989-1993 - helped draft proposals for sanction against Libya over Lockerbie.
86 - Ariel Sharon. Israeli warrior and prime minister. See "David Frum."
90 - Gerard Sinclair. Commissioner with the SCCRC.
92 - Margaret Thatcher. British Prime Minister at the time of the 103 bombing, the worst terrorist attack in Britain ever and a major event in her tenure.
94 - James Trafficant. U.S. Representative through 2002.
96 - Vivienne Walt. Writer for Time magazine.
Last update Feb 10 2011
This will be a running-updated post to gather the best quotes from the best minds on this case. My emphasis is on support for Megrahi's innocence and/or the trial's inadequacies. The list is not all-inclusive - I've eliminated a few whose sincerity or sanity I find questionable enough. I've not listed any Libyans, nor their lawyers. Just people who at least presumably should have no ulterior motive to express such doubts. In many cases I'm listing names first, and then later finding quotes. Those of direct relation to the victims (8) can be found searching "PA103 victim."
If anyone has any snappy submissions, even from you, I'll include them. Use comments form below or e-mail them in.
1 - Lucy Adams. Chief Reporter, The Herald (Scotland).
"In his first full-length interview since being released last week, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi told The Herald: “We all want to know the truth. The truth never dies.” Speaking from a hospital bed at his home in Tripoli, Megrahi talked extensively about his 10-year battle with the Scottish legal system and insisted he did not commit the worst terrorist act on mainland Britain." - 28 August 2009. [source]2 - Kate Adie. Former Chief News Correspondent for BBC News. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign.
3 - Jack Anderson. Renowned American journalist.
"President Bush and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher secretly agreed last spring to play down the truth about who blew up Pan Am flight 103." - Column, January 1990, via Paul Foot, 2001. (see below - Thatcher)4 - John Ashton. Researcher for Frankovich on The Maltese Double Cross, co-author with Ian Ferguson, Cover-up of Convenience, and with Abdelbaset al Megrahi of an upcoming and much-anticipated biography/tell-all book. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign.
5 - Robert Baer. Former CIA operative, specialty in Iran. Believes Iran, not Libya, was responsible for the bombing.
"The question is who knew [of evidence proving Iran's role] and when you consider they've released him rather than hear his appeal, you can draw your own conclusions. The decision serves everybody's purpose. I don't think anyone wanted to face the consequences of that evidence being heard at appeal.
The Maltese witness was manipulated and perjured himself at trial. I talked with the appeals commission investigators and that's what was going to be laid before the hearing. At least one FBI officer was pressured too. I spoke to the case officer and he was pressured to change his testimony. It was a bad show all the way but whether Megrahi is innocent is another question entirely." [August 2009]
6 - Ian Bell. British columnist, described by Robert Black as "probably the most consistently interesting columnist writing in the print media in Scotland today."
So why was Megrahi given his liberty when other terminally ill prisoners of the Crown in Scotland have enjoyed far fewer courtesies? “Compassion” is not a notable feature of Scottish justice. And Al-Megrahi wasn’t just any prisoner. The fact that he was obliged to abandon his appeal against conviction in order to – a legalism – get free, wasn’t trivial. How come? (...)
Why was it so important, for so long, to so many people, that Megrahi should be dead, or at least out of the way?
He didn’t do it. That statement suits no-one. The important thing to remember, in Scotland, is that Megrahi abandoned his appeal. Such was the price of his liberty.
No-one has dealt with the fact that the US Department of Justice sanctioned payments of $3 million to a pair of Maltese “witnesses” – Tony and Paul Gauci, for their “crucial evidence” over clothes and a suitcase – or whether a Scottish court, even one in a foreign country, allows bribery. ...[2 Feb 2011]
7 - David Ben-Aryeah. Scottish journalist, researcher, adviser to the families of British victims, consultant for The Maltese Double Cross (1994).
"Taken against the historical demands of the UK relatives for a ‘full, independent enquiry’ into events before, during and after the bombing of Pan Am 103, the pending appeal may well shed light in some very dark corners and go a small way into answering the disturbing spectrum of questions raised during the original trial and appeal." [August 2008]8 - David Benson. English playwright, organizer of the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, related Jim Swire's odyssey there in 2010 with the one-man play “Lockerbie: Unfinished Business.” Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign, petitions, etc.
"If you really look into it the evidence that was presented against [Megrahi] in court was laughable.” [30 July 2010]9 - Jean Berkley. Mother of PA103 victim Alastair Berkley. Justice for Megrahi signatory.
10 - Matt Berkley. Son of Jean, brother of PA103 victim Alastair. Involved in advocating for Megrahi's second appeal, among other things.
“I don’t have any investment in Mr. Megrahi being innocent, or in his guilt being in doubt. So I would be glad to proved wrong. But I don’t find detailed and convincing arguments to the effect that the trial was fair, or that he was guilty.” – BBC Radio 4, The Report, 16 September 2010.11 - Peter Biddulph. Researcher, cohort of Dr. Jim Swire. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign.
12 - John Biewen. Reporter, with Ian Ferguson, on the Shadow over Lockerbie series for American Radio Works in 1999.
13 – Benedict Birnberg. Prominent attorney. Signed 10/10 e-petition.
14 - Robert Black, QC. FRSE, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law in the University of Edinburgh from 1981. Born and raised in Lockerbie, deeply interested in the case since 1993, and referred to as the "architect of the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist" due to legal diplomacy he helped arrange for it. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign. Proprietor, The Lockerbie Case blog. Presented for the 10/10 e-petition at parliament, November 9 2010.
"[T]o many observers, including me, it seemed that the case presented by the prosecution was a very weak circumstantial one, and was further undermined by the additional prosecution concession that they had not been able to prove how the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103 got into the interline baggage system and onto the aircraft." - July 2007 [source]
"Since the date of the trial court's verdict against him, my position has been a clear one: on the evidence led at the trial his conviction was simply an outrageous miscarriage of justice, about which the Scottish criminal justice system should feel nothing but shame. As a result of today's meeting, I am satisfied that not only was there a wrongful conviction, but the victim of it was an innocent man. Lawyers, and I hope others, will appreciate this distinction." - After meeting Megrahi in jail, November 2007. [Source]
"His conviction, on the evidence led at the trial, was nothing short of astonishing. It constitutes, in my view, the worst miscarriage of justice perpetrated by a Scottish criminal court since the conviction of Oscar Slater in 1909 for the murder of Marion Gilchrist." - 26 October 2008 [source]15 - William Blum. Prominent critic of American foreign policy.
16 - Tonio Borg. Prominent Maltese Politician, Minister of Justice, Deputy Prime Minister, etc.
"We have no proof that these two Libyan suspects were involved in anything illegal in Malta regarding this case, particularly the placing of this bomb on Air Malta Flight 180.” - early 2000 [Source]17 - Wilfred Borg. Operations director, Air Malta, in 1988. Testified at trial to records showing no unaccompanied suitcase on their Flight 180.
18 - Dr. Ludwig de Braeckeleer. PhD (nuclear sciences), Lockerbie researcher of some achievement.
As the explosion of one pound of SEMTEX H inside the luggage container does not generate a blast wave sufficiently powerful to fracture the skin of the fuselage, we have little choice but to conclude that the verdict appears scientifically implausible. [source]19 - Paul Bull. Friend of PA103 victim William Cadman. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign.
20 - Martin Cadman. Father of PA103 victim William Cadman.
"Your government and ours know exactly what happened. But they're never going to tell." - What Cadman says an unnamed member of the President's Commission (PCAST) told him in private, February 1990.
"The truth has not come out. I think the investigation found what it was told to find. I don't think it had any option." - to BBC Conspiracy Files, 2008.21 - Dr. Noam Chomsky. PhD. Renowned American political scientist, linguist, author and lecturer. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign.
"Prof. Chomsky described the events surrounding the case of the convicted bomber Abdelbasset Al Megrahi as "a remarkable illustration of the conformism and obedience of intellectual opinion in the West. [...] I think the trial was very seriously flawed, including crucially the alleged role of Malta. There is every reason to call for a very serious independent inquiry." - Sunday Times of Malta, November 29 2009, at a Justice for Megrahi event - [Source]22 - Andrew Cockburn. American journalist, Counterpunch.
"The most likely explanation of the judges’ decision to convict Megrahi despite the evidence, or lack of it, must be that either (a) they panicked at the thought of the uproar that would ensue on the American end if they let both of the Libyans off, or (b) they were simply given their marching orders by high authority in London. English judges are used to doing their duty in this manner – see, for example, the results of various "impartial" judicial inquiries into British atrocities in Northern Ireland over the years, including Bloody Sunday and the post-internment torture scandal – but we had hoped, ludicrously so in retrospect, that the Scotch were made of sterner stuff." - 20 April 2001 [Source]23 - Tam Dalyell. British politician, Labour party, House of Commons, 1962-2005. Has lodged 17 adjournment debates on Lockerbie. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign.
"In my view, what Mr Miliband does not want revealed is the calculated wickedness of the US government and the collusion of certain parts of Whitehall in scapegoating Libya and Mr Megrahi for the heinous crime of bringing an airliner down over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988." - referring to Foreign Secretary David Miliband's pemanent sealing of "the Lockerbie papers." [21 August 2009]24 - Pamela Dix. Sister of PA103 victim Peter Dix, UK families leader.
"Widespread concern around the safety of the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has raised a number of issues. There are also issues about the division of responsibility between Westminster and Holyrood and whether it was right to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. But everyone is in agreement that whether or not he is guilty, others must have been involved. We hope that the fact that the criminal investigation is to continue will contribute to our quest for the truth." [26 October 2009]25 - Ian Ferguson. Scottish journalist and researcher, prominent and accomplished scholar of all things Lockerbie. Co-author, Cover-up of Convenience, American Radio Works Shadow Over Lockerbie series, etc. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign, signed 10/10 e-petition.
26 - Dr. David Fieldhouse. Volunteer on the scene of the Lockerbie crash, swears one of the bodies he identified was later stricken from the record. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign, signed 10/10 e-petition.
27 - Robert Fisk.
"Wasn't it supposed to be the Syrians who killed [Lebanese ex-premier Rafiq] Hariri [...]? Nope. Since the Syrians offered their assistance to the United States in Iraq, it's been the pesky Iranians (courtesy The New York Times and The Times of London) who, through their Hezbollah allies, have been blamed for the mass slaughter. Notice, by the way, how the Syrians and Iranians were blamed for Lockerbie and then, post-Syrian help in the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, the Libyans?" - 30 October 2010 [source]28 - Paul Foot. Renowned British investigative journalist for Private Eye, author of Lockerbie: Flight from Justice, based on his reporting from the 2000 trial.
29 - Graham Forbes. Chairman of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission. Headed an detailed review of the evidence brought and not brought at trial, and methodology.
“[B]ased upon our lengthy investigations, new evidence we have found and new evidence that was not before the trial court, [we feel] that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice."30 - Robert Forrester. Co-founder, Justice for Megrahi campaign. Writer of many letters and articles. Presented for the 10/10 e-petition at parliament, November 9 2010.
"Never again ought the Crown to be in a position where it performs the role of prosecutor, judge and jury. It is all rather like their Lordships’ jigsaw was a picture of a top hat taken from an obscure angle and they managed to convert it into a rabbit. Whilst such conjuring sits well in vaudeville, it has no place in a court of law." [source]31 - David Frum. American political commnentor, neoconservative, speechwriter for Bush II
"For years, many well-informed people in the intelligence community have doubted al-Megrahi's guilt in the Lockerbie bombing. They have argued that the bombing was the work of a Syrian based Palestinian group, the PFLP-GC, working for the government of Iran. Among those who support the Iran-did-it theory are: (i) former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon; (ii) Robert Baer, the CIA official who worked directly on the Lockerbie case; (iii) Hans Koechler, the UN Security Council observer at al-Megrahi's trial; (iv) Robert Black, the Scottish lawyer who organized the trial proceedings; (v) Dr. Jim Swire, the spokesman for the families of British Lockerbie victims who lost his own daughter aboard Pan Am Flight 103; and (vi) David Horovitz, editor of the Jerusalem Post." - 22 August 2009 [source]32 – William Gillies MA. Professor of Celtic and Scottish studies, Edinburgh University. Signed 10/10 e-petition.
33 - Lawrence Gonzi. Current Prime Minister of Malta.
"Our position was always that Malta had nothing to do with the terrorist attack and it has never changed.” - November 1 2009, denying reports that Malta would re-investigate Tony Gauci. [source]34 - Christine Grahame. Member of Scottish Parliament (MSP), of the SNP party. Has met al Megrahi in prison and is lobbying parliament for a new inquiry. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign.
"I am convinced not only that Megrahi was not found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt", the test in Scot's law, but that he is an innocent man. [...] As for any inquiry, that's out there in the long grass. They are people in authority who are relying on Lockerbie fatigue setting in again. It mustn't." - 23 August 2009 [source]35 - John P. Grant. Spokesman, Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit, co-author of a book with Robert Black.
"An independent inquiry after the appeal by all means. For a start, we need the full report of the SCCRC to be published, with parts redacted if necessary. The short sanitized version published by the SCCRC is lamentably insufficient for an issue of such national and international importance." [July 2007]36 - Ian Hamilton QC. Veteran campaigner for Scottish independence, recipient of a lifetime achievement award at the 2009 Law Awards of Scotland.
"I don't think there's a lawyer in Scotland who now believes Mr Megrahi was justly convicted. The Americans were out for vengeance. Anyone with a darker skin would do. With their barrowloads of money to buy witnesses, aided by our police and prosecution, they hoodwinked our courts." - e-mail to Robert Black, 2010. [source]37 - Edward S. Herman. Journalist with Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
"When Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi, [...] returned home to what was angrily described in U.S. media as a “hero’s welcome.” [...] the media’s simplistic tale of villainy and impunity requires a very selective reading of history." [October 2009]
"The Libyan connection lasted in pristine condition from 1990 into 2007, during which time Libya was subjected to intensive vilification, costly sanctions imposed by the Security Council, and a highly publicized trial in Scotland [...] and a payment of several billion dollars in victim compensation [...] on the basis of manipulated and laughable evidence in another show trial." [September 2007]38 - Ian Hislop. Publisher, Private Eye. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign. See Paul Foot.
39 - David Horovitz. Onetime editor, Jerusalem Post. See "David Frum."
40 - Otto Hostettler. Swiss journalist.
(translated roughly from German) In the Lockerbie case, something strange happened: In the autumn of 1991, practically overnight, two Libyan agents were presented as the perpetrators. One of them was later convicted. But even the judges granted in their grounds that the case was not completely clarified. Some of the victims’ family and some investigators still believe today that the attack was committed by the PFLP-GC. This thesis, however, no longer fit into the long-term political weather situation. (In a Dec 2010 article, linking the Lockerbie bombing with that of Swiss Air 330 in 1970, by the PFLP-GC.)
41 - Father Pat Keegans. Parish priest for Lockerbie at the time of the crash, not far from being killed by it. Has a long history with victims' familes, had addresses read at annual memorials until 2008, snubbed in '09 for stating his belief in Megrahi's innocence. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign. Presented for the 10/10 e-petition at parliament, November 9 2010.
"I do believe that he is an innocent man and that in time the truth of that will emerge. But he was not released because of doubt concerning his conviction. He was released on strict legal grounds and because of the important element of Christian compassion which has influenced the legal systems of Scotland and Europe.” - From a speech for the 2009 anniversary ceremony at Arlington, 21 December 2009, blocked for political reasons. [source]42 - Garrison Keillor. American storyteller and radio humorist, creator of the Prarie Home Companion.
"[We] have never found a full answer to Lockerbie. And this will always be a source of great distress. [...] We need the truth, and we need justice, to allow ourselves to be at peace. Otherwise, we're still back on December the 21 1988, in the darkness." [9 Nov 2010]
“…Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi […] was convicted in 2001 on the basis of thin circumstantial evidence and the testimony of a paid witness for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 […] Mr. al-Megrahi had “patsy” written all over him. The Scots did the right thing. And caused a public uproar, and so what? Right is right." – on Megrahi’s release, August 2009. [Source]43 - A.L. Kennedy. Author and comedian. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign.
44 - Dr. Morag Kerr. Lockerbie researcher and commentator. Committee member (secretary depute) and signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign. Signed 10/10 e-petition.
"[D]etailed examination of the evidence has convinced me that indeed [Megrahi] had nothing to do with it. […] there absolutely nothing at all to connect him personally with the bomb […] I am as certain as I am of anything I have not personally witnessed that he had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombing, and thus that his conviction is a heinous stain on the soul of the scottish justice system.” – Comment on signing Scottish parliament e-petition 416, October 2010.45 - Andrew I. Kilgore. Former U.S. ambassador to Qatar, editor Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign. Signed 10/10 e-petition.
46 - Noel Koch. Pentagon guy, national defense and security stuff, going way back. Recently ousted from a post at the Pentagon.
"It was decided by the two governments, by the United States and the United Kingdom, that Libya had been responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103. I have never believed that, and I don't believe the case will stand against the Libyans. [...] My own conviction from the outset was that the Syrians and Iranians were pre-eminently responsible for this." [to Shadow Over Lockerbie, 1999]
47 - Dr. Hans Köchler. Professor, University of Innsbruck, Austria. Pioneer in cultural dialog between Islam and the West, president of UN-affiliated International Progress Organization (IPO), primary international observer at Zeist trial.
“I welcome the release of Megrahi, because I firmly believe that he is innocent of the charges made against him. Believe me, if I thought he was guilty I would not be pleased to see him released from jail.” - 21 Aug 2009 [source]
“The entire procedure [handling of Megrahi’s first appeal] looks more like an intelligence operation than a genuine undertaking of criminal justice.” - June 2008 [source]
"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." - 14 March 2002 [source]48 - Marina de Larracoechea. Sister of PA103 victim Maria Nieves de Larracoechea. In protest of U.S. policy and the handling of her sister's death, she had her one stone left out of the memorial cairn at Arlington cemetery (it has 269 instead of the planned 270).
"I feel that what started as a personal, loving effort from the relatives ... has turned into a message that I cannot accept. ... We have not gotten justice or the truth. [...] given the sequence of events that led to the disaster [IR 655], and the way the criminal investigation was handled after, which may I say was never independent in the first place..." [On her reasons for opting out of the cairn, Nov 1995]49 - Adam Larson. American blogger/researcher, proprietor of this site. AKA Caustic Logic. Justice for Megrahi signatory, signed 10/10 e-petition. (hard to pick a good quote for myself, and no rush I suppose)
"I thought that they were going to acquit them both, and that they have convicted one surprised me. But I'm infuriated by not knowing who made the bomb, by the wall of silence that has formed around the behavior of the North American Government, and by the lies to me that are counted. All this is an obscenety." [http://plane-truth.com/Aoude/geocities/nieves.html]
50 - Magnus Linklater. Prominent journalist and editor of numerous UK papers, most recently the Scotsman, published expert on Scottish history, politics, and culture.
“I have always felt uneasy about the convenience of it all. In the months after the attack, all the evidence pointed in a different direction — to the involvement of Syria, and a terrorist group known as the Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine General Command. [...]All that changed, some time in 1990, when we were told about the discovery of forensic evidence that suggested a Libyan link._[...]_It is the British Government that should be concerned. Our defences against terrorism rest ultimately on trust in our legal system, on the reliability of our police work and on the demonstrable transparency of our judicial process. [...] However much it goes against the grain, the Pan Am conviction must be re-examined, to determine whether there is strong enough evidence to reopen the case.” [26 October 2005]51 - Aonghas MacNeacail. Poet. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign. Signed 10/10 e-petition.
52 - Hector L. MacQueen. Emminent professor of Scots law, signed 10/10 e-petition to Scotland.
"[The abandonment of Megrahi's appeal] would avoid the inconvenient ventilation of all the evidence for months and years to come, keep Megrahi in prison albeit in Libya, and avoid possible embarrassment for police, prosecutors, judges and others." [15 Aug 2009]52 - Heather Mallick. Journalist.
Speaking of thin-skinned nations that are intolerant of perceived criticism, the US refused to hear British pleas for the fate of Gary McKinnon, the young Brit with autism who hacked into Pentagon files in 2001 to search for proof of the existence of UFOs. The US is extraditing him, presumably to jail him for life. Why? Because the UK released the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. In fact, the independent Scottish judiciary [sic] released him, possibly just to annoy Downing Street, and also because, embarrassingly, he appeared to be a tiny bit “not guilty.” [1 December 2010]53 - Michael Mansfield. QC, Renowned British criminal lawyer, defended Danny McNamee, convicted by the science of Allen Feraday, who worked on the Lockerbie case.
"Forensic science is not immutable. They're not written in tablets of stone, and the biggest mistake that anyone can make—public, expert or anyone else alike—is to believe that forensic science is somehow beyond reproach: it is not! The biggest miscarriages of justice in the United Kingdom, many of them emanate from cases in which forensic science has been shown to be wrong. And the moment a forensic scientist or anyone else says: 'I am sure this marries up with that' I get worried."- Frontline Scotand, 1997. [source]
“Michael Mansfield QC, one of the country's best-known defence lawyers, said a full judicial inquiry was required to settle the doubts over the case. Mansfield said he had no doubt that the evidence given to secure Megrahi's conviction was "entirely unsustainable".” [source]54 - Eric Margolis. Canadian Journalist.
"Some intelligence experts believe the attack was revenge for the downing of the Iranian airliner, carried out by Mideast contract killers paid by Iran. Serious doubts about al-Megrahi's guilt were voiced by Scotland's legal authorities. An appeal was underway. Libyans believed he was a sacrificial lamb handed over to save Libya from a crushing U.S. and British-led oil export boycott._[...]_I believe al-Megrahi was probably innocent and framed. Scotland was right to release him." [Source]55 - Lara Marlowe. Irish Times Washington correspondent.
I still believe that the Lockerbie bombing was retaliation for the downing of the Iran Air flight six months earlier. [Nov 2010]56 - Christopher Mason.
Without the forensic evidence and Gauci’s evidence, Megrahi and Fahima could not have been prosecuted. There are allegations that this evidence was tainted. I do not understand why those who thought the Scottish justice system was seriously threatened by perjured evidence in [Tommy] Sheridan’s civil case against a newspaper, cannot find a way of looking into our criminal justice system in relation to the allegation that the most important criminal trial of the 20th century proceeded on the basis of false evidence. [Dec 2010]57 - Stephen Maxwell. Signed 10/10 e-petition.
58 - Eddie McDaid. Lockerbie researcher and commentator, JFM signatory.
59 - Rik McHarg. Communications hub coordinator: Lockerbie crash sites. JFM signatory.
60 - Iain McKie. Former police officer and father of wrongly accused Shirley McKie. Crusader for the wrongly convicted, co-founder and signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign, signed various petitions, etc. Presented for the 10/10 e-petition at parliament, November 9 2010.
"How can we blame other governments if the search for the truth about Lockerbie, a Scottish tragedy that occurred on Scottish soil which was investigated and prosecuted by Scottish authorities, is frustrated by our own government? It is a legitimate question to ask – what right does a country have to self-determination if when given the opportunity to exercise that right it fails to do so? Urging a new Scottish probe of Megrahi's conviction.” [October 12 2010]61 - Anne McLaughlin, MSP. Member of Scottish parliament, responding the the November 2010 presentation at parliament of Justice for Megrahi's petition for a new investigation.
I don't know if [Justice For Megrahi] have a point in claiming that Megrahi is innocent. What I do know is that it would be all too easy (and understandable) for Mr Swire to accept Megrahi's guilt and put all of his negativity energy in that direction. But he didn't accept it. He has been outspoken in his condemnation of the conviction and as you can see is campaigning for an enquiry into it. I guess it's important to him that they get the right person but how tempting must it have been to turn a blind eye and blame the man with the conviction? [source]62 - Marcello Mega. Scottish Journalist. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign, signed 10/10 e-petition.
"The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was forced to abandon his appeal to secure compassionate release on the grounds of his terminal cancer, a justice department whistleblower claims. Three senior sources close to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, who has now exceeded the three months he was expected to live by more than ten months, have confirmed the whistleblower's version of events." [Oct 2010]63 - Major Joseph Mifsud. Maltese meterological expert, called to testify at Zeist trial, for the defense. Also wrote articles of his own on the case.
"So now it's confirmed. After 19 statements by Tony Gauci, after an identification parade in April 1999 and after taking the witness stand during the Camp Zeist trial this week, he has not positively identified anyone that went to his shop and bought clothes, fragments of which were later found in the fields of Lockerbie months after the Pan Am tragedy.
[...] Then there is the rain factor. The person, who bought the clothes, bought an umbrella because it was raining. On 7th December 1988, when the prosecution is alleging that clothes where both from Mary’s House it did not rain in the afternoon as checks with meteorological office will confirm. The day the defence is suggesting, from weather reports its seems that it was raining in the afternoon." [source]64 - Hugh Miles. Journalist, son of Oliver Miles.
"The fate of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, however, and the tarnished reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system rest in the hand of the Scottish courts. Megrahi's acquittal, posthumous or otherwise, will undo a heinous wrong and return us to where we were 20 years ago – searching for the truth behind the bombing of Pan Am flight 103." [21 Dec 2008]65 - Oliver Miles. Former UK ambassador to Libya, member Libya British Business Council.
“The thing that principally worries me at the moment is why did Megrahi abandon his appeal? [...] it wasn’t a pre-condition for the decision to release him on humanitarian grounds. What I would like to know is how he was persuaded to give it up. Did somebody tip him the wink or tip the Libyan authorities the wink that the only way to get back to Libya is to give up the appeal?” [31 August 2009]
"What is harder to explain is why, by and large, the British families have been ready to entertain the idea that al-Megrahi may not be guilty, while the American families, on the whole, have not." [19 August 2010]66 - Allan Miller. Head of Scotland's Human Rights commission.
"Professor Alan Miller, the head of the Scottish human rights commission, said there were still significant doubts about the guilt of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi after an independent investigation uncovered new evidence that undermined the conviction. [...] Miller said the row over Megrahi's medical status was an "undignified and unhelpful distraction" from the more important issue of addressing unresolved questions about his guilt." - Guardian, 19 August 2010 [source]67 - Heather Mills. Journalist with The Firm. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi Campaign.
68 - David Morrison. Brilliant Socialist writer. Penned a damning critique of the Zeist trial in 2000. [source – PDF]
70 - Reverend John Mosey. Father of PA103 victim Helga Mosey.
"Why has a full independent inquiry been consistently refused? Why, after five years, have no real answers been supplied?" - 21 Dec 1993, addressing fifth anniversary memorial in UK, well after the official answers had been provided.71 - Chris Mullins Former MP, "Birmingham Six campaigner."
"[the abandonment of Megrahi's appeal is] the worst possible decision for the families because we lose the opportunity to hear evidence that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission thought was worth putting forward [...] We are back where we started 21 years ago, asking for a wide-reaching independent inquiry into all aspects of this disaster." [August 19 2009]
"The more interesting issue, upon which almost no one has touched, is whether or not Megrahi had anything to do with Lockerbie. The case against him was wafer-thin and he had an appeal pending which might have resulted in his conviction being quashed."[Jan 2011]72 - Craig Murray.
"I can affirm that the FCO and MI6 knew that al-Megrahi was not the Lockerbie bomber." [25 September 2009]73 - Len Murray. Highly distinguished Scottish solicitor [website]. Signed 10/10 e-petition.
"I have had the benefit of reading Professor Black's lengthy submissions and I agree entirely with what he has written. Personally, I could not understand a number of things about the outcome of the case. Let me illustrate what I mean:74 - Richard Norton-Taylor. Journalist, The Guardian.
1. I could not and still cannot understand how the Court could hold, on the evidence of Gauci, that Megrahi made the purchase of the clothing. Without Gauci's evidence, which at its height was that Megrahi resembled the purchaser, there was no case.
2. Their finding that the purchase was made on 7 December bordered upon the perverse.
3. Their finding about the unaccompanied baggage fell within the same category." [27 October 2010]
"Two days [before the verdict], senior Foreign Office officials briefed a group of journalists in London. They painted a picture of a bright new chapter in Britain's relations with Colonel Gadafy's regime. They made it quite clear they assumed both the Libyans in the dock would be acquitted.
The FO officials were not alone. Most independent observers believed it was impossible for the court to find the prosecution had proved its case against Megrahi beyond reasonable doubt. It was not only the lack of hard evidence - something the judges admitted in their lengthy judgment. The case was entwined, if the judges were right, in a sequence of remarkable coincidences..." [19 June 2001]75 - Cardinal Keith O'Brien. Leader of the Catholic church in Scotland.
"Cardinal O’Brien said he wanted to see not only justice for Megrahi but also “justice for all the innocent people who died at that time, and their families and friends who are grieving and wanting to be able to draw a line under that horrible episode in the history of Scotland”. - 27 October 2010, supporting the JFM call for a new inquiry. [source]74 - Andy Parsons. British comedian.
“[It] was not justice, but more like a high-stakes version of the board game Guess Who?” - October 2010, on the "identification" by Tony Gauci of al Megrahi. [source]75 - Gareth Peirce. Renowned defense attorney, defended Danny McNamee, convicted by the science of Allen Feraday, who worked on the Lockerbie case. Signed 10/10 e-petition.
“The political furore has been very obviously contrived, since both the British and American governments know perfectly well the history of how and for what reasons [Megrahi] came to be prosecuted.” - October 2010 [source]76 - Denis Phipps. Former head of security, British Airways. Ran a study of Air Malta's records, found no evidence of a bomb on KM 180. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi Campaign.
“One has to say: are - terrorists - idiots? Don’t terrorists plan to have a reasonable degree of success?" – Maltese Double Cross, 1994, referring to the implausible official Libyan plot to send the bomb from Malta via Frankfurt to London.77 - John Pilger. Prominent human rights journalist. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi Campaign.
78 - Rosario Priore. Former Italian public prosecutor, famous for handling the Ustica bombing, 1980.
The former investigator said similar bomb detonators like those [suspecte by some of use in] the Lockerbie bomb were found in a [PFLP-GC cell in Germany]. Priore claims the same ‘baro switch’ used to detonate the bomb 30 minutes after an airliner reaches a certain level of atmospheric pressure, was the same used on the Pan Am flight, which detonated 38 minutes after take-off. “Almost a perfect coincidence,” Priore observed... [summation of remarks to Italian news agency, July 2010]79 - Steven Raeburn. Editor of Scottish law magazine The Firm. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi Campaign.
"...Scotland sadly deserves its shame, disgrace and international condemnation. But certainly not for the reasons offered and repeatedly churned.
The story of the Lockerbie events has been allowed to be drowned out by one version, promoted, if not manufactured, by US intelligence and repeated by our own prosecution service and our government, in denial of later revelation, who maintain even to this day that they "do not doubt the safety of the verdict against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi,” despite it being utterly discredited, in addition to adjudged a possible miscarriage by our Criminal Cases Review Commission." [2 December 2010]
80 - Dr. Theresa Ransford. PhD, OBE, poet. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign.
81 - Anthony Robson. Scottish solicitor.
"The simple fact of the matter is that the focus seems to have been placed on the release itself, of a man which we hear referred to often as 'a man CONVICTED of a terrible crime', rather than a man who IS guilty. I'm well aware that a small number of you may know the real truth and are clearly therefore quite happy to lie to the general public. … I have no pride in being part of a system that effectively colludes to mask the reality from those who are still grieving." - an e-mail to members of the Scottish Parliament, August 2009.” [source]82 - James Robertson. Author. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign.
83 – Kenneth Roy. Signed 10/10 e-petition.
84 - Michael Scharf. Legal counsel to US State Department, 1989-1993 - helped draft proposals for sanction against Libya over Lockerbie.
"The CIA knew along that this guy was a liar, that this guy was just out for money, that they didn't believe half of what he said, if any of what he said, and yet they're presenting him as the star witness in a case that is of such importance? ... it didn't ruin my career, but it's a moment that I'm not proud of." - to Conspiracy Files, 2008, recalling his shock on learning the truth about crucial witness Abdul Majid Giaka.
"Scharf branded the case a “whitewash” and added: “It was a trial where everybody agreed ahead of time that they were just going to focus on these two guys, and they were the fall guys.”" [2006]85 – John Scott. Signed 10/10 e-petition.
86 - Ariel Sharon. Israeli warrior and prime minister. See "David Frum."
90 - Gerard Sinclair. Commissioner with the SCCRC.
“The Outcome: The Commission referred the applicant’s case to the High Court on 28 June 2007. The reference was based on six grounds mainly relating to evidence which, for one reason or another, was not heard at the trial and which indicated that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.” [source]90 - Dr. Jim Swire. General Practiocioner, retired. Father of PA103 victim Flora Swire, long-crusading leader of Britsh families' group. Co-Founder and signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign, 10/10 e-petition, presented the petition at parliament, November 9 2010.
"I think if they are really going to have a meaningful investigation then that is all well and good and long overdue. But if it is just a dodge to prevent an investigation into why the lives of those killed were not protected then I would be livid." - October 25 2009, reacting to suggestions of a re-opened police case into Lockerbie. [source]91 - Sir Teddy Taylor. UK MP 1964-2005. Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi. Signed 10/10 e-petition.
92 - Margaret Thatcher. British Prime Minister at the time of the 103 bombing, the worst terrorist attack in Britain ever and a major event in her tenure.
“December 21 - Lockerbie bombing” - The entire reference to the event in Thatcher’s 914-page memoir The Downing Street Years (1993). “There were revenge killings of British hostages organized by Libya, which I deeply regretted. But the much vaunted Libyan counter-attack did not and could not take place.” - Same book [source]. "We wish to add nothing to the text." Her regal response when asked, by a British PA103 relatives' group, about the book’s silence. [Source] "'Because I didn't know what happened and I don't write about things that I don't know about." - Response when asked by Tam Dalyell the same question. [Source] (in reference, see above, Jack Anderson)93 – Jock Thompson QC. Signed 10/10 e-petition.
94 - James Trafficant. U.S. Representative through 2002.
"Mr. Speaker, the star witness in the Pan Am 103 trial turns out to be a paid CIA informant who lied through his teeth. Reports say his testimony was so phoney his nose is still growing. [...] if these two Libyans were responsible for blowing up Pan Am 103, they [would] have already choked on a chicken bone in a jail cell of Qadhafi's." [Oct. 2000]95 - Archbishop Desmond Tutu. South African human rights crusader, Nobel Peace Prize winner. Signatory, Justice for Megrahi campaign.
96 - Vivienne Walt. Writer for Time magazine.
Old Wounds That Need Re-Opened
27 November 2010
Father Patrick Keegans, longtime critic of the official story and core member of the Justice for Megrahi campaign, recently sent out an open letter urging the families of American victims of Pan Am 103 to take seriously the genuine questions and back a public inquiry into Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's conviction. This effort was reported in an article from the Scotland Herald, which also featured a rebuff from one of the Americn family members appealed to.
The journalist, Helen McArdle, said "reopen old wounds," taking some punch out of the following points to Mr. Reina and those of like mind. But there are clearly times when it's wise to do just that. Say your surgeon leaves half his sandwich inside your abdomen when he sews you up following a major surgery. No wonder you've been feeling so ill, and if you want to live, guess what? It's time to re-open old wounds.
Good example or not, Father Keegans and many others seriously feel that something is deeply wrong with this case. It's not denial or fevered imagination telling them this, but the facts themselves. The facts presented and those hidden, all considered in detail, and weighed critically, show entirely too much grounds for doubt to ethically continue supporting the investigation and verdict without reservation. No matter how unlikely or absurd it might seem to those with the wounds they consider closed, many are feeling constantly torn open and unhealed. And they're the better-informed.
Next I turn to the quotes directly from Mr. Reina:
- physically plausible
- logically consistent with a remotely sane plan
- properly examined and documented
- obtained without entangling million-dollar dreams
- obtained from people who aren't chronic liars (like Bollier and Giaka)
- read properly without undue dismissal of key factors like dates of key events
- no contrary facts that were simply brushed aside with no good reason
Americans may be okay with all of this, but they shouldn't be so judgmental and dismissive against those who do in fact have a problem with a sham "investigation" calling itself justice and good metaphorical surgery. The murder of 270 human beings was supposed to be investigated right, but it wasn't. It was supposed to be tried reasonably, but wasn't. These errors were supposed to be resolved in the appeals process, but weren't. That leaves us with it still needing to be fixed one way or another. It might be gotten right for the history books in a few more decades, or possibly, with some courage and vision, tenacity and luck and grace, even in news articles during our own lifetimes.
American family members of PA103 victims: when will you have the guts to shake off the trance and entertain even the 1% possibility that the verdict could be inherently wrong? Even 1% is worth considering carefully, don't you think? If anyone can manage some open-mindedness and re-examination, on a trial basis at least, you will need to stay as calm and zen as possible. If you're not capable of a fearless and level-headed re-examination, then there's no point going through the charade. Continue on as you were.
Mr. Reina: why were you, and why do you remain, so accepting?
Myself, I was completely unaware at the time, but since then have read a lot of the transcripts - very carefully in spots - plus several books, official reports, online articles, and documentary videos. And I have been talking this all out with others at the JREF skeptics forum, where rationalism wins and no one at all can support the official story in the needed depth. I and my fellow conversants totally agree with Dr. Swire and, while having lost no one myelf, I feel deeply wrapped up in the issue and driven like he is to struggle after the real truth, against all opposition and prejudice. Therefore I've made myself one of the very few Americans of any class to put my name on the signatory list for Justice for Megrahi, along with Dr. Swire, Father Keegans, Professor Black, and many others.
So, Mr. Reina and those who have so far shared his views, can you please re-consider whether this isn't maybe a time for some courage, to show a little support for those who suffer with wounds that were never closed at all? You've got comrades still left, as Father Keegans recently put it, "back on 21st December 1988, in the darkness." How long will you turn your backs on them, repeating the old fingers-in-ears mantras about why we have found the truth?
The "normal" (American) relatives and their political patrons and mainstream media are all quite sure of that, it seems. But isn't the damn unanimity of of it just a little unnerving, people? Don't you ever get a twinge of "hey, why don't we have even one Jim Swire over here?" They have several in a much smaller pool, but in the land of the free, home of the brave, and home of the left-behind loved-ones of 189 dead Americans, there's nada for questions. Since when did we Americans get so conformist in our thinking?
Father Patrick Keegans, longtime critic of the official story and core member of the Justice for Megrahi campaign, recently sent out an open letter urging the families of American victims of Pan Am 103 to take seriously the genuine questions and back a public inquiry into Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's conviction. This effort was reported in an article from the Scotland Herald, which also featured a rebuff from one of the Americn family members appealed to.
"But Ted Reina, whose daughter Jocelyn was a flight attendant on the aeroplane, said an inquiry would reopen old wounds."Mr. Reina's dismissals shows little apparent grasp of what Father Keegans was asking for (see the text of his open letter here). As I read it, in my own words, the essence is something like "even though you can't see it over there for whatever reason, we can over here and we're not insane or stupid. Rational, involved, honest, hurting people genuinely feel deprived of truth and justice in the name of the far-fallen. Why can no one among the American families take that seriously even for a moment and offer us any support?"
The journalist, Helen McArdle, said "reopen old wounds," taking some punch out of the following points to Mr. Reina and those of like mind. But there are clearly times when it's wise to do just that. Say your surgeon leaves half his sandwich inside your abdomen when he sews you up following a major surgery. No wonder you've been feeling so ill, and if you want to live, guess what? It's time to re-open old wounds.
Good example or not, Father Keegans and many others seriously feel that something is deeply wrong with this case. It's not denial or fevered imagination telling them this, but the facts themselves. The facts presented and those hidden, all considered in detail, and weighed critically, show entirely too much grounds for doubt to ethically continue supporting the investigation and verdict without reservation. No matter how unlikely or absurd it might seem to those with the wounds they consider closed, many are feeling constantly torn open and unhealed. And they're the better-informed.
Next I turn to the quotes directly from Mr. Reina:
“I see no good from opening an inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing except for the lawyers lining their pockets."You're not letting yourself see very far. The real murderers of your daughter may well have never been brought to justice, because of this farce blocking the way. Professor Robert Black recently called the unreasonable conviction a "logjam," being used as an "excuse" by the UK (and US) governments to prevent another look, which they both greatly fear [source]. It's true. Not a single piece of relevant evidence against Megrahi can be shown to have all of these traits that real honest evidence usually has:
- physically plausible
- logically consistent with a remotely sane plan
- properly examined and documented
- obtained without entangling million-dollar dreams
- obtained from people who aren't chronic liars (like Bollier and Giaka)
- read properly without undue dismissal of key factors like dates of key events
- no contrary facts that were simply brushed aside with no good reason
Americans may be okay with all of this, but they shouldn't be so judgmental and dismissive against those who do in fact have a problem with a sham "investigation" calling itself justice and good metaphorical surgery. The murder of 270 human beings was supposed to be investigated right, but it wasn't. It was supposed to be tried reasonably, but wasn't. These errors were supposed to be resolved in the appeals process, but weren't. That leaves us with it still needing to be fixed one way or another. It might be gotten right for the history books in a few more decades, or possibly, with some courage and vision, tenacity and luck and grace, even in news articles during our own lifetimes.
American family members of PA103 victims: when will you have the guts to shake off the trance and entertain even the 1% possibility that the verdict could be inherently wrong? Even 1% is worth considering carefully, don't you think? If anyone can manage some open-mindedness and re-examination, on a trial basis at least, you will need to stay as calm and zen as possible. If you're not capable of a fearless and level-headed re-examination, then there's no point going through the charade. Continue on as you were.
"I wonder how many of those who call for an inquiry actually saw the trial or watched it on closed circuit TV as my wife and I did."At least seven familiy member that close or closer to the precedings, and several others like a primary UN observer at the trial (Dr. Hans Köchler) and the Scots law professor (Black) who helped arrange the trial, have firmly questioned or dismissed the old verdict. Non-US, non-entranced family members include Jean Berkley, Matt Berkley, Martin Cadman, Pamela Dix, Marina DeLarracoechea, John Mosey, and Jim Swire. Dr. Swire at least was physically there at Camp Zeist and followed intently. He even read between the lines enough to see, then and there ahead of the growing crowd, that the two Libyans were innocent, that the PFLP-GC for Iran had bombed the flight, from Heathrow. He was shocked enough at the time of the verdict he physically fainted.
Mr. Reina: why were you, and why do you remain, so accepting?
Myself, I was completely unaware at the time, but since then have read a lot of the transcripts - very carefully in spots - plus several books, official reports, online articles, and documentary videos. And I have been talking this all out with others at the JREF skeptics forum, where rationalism wins and no one at all can support the official story in the needed depth. I and my fellow conversants totally agree with Dr. Swire and, while having lost no one myelf, I feel deeply wrapped up in the issue and driven like he is to struggle after the real truth, against all opposition and prejudice. Therefore I've made myself one of the very few Americans of any class to put my name on the signatory list for Justice for Megrahi, along with Dr. Swire, Father Keegans, Professor Black, and many others.
So, Mr. Reina and those who have so far shared his views, can you please re-consider whether this isn't maybe a time for some courage, to show a little support for those who suffer with wounds that were never closed at all? You've got comrades still left, as Father Keegans recently put it, "back on 21st December 1988, in the darkness." How long will you turn your backs on them, repeating the old fingers-in-ears mantras about why we have found the truth?
The "normal" (American) relatives and their political patrons and mainstream media are all quite sure of that, it seems. But isn't the damn unanimity of of it just a little unnerving, people? Don't you ever get a twinge of "hey, why don't we have even one Jim Swire over here?" They have several in a much smaller pool, but in the land of the free, home of the brave, and home of the left-behind loved-ones of 189 dead Americans, there's nada for questions. Since when did we Americans get so conformist in our thinking?
"For the families who have had years of anguish I see only more pain."Even though your wounds are closed up and the likelihood of a re-opening seems slim so far? I'm confused now. But I don't disagree. I imagine there are two different major types of pain prevailing on each side of the Atlantic. There's the dull distant itching of amputated truth on this side, and a more acute anguish on the other, relentlessly prolonged through lack of medical attention. Is there no possibility of changing places or sharing a little of another's pain? You could reach out to explain to Dr. Swire and the rest of those needing closure, in detail, why it's really all solved, and help end their delusion? Or better yet, to realize they know as much as or more about it than you and their questions are valid, and open your heart and mind to the admittedly scary possibility they're right.
Frank Duggan, for the Families
July 21, 2010
PCAST in A Leading Role
To start with, the current leader of the official 'American families group,' Victims of Pan Am 103 Incorporated, is not himself a victim of Pan Am 103; president of the board Frank Duggan lost no loved ones in the bombing. But his involvement with the bereaved runs deep, back to 1989 with his appointment as "liaison to the Families" on the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism (PCAST).
This “blue ribbon panel” was originally to be independent, but wound up being under President Bush’s control. As its chair, he selected Ann McLaughlin, who was once Secretary of labor under Reagan, as well as having been a director for at least “five major corporations.” Frank Duggan had worked as an aide and assistant secretary of labor under her before she picked him as PCAST’s families ambassador. Duggan grew up in Brooklyn, became a cop, and put himself through college, before turning into “a lawyer and a reliable Republican pol who had been a railroad industry lobbyist,” wrote Alan Gerson and Jerry Adler in a 2000 book. ”Needing someone who could win the trust of mostly middle-class families from the Northeast, many of them Irish or Italian Catholics, McLaughlin couldn’t have done better than Frank Duggan.” [1 pp64-69]
In a later interview, Duggan described PCAST as "the Cadillac of commissions” due to “the quality of its work and the number of recommendations, some 60 of them if I recall." [2 - ] The most memorable passage in the report was “national will and the moral courage to exercise it are the ultimate means for fighting terrorism.” The section that was in emphasized missile strikes covert action, either “preemptive or retaliatory,” and was penned by former FBI agent J. Brian Hyland, working from a desk next to Duggan’s. “As Hyland wrote, Duggan kept humming “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” to keep his colleague in a martial frame of mind.” [1 pp68-69]
As Family liaison, Duggan lobbied for their interests and listened to them – concerns, conspiracy theories, plots to hire assassins - with patience and understanding. The families also had a chance to support Duggan when his daughter was crushed into a coma by a drunk driver (she later awoke, but with brain damage). [1 p70] After the commission he continued lobbying for the families as the trail turned to Libya, indictments, and a 1990’s deadlock. During this time, he went to work for one of the legal teams representing the families, headed by Allan Gerson, whose 2001 book noted that “for six years Duggan had worked for the families and had earned nothing for it except their trust and gratitude.” [1 p255-56]
The Corporation / A Man of Vague Understandings
Mr Duggan maintained these ties with the families over the years, as Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc. proved itself a highly effective lobbying group, securing huge payments from Pan Am and then from Libya, netting billions for survivors, lawyers, board members, and so on. But only in 2008 was Duggan offered the presidency of the group’s board of directors - a post usually held by a family member. He told the Scotsman:
The increased publicity following the convict’s eventual release and inevitable “hero’s welcome” would, predictably, stimulate both anger and also attention to the case. With all this plus more evidence than ever available, 2008 was a year rife with threats to the official stasis – just the time to circle the wagons and re-focus the voice of the American families, the force one dares not be seen as out-of-step with.
And Duggan tried to seem well-equipped for verbal battle, tackling the growing ranks of official story critics as “cranks,” “Libya shills,” a “shameless band of conspiracy mavens,” and “no worse than Holocaust deniers who will not accept the facts before their faces”. They're hopeless; by December 20 he was “through trying to reason with Prof Black or MSP Grahame.” [2] It’s no wonder he tires so easily. Duggan’s scholarly achievements consist of an article for TransLaw, (transportation law) Winter 2010. It’s got details that are correct enough by normal standards, but it shows little actual insight. He’s clearly looking these things up as he goes, perhaps using Wikipedia.
When working strictly from his own head, Duggan fails, as when George Galloway made mincemeat of his in a phone interview a few weeks after Megrahi’s release. Duggan tried the standard hollow offensives (“eight judges” ruled guilty, Megrahi “lied under oath,” etc.), and made numerous factual errors (Galloway made a few as well). The short talk centered on Tony Gauci’s evidence, which Duggan called “reliable” and “natural,” while admitting he doesn’t know that the man actually said. The high point was Duggan aggressively and repeatedly denying the $2 million reward for Gauci as a rumor with no substance. That and my rebuttal are covered separately, but it looks like he made the wrong call here, loudly as always. And again he was done trying to “reason” with cranks and hung up. [3]
He can’t be happy with this blogger either. In December I wrote an article sarcastically accusing the Maltese government and Air Malta of complicity in Megrahi’s plot to destroy PA103. I even suggested the UK sever the “axis of malice between Velletta and Triploi” by re-conquering the island. Duggan wasn’t the only commenter to miss the fine-tuned sarcasm, but he was the only one who sided with what he saw, and called it : “a welcome change from the bilge we have to read from the Libya shills.” Said shills, he explained, “have no shame and cannot be embarrassed by the facts.” And he thanked me for my “efforts to publish the truth,” and said “you are like a breath of fresh air.” [4] I felt a little sorry for the poor guy, in fact. It was’t meant to trick anyone, except into reading it. They were supposed to get it by halfway through …
Speaking for the Families
Nine days after praising my Maltese prank, the solemn anniversary arrived - 21 years exactly after the event that started all of this. VPA103 Inc. always has had a controlling say in the annual ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. It wasn’t Duggan, but the board of which he was president, that voted to disallow the remarks they had solicited from Friar Pat Keegans. As the parish priest of Lockerbie on December 21 1988, he came within yards of being a PA103 victim himself. He had bonded with the American and all families who came to the area, and has often been asked for his thoughtful remarks.
But this time Keegans opted to express his feeling that Megrahi was innocent, and that either way his release was justified by Christian compassion for a dying man. Well that’s just not the right message for Arlington. Duggan said they try to “avoid a discussion of the bomber's trial and conviction or of his health," or “any political statements or any discussions of the convicted bomber." President Obama’s counter-terror point man John Brennan was on-hand with some more neutral, appropriate, apolitical messages: “The trial was fair. The guilt of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi … unjustified release … a deplorable scene on a tarmac in Tripoli … those who assisted him …” [5]
To their credit, the board did send the Friar’s speech to members by e-mail, so they know his stance in that odd corner with Dr. Swire and a few other Brits and, it seems, absolutely none of the hundreds closely related to the 190 Americans killed. Clearly what Duggan meant is that December 21 is a time to remember that we’ve got everything figured out, and that - America’s ability to secure a politically expedient conviction by … means - will be thy solace as the bell tolls at that name that pulls the heartstrings.
In his debate with Galloway, Mr. Duggan was unsure how many families he represented, but when asked “whether there unanimity amongst the families in the United States,” as opposed the widely divergent opinion of UK victims, he responded “Yes there is. I can tell you that. There’s a difference of opinion as to how compassionate we should be. But there’s no difference of opinion as to the guilt of Mr. Megrahi” … I don’t know how to explain it … eight judges have already looked at this and decided the man was guilty beyond a deasonable doubt. There’s no question in anyone’s mind that I know of who’s looked at the evidence. The man - was - guilty.” [5]
In June 2010, the Daily Mail (daily fail) opined on Saif Gaddafi calling Tony Blair and adviser of Tripoli’s, and reported that “last night, families of the 270 Lockerbie victims accused Mr Blair of breaking bread with people who 'have blood on their hands'.” The actual quote was “It's important for world peace that Libya is brought back into the community of nations but that doesn't mean that you have to honour people with blood on their hands.” They say the quote was spoken to them by Mr. Duggan. [6] He isn't even one of the 270 victims' relatives, let alone "families of the 270," but he will keep speaking as if that’s so. And there are structural reasons they’ll continue to obligingly let him, and to say the same things when they speak for themselves.
On Blood Money, More of
As mentioned above, Duggan had in the mid-1990s joined one of the legal teams representing the PA 103 families, and apparently was again a family liaison. In June 1995 Gerson asked him “whether he thought the family members would support a suit against Libya,” the lawyer’s book explained. “George Williams – at that time president of Victims of Pan Am 103 – polled the members of his board.” They had earlier rejected a similar idea by fellow survivor Bruce Smith, “but now, Duggan reported back to Gerson, the board was unanimously in favor.” [1 p229] Duggan added the following, articulating a central theme of Gerson’s book – The Price of Terror:
Of course this punishment, "justice," and "legacy" would take the form of huge piles of money. If it’s a problem, is a whole lot more of it the answer? One can also be excused for wondering what role the justice/legacy/punishment money from Libya – an average $10 million per each of the 270 victims – has had in keeping the family members who accepted it quiet about any tiny, itching doubts they might harbor.
Duggan will always help maintain the confidence that they got it right, and assure those left behind that they do not need to re-open, with a critical eye, the trial transcripts they were all given. The families are best equipped to keep that fuzzy view of the end picture and just remind the world as needed - with or without Frank's help - that the heart-stricken families of the far-fallen are ironclad behind the government’s case.
---
Sources:
[1] Gerson, Allan and Jerry Adler. The Price of Terror: Lessons of Lockerbie for a World on the Brink. New York, Harper Collins, 2001. First edition. 302 pages.
[2] Forsyth, John. "After 21 years no end in sight to wrangles over Lockerbie." The Scotsman. December 21 2009. http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/legalissues/After-21-years-no-end.5926777.jp
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkehXY26Ghw
[4] "Another call on Malta: Admit it already!" Caustic Logic. Dec 11 2009. 12/7-9/11 treadmill. http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/12/another-call-on-malta.html
[5] "Keeping the Politics Out of Arlington" Caustic Logic. 12/7-9/11 Treadmill. December 24 2009.
[6] "Tony Blair our very special adviser by dictator Gaddafi's son." Daily Mail, 5 June 2010.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284132/Tony-Blair-special-adviser-dictator-Gaddafis-son.html#ixzz0uJagz3UB
PCAST in A Leading Role
To start with, the current leader of the official 'American families group,' Victims of Pan Am 103 Incorporated, is not himself a victim of Pan Am 103; president of the board Frank Duggan lost no loved ones in the bombing. But his involvement with the bereaved runs deep, back to 1989 with his appointment as "liaison to the Families" on the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism (PCAST).
This “blue ribbon panel” was originally to be independent, but wound up being under President Bush’s control. As its chair, he selected Ann McLaughlin, who was once Secretary of labor under Reagan, as well as having been a director for at least “five major corporations.” Frank Duggan had worked as an aide and assistant secretary of labor under her before she picked him as PCAST’s families ambassador. Duggan grew up in Brooklyn, became a cop, and put himself through college, before turning into “a lawyer and a reliable Republican pol who had been a railroad industry lobbyist,” wrote Alan Gerson and Jerry Adler in a 2000 book. ”Needing someone who could win the trust of mostly middle-class families from the Northeast, many of them Irish or Italian Catholics, McLaughlin couldn’t have done better than Frank Duggan.” [1 pp64-69]
In a later interview, Duggan described PCAST as "the Cadillac of commissions” due to “the quality of its work and the number of recommendations, some 60 of them if I recall." [2 - ] The most memorable passage in the report was “national will and the moral courage to exercise it are the ultimate means for fighting terrorism.” The section that was in emphasized missile strikes covert action, either “preemptive or retaliatory,” and was penned by former FBI agent J. Brian Hyland, working from a desk next to Duggan’s. “As Hyland wrote, Duggan kept humming “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” to keep his colleague in a martial frame of mind.” [1 pp68-69]
As Family liaison, Duggan lobbied for their interests and listened to them – concerns, conspiracy theories, plots to hire assassins - with patience and understanding. The families also had a chance to support Duggan when his daughter was crushed into a coma by a drunk driver (she later awoke, but with brain damage). [1 p70] After the commission he continued lobbying for the families as the trail turned to Libya, indictments, and a 1990’s deadlock. During this time, he went to work for one of the legal teams representing the families, headed by Allan Gerson, whose 2001 book noted that “for six years Duggan had worked for the families and had earned nothing for it except their trust and gratitude.” [1 p255-56]
The Corporation / A Man of Vague Understandings
Mr Duggan maintained these ties with the families over the years, as Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc. proved itself a highly effective lobbying group, securing huge payments from Pan Am and then from Libya, netting billions for survivors, lawyers, board members, and so on. But only in 2008 was Duggan offered the presidency of the group’s board of directors - a post usually held by a family member. He told the Scotsman:
"I could not say no to them. I told them I didn't think there was much more to do. Legally and politically the battle was over. Libya was recognized and compensation had been paid. Then they released Al Megrahi and a 20-year-old story was back on the front pages again." [2]These developments needn’t have been a surprise to those who followed the news. In June 2007 the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission had announced Megrahi may have “suffered a miscarriage of justice” and should have his appeal heard. Duggan’s election/appointment was clearly after this omen, and perhaps (I don’t know the date) after the prisoner’s September 2008 diagnosis with advanced, terminal cancer. Compassionate release was a known factor at the time, as were prisoner transfer deals already being discussed.
The increased publicity following the convict’s eventual release and inevitable “hero’s welcome” would, predictably, stimulate both anger and also attention to the case. With all this plus more evidence than ever available, 2008 was a year rife with threats to the official stasis – just the time to circle the wagons and re-focus the voice of the American families, the force one dares not be seen as out-of-step with.
And Duggan tried to seem well-equipped for verbal battle, tackling the growing ranks of official story critics as “cranks,” “Libya shills,” a “shameless band of conspiracy mavens,” and “no worse than Holocaust deniers who will not accept the facts before their faces”. They're hopeless; by December 20 he was “through trying to reason with Prof Black or MSP Grahame.” [2] It’s no wonder he tires so easily. Duggan’s scholarly achievements consist of an article for TransLaw, (transportation law) Winter 2010. It’s got details that are correct enough by normal standards, but it shows little actual insight. He’s clearly looking these things up as he goes, perhaps using Wikipedia.
When working strictly from his own head, Duggan fails, as when George Galloway made mincemeat of his in a phone interview a few weeks after Megrahi’s release. Duggan tried the standard hollow offensives (“eight judges” ruled guilty, Megrahi “lied under oath,” etc.), and made numerous factual errors (Galloway made a few as well). The short talk centered on Tony Gauci’s evidence, which Duggan called “reliable” and “natural,” while admitting he doesn’t know that the man actually said. The high point was Duggan aggressively and repeatedly denying the $2 million reward for Gauci as a rumor with no substance. That and my rebuttal are covered separately, but it looks like he made the wrong call here, loudly as always. And again he was done trying to “reason” with cranks and hung up. [3]
He can’t be happy with this blogger either. In December I wrote an article sarcastically accusing the Maltese government and Air Malta of complicity in Megrahi’s plot to destroy PA103. I even suggested the UK sever the “axis of malice between Velletta and Triploi” by re-conquering the island. Duggan wasn’t the only commenter to miss the fine-tuned sarcasm, but he was the only one who sided with what he saw, and called it : “a welcome change from the bilge we have to read from the Libya shills.” Said shills, he explained, “have no shame and cannot be embarrassed by the facts.” And he thanked me for my “efforts to publish the truth,” and said “you are like a breath of fresh air.” [4] I felt a little sorry for the poor guy, in fact. It was’t meant to trick anyone, except into reading it. They were supposed to get it by halfway through …
Speaking for the Families
Nine days after praising my Maltese prank, the solemn anniversary arrived - 21 years exactly after the event that started all of this. VPA103 Inc. always has had a controlling say in the annual ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. It wasn’t Duggan, but the board of which he was president, that voted to disallow the remarks they had solicited from Friar Pat Keegans. As the parish priest of Lockerbie on December 21 1988, he came within yards of being a PA103 victim himself. He had bonded with the American and all families who came to the area, and has often been asked for his thoughtful remarks.
But this time Keegans opted to express his feeling that Megrahi was innocent, and that either way his release was justified by Christian compassion for a dying man. Well that’s just not the right message for Arlington. Duggan said they try to “avoid a discussion of the bomber's trial and conviction or of his health," or “any political statements or any discussions of the convicted bomber." President Obama’s counter-terror point man John Brennan was on-hand with some more neutral, appropriate, apolitical messages: “The trial was fair. The guilt of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi … unjustified release … a deplorable scene on a tarmac in Tripoli … those who assisted him …” [5]
To their credit, the board did send the Friar’s speech to members by e-mail, so they know his stance in that odd corner with Dr. Swire and a few other Brits and, it seems, absolutely none of the hundreds closely related to the 190 Americans killed. Clearly what Duggan meant is that December 21 is a time to remember that we’ve got everything figured out, and that - America’s ability to secure a politically expedient conviction by … means - will be thy solace as the bell tolls at that name that pulls the heartstrings.
In his debate with Galloway, Mr. Duggan was unsure how many families he represented, but when asked “whether there unanimity amongst the families in the United States,” as opposed the widely divergent opinion of UK victims, he responded “Yes there is. I can tell you that. There’s a difference of opinion as to how compassionate we should be. But there’s no difference of opinion as to the guilt of Mr. Megrahi” … I don’t know how to explain it … eight judges have already looked at this and decided the man was guilty beyond a deasonable doubt. There’s no question in anyone’s mind that I know of who’s looked at the evidence. The man - was - guilty.” [5]
In June 2010, the Daily Mail (daily fail) opined on Saif Gaddafi calling Tony Blair and adviser of Tripoli’s, and reported that “last night, families of the 270 Lockerbie victims accused Mr Blair of breaking bread with people who 'have blood on their hands'.” The actual quote was “It's important for world peace that Libya is brought back into the community of nations but that doesn't mean that you have to honour people with blood on their hands.” They say the quote was spoken to them by Mr. Duggan. [6] He isn't even one of the 270 victims' relatives, let alone "families of the 270," but he will keep speaking as if that’s so. And there are structural reasons they’ll continue to obligingly let him, and to say the same things when they speak for themselves.
On Blood Money, More of
As mentioned above, Duggan had in the mid-1990s joined one of the legal teams representing the PA 103 families, and apparently was again a family liaison. In June 1995 Gerson asked him “whether he thought the family members would support a suit against Libya,” the lawyer’s book explained. “George Williams – at that time president of Victims of Pan Am 103 – polled the members of his board.” They had earlier rejected a similar idea by fellow survivor Bruce Smith, “but now, Duggan reported back to Gerson, the board was unanimously in favor.” [1 p229] Duggan added the following, articulating a central theme of Gerson’s book – The Price of Terror:
“Since the majority will still consider monetary compensation ‘blood money,’ the award must be punitive as well as compensatory and be large enough to discourage any government from ever contemplating support for another terrorist act. The families have not made their political efforts for money, rather they have made it for justice and to leave some legacy in the names of their lost loved ones.” [1 p230]
Of course this punishment, "justice," and "legacy" would take the form of huge piles of money. If it’s a problem, is a whole lot more of it the answer? One can also be excused for wondering what role the justice/legacy/punishment money from Libya – an average $10 million per each of the 270 victims – has had in keeping the family members who accepted it quiet about any tiny, itching doubts they might harbor.
Duggan will always help maintain the confidence that they got it right, and assure those left behind that they do not need to re-open, with a critical eye, the trial transcripts they were all given. The families are best equipped to keep that fuzzy view of the end picture and just remind the world as needed - with or without Frank's help - that the heart-stricken families of the far-fallen are ironclad behind the government’s case.
---
Sources:
[1] Gerson, Allan and Jerry Adler. The Price of Terror: Lessons of Lockerbie for a World on the Brink. New York, Harper Collins, 2001. First edition. 302 pages.
[2] Forsyth, John. "After 21 years no end in sight to wrangles over Lockerbie." The Scotsman. December 21 2009. http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/legalissues/After-21-years-no-end.5926777.jp
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkehXY26Ghw
[4] "Another call on Malta: Admit it already!" Caustic Logic. Dec 11 2009. 12/7-9/11 treadmill. http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/12/another-call-on-malta.html
[5] "Keeping the Politics Out of Arlington" Caustic Logic. 12/7-9/11 Treadmill. December 24 2009.
[6] "Tony Blair our very special adviser by dictator Gaddafi's son." Daily Mail, 5 June 2010.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284132/Tony-Blair-special-adviser-dictator-Gaddafis-son.html#ixzz0uJagz3UB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
