Suliman on Swissy and the Student Union

March 6, 2011
edits March 24

It’s been suggested to me that this is unwise, but I am offering another platform to Suliman, the persistent and inflammatory critic of the Justice for Megrahi campaign (JFM) and its members. He has quite a roster of rotating smears. Previously he's suggested Dr. Jim Swire was a racist, Robert Forrester an alcoholic, Professor Black a paid shill for Libya, and others. He also challenged me personally that I “will not touch” the important issue of Dr. Swire’s “dignity” in accepting Libya’s compensation money for his daughter’s death, despite believing them not guilty. I touched it, and smacked it down as irrelevant and mean-spirited name-blackening, and strangely, Suliman is the one no longer bringing up that accusation of … whatever exactly he was driving at.

And in trade, he of course did not and never will touch my challenge [same link above] to support with evidence just one central clue of Megrahi's (and thus Gaddafi's) guilt for the Lockerbie bombing.

Now that same "stolen money" is not a matter of dignity, but of employment, as a “whore” of Libya, of the kind to be “dealt with” after, and as, Gaddafi’s regime is being dealt with now! In a more recent missive, Suliman claims three JFM founding members have a “known financial connection with the Gaddafi regime.” Jim Swire and, he thinks, Father Pat Keegans are connected via “the Lockerbie compensations -- at least,” acceptance of which makes one “effectively a prepaid lobbyist.”

Period.

Unless you toe the government line and accept the verdict, as most do. Or just keep quiet and let that prevailing version unfold without protest. Taking the money then is fine with propagandist Suliman, as it keeps the Libyan regime as hated as possible. But if you look at the evidence for yourself, and find something different from what he imagines one should find (he can only imagine of course, refusing to look for himself), and dare to speak up about it, you obviously fit this bill:

Swire, Forrester and Co. [JFM] should be treated as undeclared agents of a foreign terrorist syndicate, until proven otherwise. … suspicious affiliations … serving the agenda of an international mass murderer …

The notion is obviously absurd. But the third cited example, and perhaps the entirety of the "suspicious affiliations," might have more to it, and it's to that I turn:

(3) Abdullah Swissy, JFM's Libyan co-founder, was a government sponsored student. How in the hell could he be financially independent of his financial sponsors?

Wow - nothing like student financial aid to secure one's services in furtherance of terrorism.

But he's more than just a Libyan student, of course. Abdullah Swissy has been described in his earlier JFM activities as “Former President of the Libyan Students' Union in Scotland and Libyan Student Affairs of the Libyan Students' Union, UK Branch.” (example) And of course, being Libyan, one must expect "student union" is but a euphemism for a terrorist front group. I guess (??).

Mr. Swissy was one of seven founding signatories of the Justice for Megrahi campaign in 2008, at the time seeking only the prisoner's return home on compassionate grounds. He has since un-signed for unspecified reasons, as the campaign shifted to re-examination of the case (something Suliman claims Gaddafi was not allowed to pursue). And apparently he is not always mentioned as a founding member in JFM literature, something Suliman takes as suspect.

It seems the alleged plot is this: Gaddafi decided to overturn the Megrahi verdict, and ordered a murderous minion to form a pressure group with some British dupes. He had the minion join the group, only to withdraw to not give the game away. But the brief lapse gave Suliman the sleuth his crucial clue - a freely-offered signature is his evidence for this secret plot.

Okay, that's not an amazing narrative, but I'll let it slide and humor the guy. Suliman's central problem seems to be less with Swissy himself as the group he's held an office within, also called the Jamahirya Student Union. Here are some of the clues Suliman has offered about this group, so far short on specifics:

...the same organization that produced the goons who were expelled from the UK for their role in the murder of a British policewoman on duty, protecting Libyan students in a demonstration against the extrajudicial killings by Swire and Black's partner organization in the pursuit of justice...
…
Would Black also join hands with the KKK in a campaign for racial equality? How about the American Nazi Party? Don't be offended, how could you? Before you do that, go contrast the public positions of the KKK and ANP vs. the unrepented JSU on the use of lynch mobs, violence and terrorism as means of doing justice.
… [source]

And if Swire knew sh*t about human rights in Libya, he would not join hands with the Jamahiriya Student Union in the pursuit of what he calls "justice."
...
Do you need any clues about the "judicial" principles and record of your JFM partners, the Jamahiriya Student Union? Are those agents of Gaddafi exempt from the logic that Gaddafi's agents cannot operate independently? [source]

So I gather from this that - allegedly - the JSU was killing someone around 1984, producing a protest at the Libyan embassy. The same group somehow "produced the goons" who shot policewoman Yvonne Fletcher at that protest. And the JSU promotes deadly violence as a replacement for justice, as well as violating human rights in general.

These are the serious allegations I'd need some evidence for. Seriously - that's heavy stuff to just state as fact without any support. So in answer to the question to Rolfe, yes, we could use some clues.

Now IF the Student Union has been involved in any such thing, at any time in any branch, the question still exists of Mr. Swissy's personal involvement or complicity in any of it up there in Scotland. And even if that can be shown (which I doubt), villain Swissy's ability to control and steer JFM after his departure from it hasn't been explained.

Nor has Suilman or anyone ruled out a non-Gaddafi origin for any of the well-founded questions aired about the verdict. Yet even without taking this basic step, in his fevered imagination, everyone who sees things differently is part of a vast conspiracy emanating right from Tripoli by unseen, perhaps magical avenues.

But there's more suspicious activity to prove it! Signs of a cover-up on our end!

(1) The Justice for Megrahi Campaign was co-founded by an officer of the Jamahiriya Student Union, who was also actively recruiting support in Gaddafi's media, on behalf of his Scottish comrades.
(2) JFM Co-Founder Abdullah Swissy, can also be found in Gaddafi's media calling upon "The Sons of the Great Revolution," to join his work for Megarhi.
(3) The JFM co-founder had disclosed on Gaddafi's media that he works in coordination with another Swissy, who is possibly a relative but definitely identified as the Consul General in Scotland.
(4) The JFM, through its co-founder Mr. Abdullah Swissy, was presenting itself in Gaddafi's media in a manner that is inconsistent with what they feed to the Western media as "basic tenets" of their campaign. Evidently, the JFM customizes both its message and its tenets to suit the local audience.

This part sounds detailed enough I'd credit it, but a link or something would still be handy to see the context. Points one and two seem to be the same thing - Swissy used unspecified Libyan media to promote the JFM cause. Wow. Point three is mildly interesting, not that his dad or uncle working in the diplomatic service there goes far towards making him a terrorist or pawn of anyone. But it could raise eyebrows. Point 4, and maybe 3, are perhaps clues why he left the group, but otherwise pretty irrelevant.

And then some other points:

(5) What is left of the JFM Committee and Mr. Larson are trying to sweep their association with the Jamahiriya Student Union under the rug, leaving it unmentioned even in the pretense of documenting their history.

http://www.justiceformegrahi.com/ Current page, not cached. Oh my, this isn’t being kept very secret at all. In fact, Suliman might benefit from asking himself if he's exposing anything at all?

(6) And in his own contrivances to misinform the public, Mr. Larson doctored up his blog so as to erase his prior highlighting of Mr. Swissy's co-affiliation with JFM and the Jamahiriya Student Union, and he replaced it with an emphatically childish statement to the effect, "Look, Ma, no Libyans!"  

(7) Mr. Larson deliberately puckered his lips, went out of the way, to credit Mr. Swissy solely with a statement issued by the JFM campaign as a whole.  

(8) Mr. Larson also created a Category for Swissy in his blog, and it remains there now--but not for long--even though it points to no mention whatsoever of Swissy. All mentions of the JFM co-founder have been sanitized, but Mr. Larson forgot to burn all the evidence of his suck-up theater. How pathetic can a brown-nosed prospector be!

Clearly I contend "misinform the public," childish, and just about every other word of that. I do recall taking Swissy, Megrahi, all Libyans and those hired by them from the big quotes list to purify it to "people who at least presumably should have no ulterior motive to express such doubts" about the highly questionable verdict. The "quote" I had for Swissy prior to that was in fact a statment he only signed in agreement with rather than something he said personally. I'm sorry to have been so amazingly deceptive with that. Or that Suliman is so easily confused/deceived, or has such a need to keep acting like it. Terribly sorry for whichever of those it is.

The one post that had a stray "Swissy A" tag, honestly, I don't remember mentioning him in it. But he might have come up in that originally, before I removed him, for some stupid reason related to his un-signing. Can't put it back if I don't remember what it was. Tag removed, as Suliman predicted, but another post - this one - takes it over. Anyone who clicks it will be assailed with Suliman's accusations, introduced above and fleshed out below by he and I. We'll discuss:

a) the supposed track record of brutality of this group "partnered" with the Justice for Megrahi campaign,
b) in addition to but not in place of a), any evidence of a functional JSU/JFM partnership as opposed to a brief one-person membership cross-over.

How's that for burnt evidence swept under the rug?

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:

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?

Prof. Black: "Ten Years of Injustice"

February 1 2011

I can't believe I missed marking it here after meaning to for months, but yesterday was the ten-year anniversary of the Camp Zeist (Kamp van Zeist) verdict: Guilty for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, not guilty for Lamin Fhimah, in the bombing of Pan Am 103. The man with no known accomplice was verified in the guilt first bestowed on him with the indictments of November 1991. These we now know were issued on top of evidence and methods that were dubious, mystery-laden, deep-tissue-massaged, and outright purchased. Just how three wizened Scottish lords could bring themselves to confirm - unanimously - that tissue of lies with the stamp of Scottish Justice is a great mystery of the 21st Century.

Professor Robert Black, for the few who don't know, is a chief legal mover in establishing that trial. At his blog The Lockerbie Case, he's just posted a great little commentary to mark
Ten years of injustice. In it, he quotes Justice For Megrahi campaign secretary Robert Forrester, addressing the Scottish government's continued refusal to launch in investigation into the Camp Zeist affair. I find myself heartened in a solemn way that's almost "chilled" by his cryptic words to the Sunday Post.

"If we have to, we will go to the next resort which will be very public and not Scottish. [...] If it's successful, the Scottish authorities won't be able to say no -- they'll have to do what they're told."

Read more there. Great comments.

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.

"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.

Crashing the Petition

25 October 2010

I suppose I should say something about the four-day absence of our highly successful e-petition to the Scottish government. The petition was set up by Justice for Megrahi core members Jim Swire, Robert Black, Robert Forrester, Iain McKie, and Pat Keegans, to encourage the Scottish parliament to investigate the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in 2001. It has reached at least 1,440 signatures before grinding into emptiness and "not found." Professor Robert Black's blog has been keeping a running tab:
Scottish Parliament e-petitions website crashed
Lockerbie petition hit by technical glitch
Forty-eight hours on ...
Seventy-two hours on ...
Ninety-six hours on ...
The last points out that "the website's failure has already deprived the petition of twenty per cent of the time allotted for signature." Despite the petition page being down, it can still be "signed" by sending an e-mail (at this page, which still works) with intent to sign (specify e-petition 417), and giving your name and address for verification. It's also been pointed out that thgere is good reason to expect an extension given this episode, but as Black points out, that could hurt one central goal - to have the petition done before the upcoming elections.

Each of the posts above contains lively and evolving dialog about what's going on here.  Conspiracy theories naturally arise among many commentators, naturally I think given the duplicitous handling of this case from the beginning. Others have voiced a more generous interpretation. For example, Robert Forrester (as "Quincey Riddle") said somewhere in there, three days ago, when people were starting to voice suspicions:

JFM deals in verifiable facts only. The facts concerning the current difficulties on the Scottish Parliament Petitions Site are at present:
1 The site crashed in the early hours of 21/10/10.
2 BT is still working on a solution.
[...] Speaking personally, I do not hold with the contention that those whom JFM is confronting on the Lockerbie/Zeist case are attempting to sabotage the petition. There are far more effective methods of dealing with us, also including the tried and tested 'just-ignore-them' tactic. To do something as blatant as this would simply present JFM with yet another weapon to use against them.

That's a darn good point, and considering the known issues with the occoasional ill-managed government site, and how inundated as this one was by signers and viewers, something along these lines should be the obvious default conclusion. But the days dragged on without a fix and, by number, the comments espousing the paranoiac view are predominating.

At the beginning I said only "agreed with all," but that's not fully possible. Technical details of how these things work are past me, but considering conspiracy theories is something I enjoy. You can consider the possible conspirators and their motives. For example, any number of those in power, the intelligence services, and so on, might have an eye to shutting down e-petition 417. Even if it can be gotten back up, many will have forgotten or lost interest by then, and the tally will be hurt.

Then there's the role of possible reverse psychology. By this, sympathetic Scots on the inside - or allies on the "new investigation" side - might have the most interest in faking a cyber-attack to increase its profile and interest. But then considering possible double-reverse psychology, the UK nationalist anti-SNP cabal in MI5, or the CIA, might have done this to both halt the petition AND implicate the SNP in doing it as a false flag operation.

This is all worth pondering to some degree, but in itself will get us nowhere as far as the bigger picture. Some good points are made about the size and totality of this "glitch" and what it might mean. But really, even if it is some nefarious plot, what the hell good is it going to do to anyone? The min problem with it its lack of binding power, not the number of names. But even by that it's doing fine. Forrester continued, helping put this in perspective.

Once the petition comes down on the 28/10/10, we will be able to assess any impact this breakdown may have had. However, given that the JFM petition went online on the 8/10/10 and was around the 1,500 mark at the time of the crash, there are good grounds for concluding that it had already broken existing records for the number of signees over time. [...] the average number of signees per day has been around a steady 100 plus. [...] the phenomenal response to the petition has already made a very significant point, and one which cannot easily be ignored, even if the site remains down right up to the 28/10/10. [...] I believe in sporting circles that could be described as something of 'a result'.

This is in fact a result and even if this is it, it's a possible record, and the knowledge we'd've gotten more yet is clear. Considering the timetable decided, an extension should be denied - ask for an amended note suggesting conservative and liberal estimates of expected signatories, apply 125% of the established fraud rate for good measure, etc... and just let them consider it or not as they will see fit. It's a small chapter of this movement either way, and that's already in the historical record. Good job all.

Let's do what we can to keep the word out there for a few more days, encourage e-mail submissions unless/until the petition is restored. And then come Thursday it'll be time to move on to the next things as we wait and see.  Any evil plot that may lurk here has already failed (unless it's very clever and will unfurl itself in our midst later on...).

Stand up behind the banner of justice and be counted!

18 October 2010

Following is the introduction to an article from Scotland on Sunday, 17 August 2010, entitled "Hundreds sign petition seeking inquiry into Lockerbie bomber conviction."

A PETITION urging ministers to hold an independent inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been signed by almost 1,000 people in its first week.
Campaigners launched the petition, calling on MSPs to put pressure on the Scottish Government to re-examine the evidence presented at the 2001 trial of Abdelbaset Ali al Megrahi at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. Since then, hundreds of signatories have come forward including award-winning novelists AL Kennedy, James Robertson, and Aonghas MacNeacail and senior figures within the legal community, such as Len Murray, the retired High Court judge, Ian Hamilton QC, most famous for stealing the Stone of Destiny from Westminster Abbey, and Hector MacQueen, the Scots law professor and a vice-president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

Notable signatories from outwith Scotland include Benedict Birnberg, the retired human rights solicitor who acted for Virgin tycoon Richard Branson and Ian Brady, the Moors murderer, among others, during his 40-year career.

Justice for Megrahi is really about justice in general - for the falsely convicted Libyan, for the duped and abused family members of the victims, and perhaps one day even for the true perpetrators. Many others from a wide stripe of credible people agree with JFM's core assertion of Megrahi's likely innocence. The scope and intensity of this doubt is perhaps best gathered at this blog post: "No one seriously doubts the Libyan's guilt?" This petition is just one more among many valiant attempts to force a re-appraisal of the stale and untenable situation. The Scotland on Sunday article continues:

The petition has also been signed by about 100 people from Malta, where the bomb which caused the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103, claiming 270 lives, was said to have been smuggled on board.

Dr [Jim] Swire, who has long been convinced that Megrahi is innocent, said yesterday he was pleased with the response to date. "No Scottish lawyer I know of believes in the integrity of the verdict. All it takes for this situation to continue is for good men to do nothing so I would urge people to sign the petition now."

E-Petition link: http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/view_petition.asp?PetitionID=417 Signing open to all until 28 October. The text and all you'll need to know are there at the link.

As the Maltese supporters show, this is open to those outside Scotland or even the United Kingdom. There are well over 1,000 signatures now, with three quarters from Scotland, and the rest mostly from England and Malta, and scattered support from around the world beyond. Only a handful of Americans have signed yet, no doubt due to the petition's absence from American media reports along with the amazingly strong case for Megrahi's factual innocence. No American family members have signed on with the campaign or recent petition yet, as the illusion of Megrahi's guilt is the only semblance of closure they seem to have.

Following is a call to the same effect sent to me by Justice For Megrahi (JFM) founding member Robert Forrester. By and large I'm using it here as a request for more signatures, especially from Americans, those few who are smart enough to see the case for a fresh look and bold enough to put their names (first at least) on a step out ahead of the crowd and the historical curve. Have no doubt history in it best tradition will regard this miscarriage of justice, when the right perspective is achieved, as a Big Lie like none before.
---
Justice is the banner which unites us all
The Justice for Megrahi organisation (JFM), which is composed of the JFM Committee and the JFM Signatories, has been campaigning on the issue of the Kamp van Zeist verdict for two years. It is the contention of JFM that the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in 2001 for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, was a gross miscarriage of justice on the basis of the evidence laid before the court. JFM deals in matters of fact as they are applied to and by the law, and the organisation’s position is that Mr al-Megrahi is not guilty as charged based on the Crown’s evidence. This perverse judgement not only resulted in the conviction of Mr al-Megrahi, but maligned Germany, Libya, Malta and the UK. It has also raised questions which lie at the very heart of JFM’s campaign; regarding what justice is, what it means, whom it exists to serve and what role it plays in our society.

JFM is currently lodging an e-Petition with the Scottish Parliament, “calling on the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.” If you believe, as we do, that the banner which unites us should no longer be flying at half-mast, help hoist it back to its rightful place by signing up to the JFM petition. Details concerning the petition and a profile of JFM can be found at this link:
http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/view_petition.asp?PetitionID=417
Please note that the petition closes for signatures on 28th October 2010. Signatures may be added directly at the link above, or an e-signature may be added by texting ‘417’ and your name to 07537 400395 (with UK prefix if calling from overseas). Texts are charged at your standard network rate. Text signatures will not appear instantly. Finally, Justice for Megrahi also has a Facebook page which may be of interest:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=161241207237021

The Justice for Megrahi Committee
Professor Robert Black QC
Mr Robert Forrester
Father Pat Keegans
Dr Morag Kerr
Mr Iain McKie
Dr Jim Swire

The Justice for Megrahi Signatories
Ms Kate Adie (former Chief News Correspondent for BBC News)
Mr John Ashton (co-author of Cover-up of Convenience)
Mr David Benson (actor/author of the play Lockerbie: Unfinished Business)
Mrs Jean Berkley (mother of Alistair Berkley, victim of Pan Am 103)
Mr Peter Biddulph (Lockerbie tragedy researcher)
Professor Robert Black QC (‘architect’ of the Kamp van Zeist Trial)
Mr Paul Bull (close friend of Bill Cadman, victim of Pan Am 103)
Professor Noam Chomsky (human rights, social and political commentator)
Mr Tam Dalyell (UK MP 1962-2005, Father of the House 2001-2005)
Mr Ian Ferguson (co-author of Cover-up of Convenience)
Dr David Fieldhouse (police surgeon who attended the Pan Am 103 crash site)
Mr Robert Forrester (Justice for Megrahi Committee)
Ms Christine Grahame MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament)
Mr Ian Hislop (editor of Private Eye)
Fr Pat Keegans (Lockerbie parish priest on 21 December 1988)st
Ms A L Kennedy (author)
Dr Morag Kerr (Lockerbie commentator)
Mr Andrew Killgore (former US Ambassador to Qatar)
Mr Adam Larson (editor and proprietor of The Lockerbie Divide)
Mr Aonghas MacNeacail (poet and journalist)
Mr Iain McKie (retired Superintendent of Police)
Mr Marcello Mega (journalist covering the Lockerbie incident)
Ms Heather Mills (reporter for Private Eye)
Rev John F Mosey (father of Helga Mosey, victim of Pan Am 103)
Mr Charles Norrie (brother of Tony Norrie, victim of UT 772)
Mr Denis Phipps (aviation security expert)
Mr John Pilger (campaigning human rights journalist)
Mr Steven Raeburn (editor of The Firm)
Dr Tessa Ransford OBE (poetry practitioner and adviser)
Mr James Robertson (author)
Dr Jim Swire (father of Flora Swire, victim of Pan Am 103)
Sir Teddy Taylor (UK MP 1964-2005, former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland)
Archbishop Desmond Tutu (1984 Nobel Peace Prize winner)

Justice for Megrahi Campaign

 21 September 2010
last update 29 November

The following is a document - part history, part constitution, part resource list - for the Justice for Megrahi campaign (website). It was sent in by committee member Robert Forrester, and will have to go on their website as well once that's expanded.

This is also the best spot to post this link to all posts at this blog regarding (or tagged as) the JFM campaign.
---

Justice for Megrahi (JFM) is a single issue justice campaign group comprising the committee and the signatories. It maintains that on the basis of the evidence laid by the Crown before the three judges of the High Court of Justiciary at Kamp van Zeist (Netherlands), the 2001 conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie (Scotland) was a miscarriage of justice. Although the central plank of JFM’s position is concerned with the contention that no reasonable court could have convicted on the basis of the evidence as presented to the court, it also acknowledges other factors beyond this relating to, amongst other things, the fact that whilst the Crown was aware of evidence of value to the defence case before the trial, this evidence did not become public knowledge until after the verdict had been passed. JFM exists to address issues surrounding the investigation of the destruction of the aircraft and the subsequent trial of Mr al-Megrahi and Mr Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah. Its main objective is to campaign to have Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction quashed.

History

Justice for Megrahi (JFM) was founded in November of 2008 following the judicial hearing which set out the arrangements for Mr al-Megrahi’s second appeal. The appeal had been referred back to the Court of Appeal on a total of six grounds (largely concerned with the quality of evidence provided by the Crown’s star witness at Kamp van Zeist, Maltese shopkeeper Mr Tony Gauci) by Scotland’s expert and independent legal authority which has responsibility for referring cases to the Court of Appeal: the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). The initial aim of JFM was to campaign, by means of a public petition to be submitted to Scottish Government (see: http://www.justiceformegrahi.com/) for the compassionate release of Mr al-Megrahi in light of his terminal medical condition. The founding committee members felt that the Crown in its decision to break Mr al-Megrahi’s appeal into sections to be spaced out over a considerable period of months was not giving due regard to the prisoner’s medical state, and that in prolonging the appeal thus, the appellant could well succumb to his illness before the appeal concluded, with the possible result that no judgement might be produced.


Following a private meeting between the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Mr Kenny MacAskill, and Mr al-Megrahi in HM Prison Greenock in August of 2009, Mr al-Megrahi dropped his second appeal and became the beneficiary of compassionate release, which brought about his repatriation to Libya. JFM takes no credit for having had any influence over the decision to avail Mr al-Megrahi of the provision, under Scots Law, of compassionate release. In September of 2009, following the prisoner’s release, JFM began its campaign to have the 2001 verdict overturned by means of a comprehensive public inquiry or other judicial means into the Lockerbie case covering:
• The Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103.
• The police investigation of the tragedy.
• The subsequent Kamp van Zeist trial.
• The acquittal of Mr Fhimah and conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi.
• The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's (SCCRC) referral of Mr Al-Megrahi's case to the Court of Appeal.
• The dropping of this second appeal and the compassionate release of Mr Al-Megrahi.
JFM additionally contends that the reputation of Scotland’s justice system has suffered a severe blow because of the Zeist verdict and that only through testing the validity of the verdict can this reputation be redeemed.

In support of JFM’s call for a full and open public inquiry, the group has lobbied the following bodies and individuals:

The President of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation
All missions with a seat at the General Assembly of the UN
The African Union
The League of Arab States
The Non-Aligned Movement
The President of Egypt
The Government of Libya
The Government of Malta
The Government of Cuba
The Government of Nicaragua
The Government of Venezuela
The Senate of the United States of America
The Government of Scotland

With the exception of the Maltese and Scottish Governments, none of the above has responded to JFM’s advances.

In September of 2010, JFM made representations to the First Minister of Scotland Mr Alex Salmond in the hope that the Scottish Government would establish an inquiry into the affair under the auspices of the Scottish Government citing the following reasons:

• The event occurred over and on Scottish territory.
• The case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
• The trial was conducted under Scots Law.
• Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
• Mr Al-Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
• The SCCRC referred the second appeal to the Scottish Court of Appeal.
• Mr Al-Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
In declining JFM’s submission, a Scottish Government spokesman stated the following as justification for the decision not to endorse the campaign’s request that Edinburgh set up an inquiry into the Lockerbie case:

“The Scottish Government do not doubt the safety of the conviction of al-Megrahi. Nevertheless, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity. The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots Law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would, therefore, need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”

JFM continues to maintain that more than adequate evidence required to establish that there was a miscarriage of justice at Kamp van Zeist falls well within the jurisdiction of Scotland. Amongst other things, JFM points to all documents and testimony pertaining to the investigation, the trial and the referral of Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction back to the Court of Appeal, on no fewer than six grounds, by the SCCRC. Moreover JFM asserts that in accordance with “current UK legislation as expressed by the Inquiries Act 2005 (c12), which indicates, in sections 1, 27 and 32, that the Scottish Government possesses more than adequate powers to open an inquiry into the Lockerbie case under its own auspices.”
(see: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/12/contents)

It is JFM’s intention to maintain its strategy of lobbying governments, judicial bodies, international groups and individuals to realise its aims irrespective of whether Mr al-Megrahi is alive or dead.


Structure

Justice for Megrahi comprises the committee, made up of the remaining founding members, and the signatories who endorse the JFM campaign.


The current (August 2010) committee members:

Professor Robert Black QC
Mr Robert Forrester
Father Pat Keegans
Mr Iain McKie
Doctor Jim Swire


The current (August 2010) signatories:

Ms Kate Adie (Former Chief News Correspondent for BBC News).
Mr John Ashton (Co- author of: ‘Cover Up of Convenience’).
Mr David Benson (Actor/author of the play ‘Lockerbie: Unfinished Business).
Mrs Jean Berkley (Mother of Alistair Berkley: victim of Pan Am 103).
Mr Peter Biddulph (Lockerbie tragedy researcher).
Professor Robert Black QC (‘Architect’ of the Kamp van Zeist Trial).
Professor Noam Chomsky (Human rights, social and political commentator).
Mr Tam Dalyell (UK MP: 1962-2005. Father of the House: 2001-2005).
Mr Ian Ferguson (Co- author of: ‘Cover Up of Convenience’).
Mr Robert Forrester (Justice for Megrahi Committee).
Ms Christine Grahame MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament).
Mr Ian Hislop (Editor of ‘Private Eye’).
Fr Pat Keegans (Lockerbie parish priest on 21st December 1988).
Ms A L Kennedy (Author).
Mr Andrew Killgore (Former US Ambassador to Qatar).
Mr Adam Larson (Editor and proprietor of ‘The Lockerbie Divide’).
Mr Iain McKie (Retired Superintendent of Police).
Ms Heather Mills (Reporter for ‘Private Eye’).
Mr Charles Norrie (Brother of Tony Norrie: victim of UT 772).
Mr Denis Phipps (Aviation security expert).
Mr John Pilger (Campaigning human rights journalist).
Mr Steven Raeburn (Editor of ‘The Firm).
Mr James Robertson (Author).
Dr Jim Swire (Father of Flora Swire: victim of Pan Am 103).
Sir Teddy Taylor (UK MP 1964-2005. Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland).
Archbishop Desmond Tutu (Nobel Peace Prize Winner).


Whilst JFM has no formal constitution, the following general rules apply:

• JFM operates on the basis of mutual trust between the committee and the signatories that everyone who is party to the campaign will act in furtherance of its principal aims.
• All committee members are signatories.
• The signatories are free to adopt as active or passive a role as they wish.
• The committee takes ultimate responsibility for all material reaching the public domain.
• The committee will consult and keep the signatories fully informed of all JFM activities at all times.
• Anything published in the name of JFM is not authorised without prior approval by the committee and its signatories.
• JFM does not sanction having its name associated in conjunction with any policy which seeks retribution for any shortcomings in either the investigation into the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 or the Kamp van Zeist trial. Furthermore, JFM does not indulge in speculation that seeks to attribute blame for the destruction of the aircraft. JFM accepts that individual campaign members may have their own opinions and may wish to express them in public, JFM does not recognise this as being incompatible with the policy of the campaign insofar as it is clear that such views represent the individual’s position and not that of JFM.
• Additions to the list of signatories are normally made via invitation.


Links (provisional)

http://justiceformegrahi.com/
http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie_observer_mission.htm
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/

Recent press links

mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D04102772a2%26view%3Datt%26th%3D12aae61e40a00a93%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&sig=AHIEtbRXnWVSn9dgpvLAenaJtPQYFVpjIw&pli=1

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/94061

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/lockerbie-doubts-dramatized-in-new-play/

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=516:salmond-pledges-full-co-operation-with-any-un-megrahi-inquiry&catid=6:leisure&Itemid=9

http://www.bigonglasgow.com/2010/group-wants-lockerbie-case-review-217002

http://breakingnews.heraldscotland.com/breaking-news/?mode=article&site=hs&id=N0324561281843351461A

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=476:lockerbie-a-demand-for-a-full-inquiry&catid=6:leisure&Itemid=9

http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2066/Exclusive%3A_Media_called_en_masse_to_back_Pan_Am_103_inquiry.html

http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2076/Address_to_the_People_and_Government_of_Scotland.html

http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/793/Questions_to_The_First_Minister_and_Government_of.html

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=526:justice-for-megrahi-group-issue-fresh-plea-for-lockerbie-inquiry&catid=6:leisure&Itemid=9

http://news.scotsman.com/news/Salmond-39no39-to-Megrahi-inquiry.6492365.jp

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hIexg8cyv-zIlyDkkBYLbt9Vyz5g

What's New at the Divide

14 September 2010

Over the last few months, too much has happened here to relate. Most importantly, Robert Forrester, a co-ordinator of the Justice for Megrahi campaign invited me to be a signatory on the campaign's letters to various leaders. I'm now listed alongside the likes of Robert Black, Jim Swire, Denis Phipps, Teddy Taylor, Noam Chomsky, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. (first letter can be read here). I and my larger head appear at the bottom of this totem pole (tho in the middle alphabetically) as:
Mr Adam Larson (Editor, writer and proprietor of ‘The Lockerbie Divide’).

The site had slowed down lately while I took a partial break and worked on other things. Now with some time available again, I'm getting a lot of half-done things completed and up. Just before and during that span I put up various article reviews from within the United States, which are now collected at an American media review page. Most recently, one critique turned into an extended explanation of how Karol Sikora insinuated himself into the public scene around Megrahi's release.

Planted evidence, the allegation of Israeli involvement in the bombing, and "help wanted," soliciting wider contributions from others. I've had a few promising responses to that so far and will gladly accept others as they trickle in over whatever time span.

Last night I updated watching the flags. It's too long of a post now needing a cut in the tedium between where I was hovering over the small numbers, waiting for something to happen. With some help from abroad it's taken off - props to Canada, Saudi Arabia, USA, UK, Switzerland, Germany. 3,844 distinct viewers, nearly 1,200 British, now just over 600 from the US. Nearly eight months later that's finally a good start.

Video: JFM go to Parliament

15 November 2010

This series of Youtube postings show the meeting held last week at the Scottish parliament's petitions committee. Five core members (and later a signatory) of the Justice for Megrahi campaign - Dr. Jim Swire, Pr. Robert Black, Robert Forrester, Iain MacKie, Father Patrick Keegans - presented their case for e-petition 417, "Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988." It had closed 1,646 signatures, after being down for nearly half its allotted time.

These have fixed the formatting of the original on the Scottish Parliament site, in four parts of 15, 15, 15, and 4 min. The end conclusion was an agreement by the petitions committee to ask the Scottish government to re-investigate the conviction of al Megrahi.

See also the full text transcript