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?

Their Own Worst Enemy

February 15 2011
Robert Forrester, special to The Lockerbie Divide.

In a saga which, from its very outset, has been replete with such twisted logic and bizarre interpretations of evidence that it is like stumbling through a hall of mirrors in a state of terminal intoxication, the Lockerbie/Zeist case has thrown up yet another peculiar development. In the good old days of the Auld Alliance, that the Scots always wax so lyrical about, your enemy’s enemy was your friend, at least that’s how the Scots saw it. Ask the French what the alliance refers to though and they’ll probably scratch their heads and tell you that it has something to do with a pact with Czarist Russia to get back at Bismarck. The novelty of the relationship that the justice campaigners seeking an investigation into the 2001 conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi face with their detractors is that ‘the enemy’ has strangely become the campaigners’ friend. How so?

Those who uphold the Zeist judgement fall into two basic categories: media commentators and representatives of the executive and judicial arms of state power. As for those who denigrate the justice campaign in the various media, from the press to the net, they think, like Mr Frank Duggan (President of The Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Inc) seems to, that by turning up the volume, their arguments will somehow become less factually inaccurate. Wrong. Despite having had it pointed out to him on numerous occasions that Mr al-Megrahi was not, in fact, convicted by eight judges but by three, Mr Duggan continues to assert, for reasons known only to himself, that the higher figure is correct (which conflates the number of judges at the Zeist court of fact with those presiding at the first appeal hearing). In fact, the only people to have found Mr al-Megrahi guilty in the course of one trial of fact and two appeals are the three Zeist judges (the first appeal did not deal with the sufficiency of evidence - because it couldn’t due to the failure of Mr al-Megrahi’s defence team to raise the issue - and the second was dropped by Mr al-Megrahi when he was under no obligation to do so). This is but one relatively minor factual inaccuracy that he maintains, however, until he can get even this glaring error sorted out, one must question the reliability of any, or indeed all, of his statements relating to the case. And, apparently he is a lawyer. One thing that Mr Duggan can be given credit for though, despite the parlous shortcomings in his understanding of the trial and subsequent appeals, is that at least he refers, however fallacious his analysis and conclusions, to matters relating to the case and occasionally argues around it. Nevertheless, he, like some internet bloggers who hide behind the cloak of anonymity that the net provides, has shown himself to be only to ready to indulge in the odd spot of attempted character assassination aimed at the likes of the Justice for Megrahi (JFM) Committee.

The broader group, composed of such internet commentators, is invariably reticent to become drawn on detailing what they think is right about Zeist, or dealing with the matter of the mass murder of 270 people, that the bereaved could have been sold a sop on the back of a possible miscarriage of justice and that the authorities seem to be trying their damnedest to prevent any investigation into what might have happened to give rise to so many doubts over the conviction. Instead, they have accused JFM of variously being anything from assets of the CIA and the FBI to being funded by Libya’s Colonel al-Gaddafi and a front for an Arab terrorist regime, and, most recently, drunkards even! Not sure what JFM’s alleged Muslim sponsor would have to say about that. With such a range of speculative and unsubstantiated slander to choose from and the fact that these individuals attempt to avoid the threat of exposure, they think that the normal rules surrounding the burden of proof can be ignored. Wrong. Neither JFM nor the bereaved who question this verdict are beholden to the likes of these, and what’s more, with reference to the enemy’s becoming one’s friend, such individuals, whose cranial cavities have clearly been abandoned by their brains to be replaced by their spleens, only succeed in tarring themselves with their own brush and making the uncommitted bystander with a passing interest in the case wonder if perhaps the campaigners might actually be right after all as smears seem to be the detractors’ final resort.

On a slightly different tack, another group common amongst internet critics frequently recite the mantra: “Why don’t you just grow up, haven’t you got something better to do? Everybody knows Megrahi was stitched up and that the system is irredeemably bent. In any case, an inquiry would cost millions and probably be a white wash. After all, in the grand scheme of things, expediency has served us pretty well thus far.” So, three years of work done by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) and the well in excess of £1,000,000 spent on it from the public purse ought to be tossed to the four winds should it? Work which by rights should belong to the public that paid for it and who are denied sight of it because of the Scottish Government’s intransigence and apparent complicity with the Crown. No assumptions regarding corruption should be made on the basis of self-assured, armchair prejudice until proven. And above all, to sanction this type of attitude is effectively say that we’d rather not be bothered about justice if it is going inconvenience us too much. Far better to blunder through it all in ignorance of the facts and supported solely by our jaundiced views. Like it or not, miscarriages of justice do take place. How, therefore, would those exponents of this type of sentiment, and there are quite a few out there, feel if they ever found themselves banged up for something they didn’t do? One imagines, until such misfortune befalls them, that they will even blame the justice campaigners for the fact that the Scottish Government saw fit to fire through the Scottish Parliament section 7 of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detentions and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 on the 27th of October 2010, which hands ultimate power to the High Court to accept or reject cases for appeal, thus rendering the professional and independent input of the SCCRC redundant.

And so to government. Some time last year, JFM, tongue in cheek, invited Messrs Salmond and MacAskill to become members of the campaign group. This was during the period when Senators Gillibrand, Lautenberg, Menendez and Schumer seemed to be attempting to enhance their electoral prospects at the expense of BP and the Scottish Government. Although the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice respectfully declined the invitation, they have since qualified as unwitting supporters of the cause through the paucity, flaws and deficiencies of their ripostes to JFM’s challenges.

From the occasion of Mr al-Megrahi’s release in August of 2009, Mr MacAskill maintained that the Scottish Government had neither the power nor remit to set up an inquiry into the case. Wrong. On the 7th of January, the government finally admitted to its powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 thus:

“The Inquiries Act 2005 provides that, to the extent that the matters dealt with are devolved, and criminal justice is devolved, the Scottish Government would have the power to conduct an inquiry.” The Scottish Government response to the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee (SPPPC) questions of the 9th of November 2010.

This massive and embarrassing climb down resulted from pressure brought to bear by the JFM petition lodged with the SPPPC in October of 2010. Mr MacAskill now claims, as the sun sets on this SNP government, that primary legislation is required to remove a secondary instrument preventing the publication of the SCCRC’s Statement of Reasons, which referred Mr al-Megrahi’s case back to the Court of Appeal.

“Separately, the Scottish Government intends to bring forward legislation to allow the SCCRC to publish a statement of reasons in cases such as Mr Al-Megrahi's where an appeal is abandoned, subject of course to legal restrictions applying to the SCCRC…….” The Scottish Government response to the SPPPC questions of the 9th of November 2010.

Precisely why is it not possible simply to remove the secondary instrument alone without having to go through the lengthy process involved in introducing new primary legislation? Truly a mystery. But just as the justice secretary claimed to be right, for a few months at least, over his interpretation of the 2005 Inquiries Act, the public is, no doubt, reassured with his current assertions concerning the restrictions on the publication of the SCCRC’s Statement of Reasons. After all, he is a lawyer. Indeed, First Minister Salmond is currently utilising the claim that should the SNP be elected in May’s general election, his government will definitely bring forward [unnecessary] primary legislation to allow for the publication of the SCCRC’s Statement of Reasons. Currently, the SNP stand a pretty good chance of losing this election, and even if they win it and they pass such legislation, the Freedom of Information Act card will doubtless be called to block its publication again. “The concessions of the weak are the concessions of fear.” Edmund Burke.

The Lockerbie/Zeist justice campaigners are rather used by now to delaying tactics and insults, it’s really water off a duck’s back. The Scottish Government’s 7th of January statement however is so risible it is an insult to the intelligence of a single cell life form. Who precisely does the government think it is dealing with here? And what does this say about their regard for the Scottish public. Despite being ridiculed on matters of the interpretation of law by a modest campaign group, the government maintains its confidence in the conviction. How? JFM Health Warning: the arguments here presented by the government may induce severe bouts of vertigo.

Reason 1
“The Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi. He was tried and convicted by a Scottish court before three judges.......” (Mr Frank Duggan please note: “three judges”).

Response
Yes, however, it is precisely because the SCCRC and campaigners believe that the Zeist court of fact may have fallen short of the standards expected of the Scottish criminal justice system that JFM is calling for an inquiry to be opened. We return full circle back to the beginning then.

Reason 2
“....... and his appeal against conviction, heard by a panel of five judges, was unsuccessful.”

Response
Yes, but, the sufficiency of evidence was not adequately dealt with at the first appeal and the SCCRC referred the case back to the Court of Appeal on six grounds relating to exactly that. Yet another revolution of the wheel takes us back to the starting blocks.

Reason 3
“A second appeal, following a referral from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was abandoned by Mr Al-Megrahi. The conduct of his defence during his trial and the appeals, including his decision not to give evidence at trial and the decision to abandon the second appeal, was entirely a matter for Mr Al-Megrahi and his legal advisors.”

Response
Perhaps this is a variety of what behavioural psychologists term ‘projection’: blaming someone else for one’s own failings. What the government is doing here is excusing the fact that the case has not been fully tested in law because of a decision reached by a terminally ill man who felt that he might stand a better chance of dying at home if he dropped his legal right to an appeal when he was under no legal obligation to do so. What compounds this shameful stance is that the government is clearly perfectly comfortable in leaving the interests of justice in Scotland to be defined by convicts.

Such serpentine contortions and circularity of argument by the government are enough to make a performer at a Berlin burlesque wince with pain!

Following a second round hearing of the JFM petition before the SPPPC at a meeting on the 25th of January 2011, the petition was kept open and further questions are due to be submitted to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, the Lord Advocate and the SCCRC by the SPPPC. This means that Scotland still has an opportunity to redeem itself and show that it has the courage to deal with this matter head on. Ultimately, to reject this will cast it as afraid to attend to beasts of its own creation and have to live with a criminal justice system that has become a laughing stock. First, the government denies it has the power to open an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, then it fires through parliament, as emergency legislation, section 7 of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010, now it muddies the waters over the publication of the SCCRC’s Statement of Reasons. Where will it stop?

“On the mace, it says that we will have justice, integrity and compassion. No wonder the petitioners call themselves Justice for Megrahi—frankly, at the moment, there has not been justice for anybody in this particular case.” These were the words of Christine Grahame MSP speaking in support of the JFM petition at the hearing before the SPPPC on the 25th of January 2011. Justice is the thread woven throughout our society which binds its very fabric together, if our justice system is riven with doubt and suspicion, we descend into social chaos. It is down to all of us to ensure that it is one worthy of respect and that its integrity is beyond reproach both within and without our borders. So long as the executive arm of state, the judiciary and the Crown seem to persist in obstructing requests for an independent inquiry into this matter in what appears to be an attempt to protect the transient and temporal reputations of individuals, the Scottish criminal justice system will be the butt of derision and contempt. This is not a legacy that we wish to pass on to our children. Justice is a cause for pride and celebration; it is greater than any one of us and provides, through its structure and functioning, a window revealing the mind and identity of a nation.

The basic tenets of the campaign are the following:
1. We do not assert that their Lordships presiding at Kamp van Zeist were wrong in reaching the verdict that they did. However, we contend that on the evidence laid before the court, we find it incomprehensible that such a verdict could have been arrived at. Like the SCCRC then, we feel that Mr al-Megrahi may well have fallen victim to a miscarriage of justice on the ground that no reasonable court could have passed a guilty verdict.
2. We campaign to lift the doubts over the safety of the conviction which still linger painfully in the minds of the bereaved resultant from the Pan Am 103 tragedy.
3. Following the dropping of Mr al-Megrahi's appeal, his conviction has not been tested in law in the interests of justice. We, therefore, campaign to restore the stature of the Scottish criminal justice system.
An inquiry can only produce a beneficial result for our justice system. Whether it transpires or not that there were shortcomings in the investigation of the Pan Am 103 tragedy and or the subsequent legal proceedings, Scotland will be able to look itself in the mirror again without shame and say: "We tried openly and honestly to lay the doubts to rest." Taking this courageous decision is the only honourable route to go down in order to restore Scottish Justice to her rightful place in our society. To spurn this chance would raise serious doubts over Scotland’s maturity as a nation.

Whether it is the confused rantings of the self righteous President of The Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Inc, the whispers from the ghosts in the shadows on the internet or the avoidance tactics of the Scottish Government, this all reveals only one thing: fear.

So keep the salvoes of venom saturated invective, the anonymous character assassinations and the legalistic blinds coming. We can’t get enough of them! Apart from anything else, they at least add a spot of humour to what otherwise is such a desperately depressing and sad case. We are in this for the long haul.

As someone once said: “Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.” Those who profess to be defenders of the free world would do well to pay heed to this.

Robert Forrester.

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?