Saturday, 2 September 2017

Need for Megrahi to drop his appeal “rammed home” to Libya

[What follows is excerpted from an article published on the website on this date in 2009:]
While there is considerable scepticism about Megrahi’s original conviction, the British government and the Scottish administration insist that he is guilty, making his release, just eight years into his sentence for the worst ever terrorist atrocity in Britain, even more suspect.
The Times cited the comments of Saad Djebbar, an international lawyer who advises the Libyan government and who visited Megrahi in jail in Scotland: “No one was in any doubt that if al-Megrahi died in a Scottish prison it would have serious repercussions for many years which would be to the disadvantage of British industry.”
MacAskill and the Scottish National Party claim that the Scottish and British governments are two distinct entities, motivated by differing interests and ethics—so that base considerations over trade could not have entered into their deliberations over Megrahi.
But Oliver Miles, Britain’s former ambassador to Libya, has said he believes that “some kind of deal” was struck between the British and Scottish governments and Tripoli for the Libyan’s release.
There was “something fishy” in Megrahi’s decision to drop his appeal against conviction on the same day that news of his imminent release leaked out, Miles told the Times. “I cannot know what exactly happened but I believe that the UK and Scottish governments wanted the appeal to be dropped and somehow it was dropped,” he said.
Separately, the Daily Mail cited a “leaked email” from a “whistleblower in the Scottish justice department,” alleging that the need for Megrahi to drop his legal action was “rammed home” to Libya.
“A successful appeal would have been a humiliation for the US, UK and Scottish governments—meaning no one had been found responsible for the worst terrorist outrage in British history,” the newspaper alleged.
Whatever the specific calculations, there appears to have been a confluence of interests in support of Megrahi’s returning home.
Moreover, the decision cannot be considered in isolation from the preceding 20 years of Great Power duplicity surrounding the Lockerbie bombing, and relations with Libya in particular.
Almost from the moment Pan Am Flight 103 exploded above Scotland en route to New York City, the search for truth and for justice for those whose lives were destroyed has always been entirely subordinate to the political and commercial interests of the major powers.
Responsibility for the bombing was initially assigned to Iran, as a revenge attack by the latter for the shooting down of one of its civilian aircraft by the US military six months before, killing all 290 people on board. But Washington at this time was seeking to ensure Iranian acquiescence in its planned attack on Iraq in the first Gulf war.
Libya, which opposed the assault, was singled out, and in 1992 the US imposed economic sanctions, on the condition that the Libyans accept responsibility and hand over the two men alleged to be responsible, Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah.
Over the next period, several events combined to make this seemingly impossible demand realisable. The collapse of the Soviet Union encouraged Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to drop his anti-imperialist rhetoric and search for an accommodation with the Western powers. European oil companies—specifically French and Italian interests—were keen to develop their own explorations in Libya, home to the sixth largest oil reserves in the world.
The coming to power of the Labour government in 1997 broke the log-jam. Anxious that British oil companies should not lose out to their European competitors, the Blair government brokered negotiations on the handover of the two accused Libyans, and in 1999 the US, Britain and Libya agreed terms for their trial in the Netherlands.
The judicial hearing was the backdrop for London and Washington’s efforts to secure access to Libyan resources. Despite numerous outstanding questions, many doubts about the responsibility of either Libyan, and Fhimah’s acquittal, Megrahi was convicted in 2000 by the non-jury court. Libya “accepted responsibility” for the actions of its agents and agreed to pay compensation in return for the lifting of sanctions.
Subsequently, Libya provided the US and the UK with intelligence information necessary to their warmongering in the Middle East in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks. Following the 2003 US-led pre-emptive war on Iraq in the face of massive international popular opposition, Libya announced that it would abandon its primitive nuclear weapons programme—bolstering Washington and London’s claims that their “war on terror” strategy was working.
International sanctions were lifted, and in March 2004, barely one year after the invasion of Iraq, Blair was greeted warmly by Gaddafi on a high profile visit to Tripoli which saw the Anglo-Dutch Shell oil company sign a potential £550 million deal for gas exploration rights, amongst other trade deals.
Notwithstanding the denunciations of Megrahi’s release by US politicians over the last weeks, the Bush administration was deeply involved in these manoeuvres.

1 comment:

  1. DOSSIER LOCKERBIE, 2017 > This is part of a summary of facts sent to the Scottish Police, "Operation Sandwood" from MEBO Ltd :

    Logical thesis by Edwin Bollier & MEBO Ltd, about an 'Evidence Fraud', in the "Lockerbie Case", by means of an MST-13 timer fragment (PT35) - purposely conceptualized with disadvantage - against Libya and Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi !

    Detective Chief Superintendent Stuart Henderson was Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) at the Lockerbie Incident Control Centre. During the trial in Kamp van Zeist in year 2000 - he knew with his knowledge, the found of a MST13 Timerfragment (PT35) on 12 May 1989, was a evidence of fraud ! Why had he not clarified the court in this time, before the verdict was issued ?
    According to my research > Lord Advocate and the Judges, at the court in Kamp van Zeist (2000), were frivolously convinced by official witnesses under oath, with following manipulated evidence-package and deceptive representations - that the explosion (Improvised Explosive Device) (IED) on Flight PanAm 103, was activated by an MST-13 timer, delivered to Libya and the Boeing 747 crashed over Lockerbie; 270 victims.
    It was only after judgment (Jan. 2001) against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, when the Appeal (June 2007), was revealed by the SCCR Commission, i.a., a significant fax of Expert Allen Feraday (RARDE) which was embezzled to the court and defence!

    In order to verify this thesis, the Scottish Police, ("Operation SANDWOOD"), must interrogate the following officials ex-witnesses (state employees) and investigate the re-cited evidence, forensically and through font analyzes; the fragment never not examined for explosive traces, negligently!

    Notabene: The real Fragment (PT35) was first discovered, on January 16th, 1990, in a portion of "CLOTH (charred) - by Expert Allen Feraday, in the RARDE laboratory, identified as "Slalom-shirt"! (photos, nr.107 & 334, MST13 Timerfragment, PT35 red circled). The court confirmed that this photo shows the original fragment without forensic treatment as allegedly found !

    All the other listed police labels, nr.168, refers PI'995 & DP'137 and page nr.51 of RARDE-report 181 etc, had to be also manipulated and adapted to the others - apparently had to be tampered by a secret circle of persons.

    As senior investigative officer chief, Superintendent Stuart Henderson, visited in June 1990, the FBI laboratory in Washington, he was accompanied by expert Allen Feraday (RARDE) DC William Williamson and Officer MacLean (phonetic)

    Why was Stuart Henderson in the "Lockerbie process" Kamp van Zeist 2000, not invited as an IMPORTANT WITNESS, or why Stuart Henderson did not recommend himself as a witness ?

    DC Stuart Henderson, as holder of secret and important information should have been obligated to report to the court, among other things, as the significant facsimile between him and expert Allen Feraday (RARDE), dated from 22 January 1990. It would have allowed the judges to realize that possibly a fraud of evidence around the finding of a MST-13 Timerfragment occurred. The manipulations of evidence could have been uncovered at an early stage...

    This is only a part of a summary - by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Telecommunication Switzerland. webpage: