The advantage of a break fron blogging is the chance to give a digested view rather than the momentary reaction to events that blogging encourages. Juan Cole is the only blogger who consistently produces up to the second considered brilliance; but then he has a brain the size of a small planet.
So here are a few well-digested thoughts on the recent ructions over UK/Libyan relations.
It was absolutely right to release al-Megrahi. Every dying person deserves what comfort, pain alleviation and disease amelioration can be provided by the presence of family and by medical treatment. There should be no place in a justice system for the cruel vindictiveness of making a now harmless person die in jail. Scotland and the SNP have shown a civilised example; those who attack them have shown ugliness. There is a secondary but also valid utilitarian argument that to keep al-Megrahi in strict confinement while providing necessary medical treatment would have cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of pounds. to no purpose other than making some vicious people happy.
The Tories have shown their blood-baying, American bum-sucking true colours. New Labour have been caught in their usual horrible hypocrisy, attempting to capitalise on anti-SNP right wing media reaction, while having been deliberately paving the way for the release for years.
Those who believe that al-Megrahi was the Lockerbie bomber. believe he acted on Colonel Gadaffi’s orders. I have neard no-one argue that al-Megrahi acted alone. Even mad Aaronovitch, who loves attacking conspiracy theories, appears to believe that there was a Libyan government organised conspiracy to blow up the plane. So if Gadaffi was responsible, what logic is there in a view that it is fine for Blair and Brown to be pictured smiling with Gadaffi, but al-Megrahi must rot in jail? Who is more guilty, the man who gave the order, or his tool? But New Labour have been doing everything they can to give the impression that Gadaffi is now absolutely fine and rehabilitated, but the SNP were wrong to release his agent. Where is the logic in that?
Jack Straw has admitted that trade was the deciding factor in his agreeing that al-Megrahi should not be excluded from the prisoner exchange agreement. Bill Rammell has admitted that as an FCO Minister he told the Libyans that Gordon Brown did not want to see al-Megrahi die in jail. There is no room to doubt that the UK’s assiduous courting of LIbya saw all kinds of positive signals given quietly on al-Megrahi, whose release was an obvious Libyan demand in the normalisation of relations.
The infuriating thing is that New Labour actually did the right thing in their dealings with the Libyans. Jack Straw’s positions and Gordon Brown’s message were the right ones. But a combination of fear of the United States, a right wing populist media instinct and a desire to attack the SNP has led New Labour to tyy to hide the truth – and try so badly as to bring down more media scorn than if they had just come out and supported the release in the first place.
Al-Megrahi was not the Lockerbie bomber. The scandal is not that trade deals and the realpolitik of relationship normalisation led to his release. The scandal is that trade deals and the realpolitik of relationship normalisation were what led the Libyans to hand him over in the first place – very much in the way their ancestors had given hostages to Imperial Rome. His family were richly rewarded, made wealthy for generations by his acceptance of the role of sacrificial lamb, and there was the hope that he would be acquitted. That he was convicted on very dubious evidence shocked many, especially Dr Jim Swire, representative of the victims’ families, who followed the evidence painstakingly and has never accepted al-Megrahi’s guilt.
Syria was responsible for the Lockerbie bomb. But in the first Iraq war, we needed Syria’s support, while Libya remained a supporter of Iraq. Lockerbie was a bar to our new alliance with Damascus, so extremely conveniently, and with perfect timing, it was discovered that actually it was the Libyans!! Anyone who believes that fake intelligence started with Iraqi WMD is an idiot.
It haunts me that I had a chance to read the intelligence reports which, I was told by a shocked FCO colleague in Aviation and Maritime Department where I then worked, showed that the new anti-Libyan narrative was false. I say in self-defence that at the time I was literally working day and night, sleeping on a camp bed. I was organising the Embargo Surveillance Centre and I was convinced that a watertight full physical embargo could remove the need to invade Iraq. I was impatient of the interruption. I listened to my colleague only distractedly and did not want to go through the rigmarole of signing for and transporting the reports I hadn’t got time to look at then. Events overtook me, and I never did see them.
Which is not to say the Libyan regime was not a sponsor of terrorism. It was. It just didn’t do Lockerbie. It did indeed supply Semtex to the IRA. I have an obvious sympathy with the victims of IRA bombing, and their desire to obtain compensation.
But think of this. Why just Libya?
Is the United States offering to pay compensation to the tens of thousands of victims of CIA sponsored insurgents in Central and South America? Are we and the US going to pay compensation to the victims of UNITA? Are we going to pay compensation to the victims of British made cluster bombs in the Lebanon? Are we going to pay compensation to the victims of Executive Outcomes? Are the Americans going to pay compensation to the Russian and Uzbek victims of Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the days when he was a US sponsored terrorist? I could go on for a week.
Ultimately, negotiating with “terrorists” and “rogue states” has to be done. The strange thing is that New Labour’s Libyan policy has been one of its genuine successes – and makes a nonsense of its argument that we could deal with Saddam no other way. There should be more human rights emphasis in the relationship, but the apporach has been basically the right one, just as it was right to settle with the IRA, and just as it is long overdue to settle with the Taliban.
On a rare occasion when this government has shown wisdom, it appears ashamed of it.
angrysoba:
“…bin Laden was already wanted for the embassy bombings in Africa and there was already a CIA unit set up to track him”
Well they certainly had a good opportunity to arrest him on July 12, 2001, when he was visited by several CIA agents at the American hospital in Dubai where he was undergoing treatment for renal failure. This was widely reported in the French press, the information being leaked by the French security services.
For Syria’s involvement in the Lockerbie bombing see Donald Goddard and Lester Knox Coleman’s Trail of the Octopus: From Beruit to Lebanon. It is available free on Amazon.com should it tweak your interest.
There is a need for full disclosure by U.S. and UK for their respective complicity in the Lockerbie bombing. The media has yet to address the dismissal of the conviction of Edwin P. Wilson, then a retired CIA officer working under contract with the CIA who was convicted of supplying al Qaddafi with 20 tons of C 4 plastic explosives allegedly used by the Lockerbie bomber(s). Theoretically, and to the extent, that Wilson was convicted of supplying al Qaddafi’s intelligence services under the directives of the CIA with the C 4 explosives that were used in the downing of Pan Am Flight 103, al Magrahi was not the only one convicted.
Timelines are crucial in Wilson’s case. His conviction was overturned by a U.S. District Court Judge in Houston, Texas on March 29, 20003, the same day Prime Minister Tony Blair met with al Qaddifi outside of Tripoli to open up discussions on the release of al-Magrahi under the Prison Transfer Agreement, a conviction it must be noted that was overturned when evidence was introduced into court in support of Wilson’s testimony that he supplied the C 4 plastic explosives to al Qaddifi’s intelligence services at the direction of the CIA; that Wilson was in fact under contract with the CIA at the time. He was assigned to penetrate al Qaddifi’s terrorists organization. And he did so by arming and training them.
There is a substantial body of evidence that can be readily retrieved off Google. Key in Edwin P. Wilson where you will find the Judge’s ruling overturning his conviction. Not that Wilson was innocent of having supplied al Qaddifi’s intelligence services with the C 4 explosives used in the Lockerbie bombing but that he did so under contract with and at the direction of the CIA. Unlike the prosecutors who use them–in the case of Wilson the prosecutors that failed to use them– forensics do not the lie. The C 4 explosives were manufactured in the good ole USA just as the radio active isotope, polonium 210, that would result in Alexandre Litvinenko’s untimely death were manufactured in Russia. Wilson’s mistake, or so it is alleged by his former associates, was that he failed to report to his CIA cohorts that he had profited from the sale of the C 4 over and above what the CIA had authorized him to sell the C 4 to al Qaddifi.
Blair would have been briefed well in advance of the dismissal of Wilson’s conviction. The U.S. and the UK needed damage control in place in anticipation of the news on the Houston court’s decision to overturn Wilson’s conviction. Assuming the Judge who overturned Wilson’s conviction was impartial, there is some debate that she was not impartial, the trail to the C 4 explosives would have led directly to the CIA , in which case MI 6 would have been aware of the origin and the destination of those C 4 plastic explosives.
No conspiracy theory here. The forensics are irrefutable. Al-Qaddifi accepting blame for the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 is believed to have based on his admission that his intelligence services were the recipients of the C 4 explosives. What the U.S. and the UK failed to do was to admit the respective complicity of the CIA in supplying the explosives and MI 6’s knowledge that the CIA was the culprit who supplied them.
In June 2005 Wilson filed a civil law suit against seven federal prosecutors and one former executive of the CIA for their alleged complicity in withholding from the court that he was acting under the directives of the CIA. Two of the former prosecutors named in Wilson’s lawsuit are sitting currently federal judges. Two others are prominent Washington attorneys and one is still with the Department of Justice. In March 2007 Wilson’s lawsuit was dismissed when a federal judge granted all eight defendants immunity, Wilson’s guilt and, it must be added the CIA’s complicity, notwithstanding.
Not without significance is that Bush Cheney had engaged al Qaddifi before Libya accepted blame for Lockerbie. Al-Qaddifi was their source, and I have to assume Blair’s source, on Saddam Hussein and his links to al Qaeda. Colin Powell’s speech before the UN Security Council on “Curveball,”al- Qaddafi’s asset on Saddam Hussein’s ties to al Qaeda, was given in February 2003, six months before Libya accepted the blame for Lockerbie on August of 2003. The price one pays for admission into that circus of clowns, I assume!
It is also perhaps noteworthy that Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, Colin Powell’s infamous “Curveball”, conveniently hanged himself in his prison cell in Tripoli on or about May 7, 2009, the day after Tripoli formally submitted their requests for al Magrahi’s release under the Prison Transfer Agreement (PTA) Brown and Straw had put in place without consulting Scotland. Human Rights Watch visited Tripoli immediately following al-Libi’s suicide. They overruled suicide based on his devout Muslim beliefs which prohibit suicide.
The families of this barbaric act deserve the TRUTH. And so do we!
For Syria’s involvement in the Lockerbie bombing see Donald Goddard and Lester Knox Coleman’s Trail of the Octopus: From Beruit to Lebanon. It is available free on Amazon.com should it tweak your interest.
There is a need for full disclosure by U.S. and UK for their respective complicity in the Lockerbie bombing. The media has yet to address the dismissal of the conviction of Edwin P. Wilson, then a retired CIA officer working under contract with the CIA who was convicted of supplying al Qaddafi with 20 tons of C 4 plastic explosives allegedly used by the Lockerbie bomber(s). Theoretically, and to the extent, that Wilson was convicted of supplying al Qaddafi’s intelligence services under the directives of the CIA with the C 4 explosives that were used in the downing of Pan Am Flight 103, al Magrahi was not the only one convicted.
Timelines are crucial in Wilson’s case. His conviction was overturned by a U.S. District Court Judge in Houston, Texas on March 29, 20003, the same day Prime Minister Tony Blair met with al Qaddifi outside of Tripoli to open up discussions on the release of al-Magrahi under the Prison Transfer Agreement, a conviction it must be noted that was overturned when evidence was introduced into court in support of Wilson’s testimony that he supplied the C 4 plastic explosives to al Qaddifi’s intelligence services at the direction of the CIA; that Wilson was in fact under contract with the CIA at the time. He was assigned to penetrate al Qaddifi’s terrorists organization. And he did so by arming and training them.
There is a substantial body of evidence that can be readily retrieved off Google. Key in Edwin P. Wilson where you will find the Judge’s ruling overturning his conviction. Not that Wilson was innocent of having supplied al Qaddifi’s intelligence services with the C 4 explosives used in the Lockerbie bombing but that he did so under contract with and at the direction of the CIA. Unlike the prosecutors who use them–in the case of Wilson the prosecutors that failed to use them– forensics do not the lie. The C 4 explosives were manufactured in the good ole USA just as the radio active isotope, polonium 210, that would result in Alexandre Litvinenko’s untimely death were manufactured in Russia. Wilson’s mistake, or so it is alleged by his former associates, was that he failed to report to his CIA cohorts that he had profited from the sale of the C 4 over and above what the CIA had authorized him to sell the C 4 to al Qaddifi.
Blair would have been briefed well in advance of the dismissal of Wilson’s conviction. The U.S. and the UK needed damage control in place in anticipation of the news on the Houston court’s decision to overturn Wilson’s conviction. Assuming the Judge who overturned Wilson’s conviction was impartial, there is some debate that she was not impartial, the trail to the C 4 explosives would have led directly to the CIA , in which case MI 6 would have been aware of the origin and the destination of those C 4 plastic explosives.
No conspiracy theory here. The forensics are irrefutable. Al-Qaddifi accepting blame for the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 is believed to have based on his admission that his intelligence services were the recipients of the C 4 explosives. What the U.S. and the UK failed to do was to admit the respective complicity of the CIA in supplying the explosives and MI 6’s knowledge that the CIA was the culprit who supplied them.
In June 2005 Wilson filed a civil law suit against seven federal prosecutors and one former executive of the CIA for their alleged complicity in withholding from the court that he was acting under the directives of the CIA. Two of the former prosecutors named in Wilson’s lawsuit are sitting currently federal judges. Two others are prominent Washington attorneys and one is still with the Department of Justice. In March 2007 Wilson’s lawsuit was dismissed when a federal judge granted all eight defendants immunity, Wilson’s guilt and, it must be added the CIA’s complicity, notwithstanding.
Not without significance is that Bush Cheney had engaged al Qaddifi before Libya accepted blame for Lockerbie. Al-Qaddifi was their source, and I have to assume Blair’s source, on Saddam Hussein and his links to al Qaeda. Colin Powell’s speech before the UN Security Council on “Curveball,”al- Qaddafi’s asset on Saddam Hussein’s ties to al Qaeda, was given in February 2003, six months before Libya accepted the blame for Lockerbie on August of 2003. The price one pays for admission into that circus of clowns, I assume!
It is also perhaps noteworthy that Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, Colin Powell’s infamous “Curveball”, conveniently hanged himself in his prison cell in Tripoli on or about May 7, 2009, the day after Tripoli formally submitted their requests for al Magrahi’s release under the Prison Transfer Agreement (PTA) Brown and Straw had put in place without consulting Scotland. Human Rights Watch visited Tripoli immediately following al-Libi’s suicide. They overruled suicide based on his devout Muslim beliefs which prohibit suicide.
The families of this barbaric act deserve the TRUTH. And so do we!
For Syria’s involvement in the Lockerbie bombing see Donald Goddard and Lester Knox Coleman’s Trail of the Octopus: From Beruit to Lebanon. It is available free on Amazon.com should it tweak your interest.
There is a need for full disclosure by U.S. and UK for their respective complicity in the Lockerbie bombing. The media has yet to address the dismissal of the conviction of Edwin P. Wilson, then a retired CIA officer working under contract with the CIA who was convicted of supplying al Qaddafi with 20 tons of C 4 plastic explosives allegedly used by the Lockerbie bomber(s). Theoretically, and to the extent, that Wilson was convicted of supplying al Qaddafi’s intelligence services under the directives of the CIA with the C 4 explosives that were used in the downing of Pan Am Flight 103, al Magrahi was not the only one convicted.
Timelines are crucial in Wilson’s case. His conviction was overturned by a U.S. District Court Judge in Houston, Texas on March 29, 20003, the same day Prime Minister Tony Blair met with al Qaddifi outside of Tripoli to open up discussions on the release of al-Magrahi under the Prison Transfer Agreement, a conviction it must be noted that was overturned when evidence was introduced into court in support of Wilson’s testimony that he supplied the C 4 plastic explosives to al Qaddifi’s intelligence services at the direction of the CIA; that Wilson was in fact under contract with the CIA at the time. He was assigned to penetrate al Qaddifi’s terrorists organization. And he did so by arming and training them.
There is a substantial body of evidence that can be readily retrieved off Google. Key in Edwin P. Wilson where you will find the Judge’s ruling overturning his conviction. Not that Wilson was innocent of having supplied al Qaddifi’s intelligence services with the C 4 explosives used in the Lockerbie bombing but that he did so under contract with and at the direction of the CIA. Unlike the prosecutors who use them–in the case of Wilson the prosecutors that failed to use them– forensics do not the lie. The C 4 explosives were manufactured in the good ole USA just as the radio active isotope, polonium 210, that would result in Alexandre Litvinenko’s untimely death were manufactured in Russia. Wilson’s mistake, or so it is alleged by his former associates, was that he failed to report to his CIA cohorts that he had profited from the sale of the C 4 over and above what the CIA had authorized him to sell the C 4 to al Qaddifi.
Blair would have been briefed well in advance of the dismissal of Wilson’s conviction. The U.S. and the UK needed damage control in place in anticipation of the news on the Houston court’s decision to overturn Wilson’s conviction. Assuming the Judge who overturned Wilson’s conviction was impartial, there is some debate that she was not impartial, the trail to the C 4 explosives would have led directly to the CIA , in which case MI 6 would have been aware of the origin and the destination of those C 4 plastic explosives.
No conspiracy theory here. The forensics are irrefutable. Al-Qaddifi accepting blame for the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 is believed to have based on his admission that his intelligence services were the recipients of the C 4 explosives. What the U.S. and the UK failed to do was to admit the respective complicity of the CIA in supplying the explosives and MI 6’s knowledge that the CIA was the culprit who supplied them.
In June 2005 Wilson filed a civil law suit against seven federal prosecutors and one former executive of the CIA for their alleged complicity in withholding from the court that he was acting under the directives of the CIA. Two of the former prosecutors named in Wilson’s lawsuit are sitting currently federal judges. Two others are prominent Washington attorneys and one is still with the Department of Justice. In March 2007 Wilson’s lawsuit was dismissed when a federal judge granted all eight defendants immunity, Wilson’s guilt and, it must be added the CIA’s complicity, notwithstanding.
Not without significance is that Bush Cheney had engaged al Qaddifi before Libya accepted blame for Lockerbie. Al-Qaddifi was their source, and I have to assume Blair’s source, on Saddam Hussein and his links to al Qaeda. Colin Powell’s speech before the UN Security Council on “Curveball,”al- Qaddafi’s asset on Saddam Hussein’s ties to al Qaeda, was given in February 2003, six months before Libya accepted the blame for Lockerbie on August of 2003. The price one pays for admission into that circus of clowns, I assume!
It is also perhaps noteworthy that Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, Colin Powell’s infamous “Curveball”, conveniently hanged himself in his prison cell in Tripoli on or about May 7, 2009, the day after Tripoli formally submitted their requests for al Magrahi’s release under the Prison Transfer Agreement (PTA) Brown and Straw had put in place without consulting Scotland. Human Rights Watch visited Tripoli immediately following al-Libi’s suicide. They overruled suicide based on his devout Muslim beliefs which prohibit suicide.
The families of this barbaric act deserve the TRUTH. And so do we!
Sorry about that. I thought that I was using italics HTML tags…
“What has happened is exactly the right result and, whilst it’s fair to look at the politics of it and view them all as hypocritical turds; i’m more inclined to think this was a blessed opportunity for the Yanks, the Tories and anyone who wasn’t directly involved in it – distraction news cycle type crap.
Good result – innocent patsy allowed home for a crime he never committed.”
There’s nothing “good” about this result. If he was innocent then he shouldn’t have been incarcerated in the first place and there will no longer be an opportunity to find out what really happened. By this I mean whether or not Megrahi really was responsible but also who put him up to it. At the very least it looks like someone’s role in this is being whitewashed.
Craig: “Those who believe that al-Megrahi was the Lockerbie bomber. believe he acted on Colonel Gadaffi’s orders. I have neard no-one argue that al-Megrahi acted alone. Even mad Aaronovitch, who loves attacking conspiracy theories, appears to believe that there was a Libyan government organised conspiracy to blow up the plane. ”
It’s hardly a conspiracy given that Gaddafi has all but admitted to his government’s role in the bombing and paid compensation to the victims. If he was not responsible then what right does he have to take responsibility and pervert the course of justice?
Craig: “So if Gadaffi was responsible, what logic is there in a view that it is fine for Blair and Brown to be pictured smiling with Gadaffi, but al-Megrahi must rot in jail? Who is more guilty, the man who gave the order, or his tool? But New Labour have been doing everything they can to give the impression that Gadaffi is now absolutely fine and rehabilitated, but the SNP were wrong to release his agent. Where is the logic in that? ”
How about New Labour’s behaviour in rehabilitating Gaddafi is shameful and the SNP were wrong to release Megrahi?
It’s clear that the whole thing has been a fucking farce from the beginning and if Megrahi is innocent then the Libyan government probably have a pretty good idea who was responsible and therefore shamelessly threw him to the wolves. Gaddafi’s son is surely one of the dumbest ever dictators-in-waiting:
“There was not in fact any official reception for the return of Mr. Megrahi, who had been convicted and imprisoned in Scotland for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. The strong reactions to these misperceptions must not be allowed to impair the improvements in a mutually beneficial relationship between Libya and the West.”
Translation: This is all about politics, cast any other feelings you have about the Lockerbie bombing aside.
“Former Prime Minister Tony Blair recently confirmed my statement that Libya put Mr. Megrahi’s release on the table at every meeting. ”
So, his release was always part of some horsetrading nevermind whether he was ill or not.
“He also made it clear that there was never any agreement by the British government to release Mr. Megrahi as part of some quid pro quo on trade ?” a statement I can confirm. ”
Seems to be a direct contradication of what he just said.
“Mr. MacAskill’s courageous decision demonstrates to the world that both justice and compassion can be achieved by people of good will.”
If Gadaffi believes Megrahi was innocent then why was he released as a “guilty” man? That’s hardly a synthesis of compassion and justice.
“What’s more, although we Libyans believe that Mr. Megrahi is innocent, we agreed in a civil action to pay the families of the victims, and we have done so.”
Well, that was stupid, if not an admission of guilt.
“Libya has worked with Britain, the United States and other Western countries for more than five years now to defuse the tensions of earlier times, and to promote trade, security and improved relations.”
Either by using Megrahi as a pawn or by sweeping the Libyan government’s involvement under the carpet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/opinion/30qaddafi.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=&st=nyt
“If he was not responsible then what right does he have to take responsibility and pervert the course of justice?”
It’s not a question of right, it’s a question of realpolitik. It sounds like there was a deal: take the rap for Lockerbie and Libya will be able to sell its oil on the global market again.
“the Libyan government probably have a pretty good idea who was responsible and therefore shamelessly threw him to the wolves”
Correct. In his appeal (now sadly sacrificed as part of the deal for his release) Megrahi was to have named the bomber. He believes it was Abu Elias, a Palestinian/CIA double agent now living safely in Washington (http://tinyurl.com/mxa72a).
As in the case of OBL, the world of state-sponsored terror ops and their operatives is a very murky one indeed.
Dear Craig
Welcome back and a good cracking post to launch off from.
I supported the Megrahi release and even wrote to Kenny MacAskill in June 2009 on the release on compassionate grounds.
It was a good decision and an important one.
And it is nice to see that Labour’s deal in the desert fell flat on its face.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
I think the UK/US governments want us to think it was a business deal but a business deal would benefit both sides. When Blair went out to Libya in 2007 to set up the prisoner exchange agreement there was, I believe, only one Libyan in a UK prison. So it is quite obvious that he wanted to get rid of Megrahi but only on the condition that Megrahi gave up his appeal. If the appeal had gone ahead the world would have seen that the US/UK framed an innocent man and the three trial judges may very well have conspired to convict an innocent man. This is what the UK government feared most.
The Libyans would have known that the British had their backs to the wall, so what benefit did the Libyans get? It must have been huge. To say it was economic is ridiculous, the UK is more desperate for the gas and business than Libya.
So what benefit did the Libyan government get, which the UK government is desperately concealing?
Angrysoba,
thanks for reposting with quotation marks, but I still think you should include a notation to each of where it came from. For instance, I have no idea of the source of the paragraphs: “There was not in fact… between Libya and the West.” and “Former Prime Minister Tony Blair recently confirmed my statement that Libya put Mr. Megrahi’s release on the table at every meeting.”
In all, what is your point? Do you think Al-Megrahi was guilty? If so, why?
Glad you’re back. No quitting when you are fighting the good fight.
I remember very clearly when it was officially announced that Libya, not Syria and its Palestinian operatives, was responsible for the Lockerbie atrocity. The words of Nineteen Eighty-Four came to my mind:
‘Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.’
The cynicism of our official spokesmen, then as now, never ceases to amaze me.
@Craig
Glad to see you back. Commenters can only hold the fort for so long.
Your posts are a huge contribution to sanity in a politically mad world.
Back to clicking my top bookmark.
Does anyone recall the BAE scandal with the Saudis?
So – how long ago was that?
Is there anything really to be surprised about – it is par for the course….that is how the powers do business. So long as a middle ground is large enough to be convinced in the legitimacy of the leadership then the game continues and the “sheple” are led.
“Sheeple”..even if Roberts point is accurate…http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23454.htm
It cannot be said that anyone forced the fabriciation that led to al-Megrahi’s false conviction and incarceration.
http://www.energyintel.com/om/executives.asp
Boast here about ‘oil and money’. The bash is to be held at the Dorchester in October.
The same venue was referred to on BBC Radio 4 Today this morning. A big party has just been held by the Libyans to celebrate Gaddafi’s 40th anniversary as President. None of the guests were keen to be interviewed or identified (why so coy?) except one, a Manchester architect, who boasted of his good fortune of being asked to design seven universities. Yes seven he reiterated. The oil money is obviously swilling around. Perhaps they will all drown in the flood.
Later, mention was made of the extent of torture being carried out in Libyan prisons and the lack of human rights in the country. The black sticky stuff surely has corrupted the craven who deal in it and fight wars for it. Oil and money indeed.
Craig.
Welcome back!
Be interested in your thoughts on the Journalist rescue in Afghanistan the day before yesterday. Reading between the lines it seems pretty clear that the NATO forces shot Sulan Manadi. One the troops died and the Afghan owners of the house who were forced by the Taliban to house the kidnapped were also shot. What a screw up!
What do you think of Farell? He is trying to say his afghan advisers said the area ‘appeared safe’ which seems unlikely. Even so, given the other screw up with the German commander asking the USAF to strike the tankers, surely an experienced Journalist like Farrell would have known the reality of the feelings on the ground when so many had just died.
There is a discernible pattern with the events in Scotland and how this was handled and the circumstances of 9/11
Read:http://www.prisonplanet.com/twenty-minutes-with-the-president.html
Clark: “In all, what is your point? Do you think Al-Megrahi was guilty? If so, why?”
My intitial reply was to the guy who said it was a good result because an innocent man was released. I have no idea whether Megrahi was innocent or not but if he was then it should be considered tragic that he was convicted in the first place and now he is being released on “compassionate” grounds still with a guilty verdict over his head. The fact that Kenny McAskill warbled on about how God has made a judgment that he will die of cancer and that this is no longer a matter for human justice or whatever his blather was just shows the guy’s unfit to make such rulings himself. Releasing him on “compassionate” grounds should not be considered a victory by anyone who thinks he is innocent!
If he’s guilty then where was the compassion for the relatives of the victims who had been led to believe he would be incarcerated and now has been released as part of a grubby trade deal brokered by the UK government and the Libyan government (and I maintain that Gaddafi’s idiot son has all but admitted to the guilt of the Libyan government and their indifference to the plight of the victims when it comes to the bigger scheme of things – i.e their “rehabilitation” on the world stage).
I don’t have any trouble believing Libya was involved. They have form here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/292565.stm
They had a motive in that Gaddafi’s daughter had been killed in a US missile attack. And they paid compensation to the victims’ families which they should have refused to do if they weren’t responsible.
And yes, idiot son, listen to him here from around 3:50:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY5VhX-3CKk
“Releasing him on “compassionate” grounds should not be considered a victory by anyone who thinks he is innocent!”
Indeed. The worst aspect of this whole thing is that his appeal will now never be heard. His lawyers had amassed a great deal of new or previously suppressed evidence that would have cast much new light on this murky saga.
Angrysoba,
Thank you for your clear post. I have now watched all six parts of the BBC “documentary” that you linked to, and I regard the programme as a carefully constructed piece of propaganda designed to reinforce the official version of events whilst continuing to appear “balanced”. I strongly disapprove in principle to the use of emotionally evocative music in this sort of TV.
I can’t say from what was shown whether Gaddafi’s son is an idiot or not, but I can understand a government paying compensation to escape sanctions whilst not admitting guilt.
I accept Craig’s statements as (1) he claims that he was in a position to know, and (2) Craig, too, has “form”, in his case for speaking inconvenient truths.
Good to note you’ve shaken the thistles from the kilt.
Just one point. With reference to Libya and the supplies of Semtex for the Irish Republicans, let us not forget where a lot of the funding for Irish Republican terrorism came from. The organised criminal and drug-dealing operations both in Ireland and on the Mainland (for example) pale into comparative insignificance when set against the funds raised from the diaspora “Irish” community in the United States of America, to which the US Government turned a blind eye for so many years.
Semtex was a rather later luxury in any case when compared with the Ammonium Nitrate fertiliser and diesel etc which provided such cheap and easy explosives for the Terrorist campaigns in the province of Ulster.
“The worst aspect of this whole thing is that his appeal will now never be heard. His lawyers had amassed a great deal of new or previously suppressed evidence that would have cast much new light on this murky saga.”
What would prevent them releasing this information later? In a book, for example?
Clark: “I have now watched all six parts of the BBC “documentary” that you linked to, and I regard the programme as a carefully constructed piece of propaganda designed to reinforce the official version of events whilst continuing to appear “balanced”. I strongly disapprove in principle to the use of emotionally evocative music in this sort of TV.”
There’s no doubt it’s a sensationalist piece of trash but I linked to it for the interview with Gaddafi’s son. It’s a pretty good indication of his way of thinking and how he’s not interested in telling the truth if “national interests” (read: the interests of his dictatorial family) are at stake.
Clark: “I accept Craig’s statements as (1) he claims that he was in a position to know”
Yes he WAS, but he also said he didn’t read the intelligence reports, so he’s not in any greater postition to know than the rest of us.
Clark: “(2) Craig, too, has “form”, in his case for speaking inconvenient truths.”
Yes, and so does my cousin who blurts out all kinds of “inconvenient truths” at the dinner table, “The food tastes bad! Tom’s gay! Granny wet herself!” etc… She probably can’t be said to know whether Megrahi is guilty or innocent, though and yet I am sure she has an opinion on it.
Craig. It wasn’t wisdom based at all! It was pure economic expediency. The hallmark of the NeoLabout party. Don’t give credit where credit isn’t due. I’m surprised at the results of your ‘good digestion’.
And Syria? What evidence is there that Syria did it? What happened to the allegations about Iran’s supposed ordering of it? And the supposed Palestinian terrorist element. Not that I want Iran OR Syria to be held accountable… One thing that has seems tobe totally absent is that the usual triad of International terrorism did it – you know their names.
Yours confused…
The BBC report on the Dorchester Hotel bash held to celebrate Col Gaddafi’s 40th anniversary of his coup.
Libya’s property spending spree
By James Silver
The Report
The vast ballroom at the Dorchester – one of Europe’s most exclusive hotels – was filled with London’s oil aristocracy, sipping fruit juice from the dry bar.
Trade is burgeoning in both directions between Britain and Libya
It was a lavish affair. A mountain of fruit covered a huge table, while the queue for the buffet – an Arabic feast -snaked across the room.
We were there at the invitation of the Libyan People’s Bureau to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Colonel Gaddafi’s military coup.
The occasion also symbolised the thriving trade relationship between Britain and the former pariah state, which renounced its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in 2003 and accepted “the hand of friendship” from then Prime Minister Tony Blair, in a summit hosted by the Libyan leader in a tent in the desert just outside Tripoli a year later.
continues http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8246904.stm
As lwtc247 says it was all about business opportunities. Confirmed by one of the unacceptable faces of capitalism who is quoted here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/02/tory-peer-megrahi-scotland
Another nice little earner by teaching cruel tricks. BBC website today
SAS training Libya, paper claims
There is ongoing defence co-operation between the UK and Libya
An SAS team has been training Libyan special forces in counter-terrorism techniques, a newspaper claims.
The Daily Telegraph reports that a team of up to 14 men have been providing training in areas including covert surveillance for six months.
An SAS source quoted by the paper suggests a possible link between the training and the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
A Foreign Office spokesman said the suggestion of such a link was untrue.
The Ministry of Defence does not comment on special forces activities, and neither confirmed nor denied the Telegraph’s report.
But defence sources said that if they were to undertake such training it would be for regular forces only, says BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt.
‘Rolling of eyes’
The Foreign Office says there is ongoing defence co-operation with Libya.
The Telegraph quoted an SAS soldier as saying: “The IRA was our greatest adversary now we are training their backers.
“There was a weary rolling of the eyes when we were told about this.”
Tripoli supplied the IRA with weaponry during the Northern Ireland Troubles.
Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, was freed on compassionate grounds by the Scottish Government last month.
He had been serving a minimum of 27 years in jail for carrying out the 1988 passenger plane bombing that claimed 270 lives.
The bomber was given a hero’s welcome on his return to Libya.
@ Andrew Gallagher wrote:
“Glad to see you’ve resisted the temptation to quit blogging. Someone needs to say these things, and you do it very well. Keep up the good work.”
I can’t say better. Splendid to see you back on form & thanks for this great post.
@ Andrew Gallagher wrote:
“Glad to see you’ve resisted the temptation to quit blogging. Someone needs to say these things, and you do it very well. Keep up the good work.”
I can’t say better. Splendid to see you back on form & thanks for this great post.
There is a excellent analysis of the Al Megrahi case by Gareth Pierce in the London Review of Books.
Her forensic work ends with –
Al-Megrahi’s trial constituted a unique legal construct, engineered to achieve a political rapprochement, but its content was so manipulated that in reality there was only ever an illusion of a trial. Dr Kochler recorded at its conclusion that it was ‘not fair’ and that it was not ‘conducted in an objective manner’, so that there were ‘many more questions and doubts at the end than the beginning’. Since then, these doubts have not disappeared: on the contrary, the questions are graver, the doubts have grown and so has the strength of the evidence on which they are based. Kochler’s observations continue to have compelling relevance; he found the respect of the court, the defence lawyers included, for the ‘shrouds of secrecy’ and ‘national security considerations’ to be ‘totally incomprehensible to any rational observer’. ‘Proper judicial procedure,’ he continued, ‘is simply impossible if political interests and intelligence services ?” from whichever side ?” succeed in interfering in the actual conduct of a court.’
The term miscarriage of justice carries with it the inference of accident, but also of death. There is a pressing need to investigate in detail how it has come about that there has been a form of death in this case ?” the death of justice ?” and who should be found responsible.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n18/peir01_.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3118