Lockerbie and Kafka's Labyrinth

In December 1988, I was living in the United Kingdom when the searing news of the Lockerbie bombing exploded into the global consciousness. With 270 victims, Lockerbie was at once the worst act of terrorism on British soil and the most heinous act of terrorism yet perpetrated against Americans. Twelve years later, Lockerbie would produce one of the most expensive trials in world history (75 million pounds sterling, circa $120 million) and what has become a highly contentious verdict.

At the time of the tragedy, an extremist group of Palestinians backed by Iran was selected as the primary suspect, but two years later when Saddam Hussein seized Kuwait the spotlight of suspicion shifted to Libya. Bush, Sr. needed Iranian support for the invasion of Kuwait -- a nation courted assiduously by the Reagan-Bush administration through the notorious Iran-Contra Scandal and beyond.

Under the crushing weight of draconian sanctions, Libya eventually realized the wisdom of producing members of its own intelligence apparatus who could help them engineer the lifting of crippling trade restrictions. In the course of time, two hapless Libyans: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah would be extradited and sent to an obscure US military base called, Camp Zeist, where they would be placed on trial. On the 31st of January 2001 over twelve years after the tragedy shook the civilized world, a panel consisting of three Scottish judges convicted Megrahi and acquitted Fhimah. Megrahi received a life sentence intended to compel him to serve at least 27 years in prison.

Over the course of the intervening eight years, lawyers representing Megrahi have argued for a new trial. In 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) referred the Megrahi case to the Justiciary, the Scottish Appellate Court, a development that could have led to his acquittal. The grounds for the Commission's ruling were stark: exculpatory evidence had been repressed at the original trial. The official announcement from the Commission stated: "The applicant (Megrahi) may have suffered a miscarriage of justice."

These developments were adequately reported in the Scottish, UK and European Media, but sadly and mysteriously, these crucial decisions were sparsely reported in the US media where the Murtagh Building and 9/11 have obscured the finite analysis of all previous terrorist tragedies.

In 2007, Hugh Miles published a masterful analysis of the case in the London Review of Books, but the in-depth coverage has been slight or virtually invisible in Bush Era / Post-9/11 America. The result is a dismally uninformed nation and government.

In recent months, Megrahi's attorneys have come to an arrangement whereby their client -- who is now suffering terminal cancer and estimated to be within only a few months of his death -- should be released on compassionate humanitarian grounds. This decision will almost surely alleviate any potential lawsuit by Libya over the $2.7 billion she continues to pay to the families of the 270 victims - a settlement of $10 million per family.

This week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a public statement opposing Megrahi's release, while the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Patrick Leahy and others signed a letter objecting to the release of Megrahi. This epistle may embarrass the writers in the future.

From the accounts of the Senators' letter that have been published, it now appears that none of the US officials were adequately briefed on the judicial developments in the case. None of the American officials have mentioned the SCCRC's judicial review, and none of them recognized the growing public sentiment in Scotland, Britain, Europe and the Middle East that a massive miscarriage of justice was committed in Megrahi's case.

The original case was tried in a Kafkaesque atmosphere. With proceedings convened at the US military installation, Camp Zeist, the two defendants were tried under Scottish law by a three-judge panel. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy that involved planting the bomb on the Pan Am plane at a stop in Malta. The forensic evidence has been described as tenuous. Three days after he had seen a photograph of Megrahi in a newspaper, a Maltese shop owner identified him as the man who had purchased clothes. Forensic technicians traced fragments of the clothing to his shop in Malta, the same fragments detected amidst bomb debris in their painstaking investigation.

To make matters worse, over the years intelligence and police officials have disclosed that they were in control of evidence that proved Megrahi to be innocent -- and that other perpetrators known to the international intelligence community were guilty of the atrocity. To recount only one bizarre incident, Susan Lindauer, a US Congressional aide, testified that Dr. Richard Fuisz who was employed by the CIA had informed her that he knew for a fact that Megrahi was not involved in the Lockerbie bombing -- and that he could identify the actual perpetrators, "If the government would let me." After making her evidence known, Lindauer was charged with being an Iraqi agent and a federal court promptly gagged the loquacious Dr. Fuisz.

A Scottish jurist and a UN official have criticized the Kafkaesque atmosphere that surrounded Megrahi's trial at Camp Zeist. Apparently, officials from the US Department of Justice swirled around the improvised courtroom imbuing the proceedings with the unmistakable stench of oppressive political influence.

The Director of Central Intelligence should order his staff to remove the gag from Dr. Fuisz and any other informant with knowledge of the facts in this labyrinthine and Kafkaesque case -- and report the findings to the President and the people as a matter of course.

Lockerbie remains a compelling and inscrutable tragedy. The victims deserve an unbiased investigation -- but at this late date the probability that the perpetrators of Lockerbie will ever be known is diminishing. The current legal posture of the case is untenable.

Follow Michael Carmichael on Twitter: www.twitter.com/alchemistoxford

Comments

[MK]

I'm glad someone else remembers that the U.S. navy shot down an Iranian passenger jet and killed 200 people. H.W. Bush refused to apologize and Americans shrugged their shoulders. Oh well, our bad. Get over it.

The Lockerbie bombing was revenge. If we are going to be outraged, we should also be outraged by the actions of our own government.

[heretic72]

Point missed as usual his conviction was not overturned and maby search Gulf of Sidra incidents as well as Operation El Dorado Canyon pre "88" . And Michael Carmichael there is a good reason political consultant comes before historian.

[Entebbe1]

Bravo. Thanks for having the courage and moral fortitude to bring the facts to light.

[MajorKong]

I suppose it's possible that it was revenge for Iran Air 655.

However, I was always under the impression that it was Libyan revenge for Operation Eldorado Canyon.

[ModernTimes1]

The official announcement from the Commission stated: "The applicant (Megrahi) may have suffered a miscarriage of justice."
Now for facts: Out of 48 points presented by the defense, 45 were rejected., according to commission.
Please let's not be so melodramatic.

[G100]

Yet you managed to overlook missed the most pertinent fact of all.

That the four-year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission concluded that Gauci's evidence against Megrahi was questionable enough to warrant an appeal which would have gone ahead had Megrahi not been released to die.
The SCCRC's 400-page dossier will now likely never see the light of day.

Even the most credulous of those pushing the official Government line can hardly fail to see that the verdict was at the very least unsafe and for those who have been pushing for a full and open Public Inquiry for years it was yet more proof of the unsavoury fallacious nature of the case presented and the many Questions that remain unanswered by the UK and US Governments.

[ModernTimes1]

After a lengthy and very through investigation the Commission concluded that in fact the VAST MAJORITY of the defense points were unsubstituted and DID NOT WARRANT REVIEW. Did you get that part? Seems not. A few points warranted further review. Fine.
"Na und.." as Germans say.
There will ALWAYS be questions unanswered. There's no such thing a perfect trial.
Anyone who is looking for perfection should stay away from law,
But those who are entertained by various theories and conspiracies can do so until camels come home. Enjoy.

[ModernTimes1]

Thank you Mr. Carmichael for providing the link to the Scottish Commission work.
Since you're being carefully selective about quotes, I suppose I can do the same/
I've decided to complete your narrative by including a direct quote form the report:"
"... the Commission identified a total of 48 principal grounds for consideration and review by the Commission.
"In relation to 45 of the original 48 grounds identified, the Commission has concluded that it does not believe that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. "
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/ViewFile.aspx?id=293

[TheObviator]

The focus on the number of grounds rejected vs those that warranted the commission's referral to the High Court - is silly, and obfuscates the reasons for the referral, which you interestingly fail to cite. The vast majority of the rejected grounds had to do with the applicant's claims that the CIA was "informally" involved in the collection of evidence from the Lockerbie, that a former Scottish police officer could provide additional "sensitive" information that could help the defense, that the defendant's legal advisers did not do an adequate job, that items found at Lockerbie had been "spirited away", and that a PA103 passenger, Khaled Jaafar, was possibly involved in the bombing. Hardly any of those grounds for review had direct bearing on the evidence that was critical to Megrahi's conviction. The grounds for referral, on the other hand, directly addressed critical evidence: They raise important questions about Mr. Gauci's identification of Megrahi as the purchaser of some of the items that were in the suitcase containing the bomb, and they lead one to question whether or not Megrahi was even in Malta at the time that the purchase occurred. This can't be flippantly cast aside as just another "imperfect" legal case. The grounds for referral raise serious questions about the most important evidence used to convict Megrahi. But one also has to bear in mind that none of this, as the commission stresses, is a statement about Megrahi's guilt or innocence.

[G100]

Nice analyisis Mr Carmichael. I know Lockerbie. I have family there. They are not blind.

A US intelligence report available to the lawyers of a Libyan former intelligence agent convicted for his role in the Lockerbie air disaster blames Iran, not Libya, for the attack. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who is due to be released from jail on compassionate grounds, had instructed his legal team to present the document in court if his release appeal failed. Al-Megrahi is one of two Libyans jailed for their alleged role in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people. But the report, produced by the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), says that the attack was “conceived, authorized and financed” by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur (alternative spelling: Ali-Akbar Mohtashamipur), who served as the Iran’s Minister of Interior during the first years of the Islamic Revolution. The document further states that the operation was carried out by Ahmad Jibril, founder and leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC), a secular Palestinian militant group with operational links to revolutionary Iran and Hezbollah. The importance of the DIA report lies in the fact that several US insiders, including former CIA operative Robert Baer, have claimed in the past that the US believed Iran to have orchestrated the Lockerbie bombing, but avoided confronting Tehran so as not to damage vital energy arrangements with the Islamic state.

[ModernTimes1]

In what possible way posting various rumors contributes to this issue.

[G100]

I suggest you look up Dr Jim Swire who lost a daughter in Lockerbie.

He and many others have been fighting for the truth for over 20 years. Slightly longer than the couple of days it has been splashed across the US media.

I feel sorry for those who can only stick their fingers in the ears and pretend the trial was not a farce.

The appeal has been stopped in it's tracks because of his release.
It would have revealed that some forensic evidence appeared to have been tampered with and much evidence withheld – including the fact that there had been a serious breach in security in Heathrow at the Pan Am baggage area in the early hours of 21 December 1988, the day of the bombing. A padlock on the door had been professionally cut and the area open to intruders. Coupled with the testimony of baggage handlers about two extra cases going on board – one matching the description of the bag said to have carried the bomb – this would have featured heavily in Megrahi’s appeal.

Not forgetting two witnesses who were paid huge sums by the CIA – one a notorious liar and paid informer, Abdul Giaka, who first put Megrahi in the frame; the other the Maltese shopkeeper

[Puller58]

The fact that Libya is still run by the old "Flaky Fanatic" renders any compassion a fraud. That business is still business shows capitalism and Democracy are a toxic brew for the average citizen.

[Jessi Stafford]

This is another one of those humanitarian stories that American politicians (and citizens) will take a stance on without taking in the possibility that maybe Megrahi did not receive a fair trial. The story being circulated by our media is the fact that a "terrorist" is being released. Here's a video showing all the different ways our media is covering this story as well as a speech from the Scottish justice secretary. The viewpoints are vastly different between U.S. media and European.
http://www.newsy.com/videos/release_of_a_terrorist_or_a_dying_man

[rss]

Kafkaesque?

Some months after 9/11, BBC broadcast around the world a documentary titled “The Other 9/11″ about the overthrow of the government in Chile in September 1973, allegedly with the help of the CIA. Regardless of whether the allegations against the CIA are true or not, the odious message of the documentary was unmistakable: the terrorist attack of 9/11/01 was deserved. In other words, or as in the words of Rev Wright last year, “the chicken have come home to roost”.

So I am not the least bit surprised that the Libyan terrorist was freed on compassionate ground and the UK government did not lift a finger or utter a word one way or the other. But this is also a government that stated soon after it took office that the UK and US foreign policies will no longer be “joined at the hip”, as stated by Mark Malloch-Brown in an interview.

You must remember that to the British, the 9/11 terrorists and this Lockerbie terrorist attacked only America. That message has been loud and clear so much so that the terrorists that were caught preparing to blow up a number of transatlantic flights a year ago by smuggling on board liquid peroxide paid heed in that the list of airlines they had with them consisted of American and Canadian airlines only when it would have been much easier to find British and other European transatlantic flights departing London.

[trccommission]

Did you so much as read his blog? The man is saying that Megrahi may very well have been innocent of the crimes he was convicted of. If (and it's a big IF) that is the case, then the prospect of letting an innocent man die in a British jail is completely anathema to anyone's sense of justice.

As for the documentary you mention, that came out several years after 9/11 and made pertinent points about the way American used to conduct itself internationally. It did not make any claims of a causality between the two events, nor did it draw any moral equivalence. It just brought to light a forgotten history that is rarely covered in Britain, one that has affected US-latin american relations ever since.

[rss]

"It did not make any claims of a causality between the two events, nor did it draw any moral equivalence."

With a title of "The Other 9/11"? Are you kidding me or are you that delusional? It wasn't called that because there are so many 9/11's that people might be cofused which one the documentary was talking about.

The implication of "causality" and "equivalence" is so obvious that only someone who is willfully blind will not see it.

[unitron]

"You must remember that to the British...this Lockerbie terrorist attacked only America."

Yeah, it's not like an American airliner blowing up in mid-air over the United Kingdom could ever hurt anybody on the ground.