September 2, 2009 2:00 PM BST
Porscha,
that he was a member of the SWP doesn't necessarily diminish the quality or the truth of what he wrote,and that is particularly true of his Lockerbie investigation.He just lets events speak for themselves,without any resort to political polemic.He also includes the report of the UN observer at the trial-a report which slams the trial and the verdict.Read Paul Foot's report-it's not SWP agit-prop-honest!
I've now read the report and the following picture emerges:
Putting the blame on Libya,2 years after the explosion,was simple political expediency.The US needed Syria foas an ally in the First Gulf War against Saddam,Continuing to blame Syria/Iran/the PFLP would have been counterproductive in this connection.
Gaddafi found it ,eventually,politically expedient to send two agents for trial in The Netherlands-it got the UN sanctions against Libya lifted.
Releasing el-Meghari on compassionate grounds would also seem to be politically expedient.Otherwise his appeal would have been heard,in Edinburgh,with,very possibly,seriously embarrassing consequences for the governments in London and Washington.Post Guantanamo,Iraq,Abu Gahreib,waterboarding etc etc, the possibility that the Appeal Court would free him was almost certainly unwanted,given the probability that the Court would,this time round, not be amenable to political pressure.It is inconceivable that the release was not approved beforehand by London and Washington, so that all the loud wailing and gnashing of teeth from various politicians would seem to be wholly artificial and worthy of an Oscar or two.
The evidence was thin,circumstantial and,whilst it fitted the original Iranian/Syrian/PFLP scenario very well,it had to be twisted,stretched,bent and turned on it's head to fit the Libyan scenario.The forensic scientists have been subsequently discredited due to the manipulation and fabrication of evidence in other cases-no serious judge in his right mind would believe them for a minute nowadays.Other prosecution witnesses turned out to be unable to give credible testimony.The judges summing up was,by all accounts,a masterpiece in the use of the conditional,the subjunctive and the indefinite: "This would seem to.......","This infers that......",
"We consider it probable that......".It's also full of contradictions.
The report of the UN observer is damning-a miscarriage of justice,politically manipulated-and makes the point that,wherever governments and intelligence services are involved,fairness,objectivity and truth are the losers.
One final point to ponder over.In the US there had been a President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism,which investigated Lockerbie and reported in February 1990-10 years BEFORE the trial.After the trial,there was a meeting between the seven members of this commission and a group of British relatives in the American embassy in London.One of the relatives recalled that,after the meeting had broken up,he came into conversation with two commission members-possibly senators.One of them said to him,"Your government and our government know exactly what happened at Lockerbie...but they are not going to tell you"
Oh,and a final,final point-there were two accused.For some strange reason the judges decided that any evidence against one could not apply to the other.........even though both were accused of the same crime.In short,the verdict was a perversion of justice and a victory for the CIA.
Some of you may not like this,may prefer to keep your blinkered view of world events and cling to simple,black-white, explanations and knee-jerk reactions.Fine..............................
Lynn
September 2, 2009 3:39 PM BST
Good work there Lynn...not surprised at all by collusion and deal making and the such...and maybe this guy was sort of innocent...fact does remain that he was more than likely to have been involved in other terrorist plots and thus was handled like the thug he was, even if he didn't blow up the jet himself. No way did the CIA or Downing Street pull this guy out of a hat for sacrifice..so for that reason, I have no sympathy for him.
In the big picture, it is sickening to see how we, just regular ol' people, are such pawns in the struggle for power and riches amongst the elite. To think that so few can wield so much power and influence on our everyday life is disheartening. But it also has been this way for close to forever...no simple solutions to the issues facing us today either...
Guess we just need to move on but remain vigilant always!
traci
September 2, 2009 8:45 PM BST
**sighs wearily**
After all is said and done, and much heat has been exchanged, nothing has really changed except that we all hopefully agree on one thing: "The only honest politician is who, once bought, stays bought" (Attributed to Simon Cameron).
Luv 'n hugs,
Mina
September 2, 2009 8:45 PM BST
**sighs wearily**
After all is said and done, and much heat has been exchanged, nothing has really changed except that we all hopefully agree on one thing: "The only honest politician is who, once bought, stays bought" (Attributed to Simon Cameron).
Luv 'n hugs,
Mina
September 3, 2009 9:50 PM BST
September 3, 2009 9:54 PM BST
Traci,
As to how el-Megrahi was 'pulled out of the hat'..that's another murky story.Apparently,a few months before the bombing a Libyan arrived on Malta and went to the US embassy claiming to be a Libyan intelligence(JSO) Agent.......It later turned out that he did indeed work for the JSO-but only as a mechanic in the car-pool.Be that as it may,the CIA took him on and showered him with money and gifts for telling them the latest gossip from the JSO car-pool.He said nothing about Lockerbie,despite being repeatedly asked,until the CIA told him that ,if he didn't come up with some incriminating evidence about Libyan involvement with Lockerbie pdq,they'd drop him immediately and stop all payments.After a bit of bargaining he conveniently came up with a couple of names,one of which was el-Megrahi's.As a mere garage mechanic he probably only knew el-Megrahi from washing his windscreen or checking his oil...........The court found that he was a compulsive liar and rejected his evidence completely,which basically scuppered the prosecution's case.
The only other identification evidence was from the shop keeper who'd sold the clothes that had been in the case with the bomb.His initial comment about el-Megrahi was 'not tall enough,not old enough'.By that time though,two years after the bombing,he'd been shown so many pictures of possible suspects and even partially identified a couple of them that he probably really couldn't say.Added to that is the fact that,as a result of the CIA's pet liar,el-Megrahi's picture had already been so plastered across newspaper front-pages,probably accompanied by captions like 'The Lockerbie Bomber' that the shop-keeper probably half-believed it too.By the time the trial came on his 'identification' was,however, no more than vague at best and was consequently considered completely unreliable by the defence.The prosecution and the judges,however, turned veritable somersaults in accepting the shop-keepers identification of el-Megrahi.It wouldn't surprise me if they were told that there had to be at least one scapegoat when it came to announcing their verdict and passing sentence.
Governments,'Intelligence' Agencies and the independance of the judiciary-don'tcha just love it!
Lynn