Welcome back Craig!

It's not 'bum-sucking' Americans to want the man who blew up a civilian airliner to remain in prison. The families of the victims were promised his incarceration and they doubtless feel betrayed. The way it was handled showed great insensitivity to the victims' families and the wanking on about some unique Scottish compassion is embarrassing.

Also, there were plenty of mujihadeen paid for by the US such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and other atrocious figures but where is the evidence that Osama bin Laden was on the payroll?

QUOTE "It's not 'bum-sucking' Americans to want the man who blew up a civilian airliner to remain in prison. "

Ok, so when they catch him let me know...

'Who is more guilty, the man who gave the order, or his tool?' Dunno on that one - obviously in Stalin's case there wasn't much of an option - either do it or your entire family will be wiped out - hmm...hokely dokely.

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. And I love the utter hypocrisy of the Yanks as regards the any comparison to the Mai Lai massacres.

You really have to take your hat off to the remarkably bad media handling by Labour but....who cares?

Welcome back Craig.

Missed you and your always thoughtful input on things.

Bestest

Mike

"On a rare occasion when this government has shown wisdom, it appears ashamed of it".

That's democracy for you. When you follow the crowd and give free rein to its prejudices and hypocrisy, you are praised and esteemed. But when you show wisdom you are pilloried and, if you keep it up, thrown out of office permanently.

The really horrible thing is that this is how the system is supposed to work. Plato and Jefferson (or even Socrates and Franklin) would recognise the syndrome right away.

Whether or not it was right to release al-Megrahi, that decision should not have been made by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice and an elected Member of the Scottish Parliament. As long as a politician is the final decision maker over the liberty or detention of an individual, that decision is politicised. The decision maker is subject to political pressure, and even if they act with absolute integrity, they are subject to political backlash and accusations of political bias.

It is just plain wrong that a politician can decide to release or further detain a prisoner. Such decisions should be made by the judiciary (or in the case of parole, by the parole board).

The decision about whether to release al-Megrahi should have been made by a judge, or a panel of judges.

"It's not 'bum-sucking' Americans to want the man who blew up a civilian airliner to remain in prison"

I suppose not if its the commander of the USS Vincennes.

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.

For anyone interested in Lockerbie, I would recommend Robert Black's blog - link below.

http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/

Professor Black is one of the most respected legal professionals ever to have worked in the Scottish legal system, and has long described the original Megrahi verdict as one of the gravest miscarriages of justice ever perpetrated under Scottish Law.

I don't believe he had access to the intelligence reports you mention, but instead was appalled by the thinness of the evidence relied upon.

Further to this - and to emphasize the hysterically hypocritical reaction in Washington and London to the release - the release of Megrahi coincided with (or depended on) his dropping of his intention to appeal, a process that would have caused severe embarrassment if the original conviction was as unsound as people like Professor Black have claimed.

I think he was released, at this particular time, to prevent his appeal being heard; which, arguably, would have shown that there was a conspiracy, involving the UK and the USA, to frame an innocent man for a terrible crime.

The mountain of evidence presented at the appeal would not only have been accutely embarassing, it would also have opened up a whole new can of worms, for example, if it wasn't Lybia, who was behind the atrocity and why was it covered up?

There's a lot of, granted, strong circumstantial evidence, that the attack was revenge for the downing of an Iranian plane by the Americans. The Lockerbie attack was apparently ordered and financed by militants with ties to the Iranian regime and carried out by the PFLP, an extremist Palestinian splinter group.

I think it would have been totally outrageous to release him for a £10BN oil deal, if anyone deeply involved thought he had anything to do with it.

I would also say that you can't make bombs out of hydrogen peroxide in aircraft toilets...

You could however probably do something with the duty free.

Particularly the Polish or Russian Vodka..

But who gives a fuck about Truth?

Tony

"...in the days when he was a US sponsored terrorist"

"where is the evidence that Osama bin Laden was on the payroll?"

angrysoba: suggest you extract your head from the sand for a moment and listen to former FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. She has recently revealed that the US maintained 'intimate relations' with Bin Laden and the Taliban "all the way until that day of September 11".

Which is cutting things a little fine I feel.

OK - Libya might, one day, pay compensation to the families of victims of the IRA - but why not have payment, too, from the USA for its support of the IRA through the fund-raising efforts of NORAID and other Irish-American organisations which went on in broad daylight across the length and breadth of the country for years?

Perhaps we should just bomb Boston.

Thoughtful comments. Keep them up please.

Craig, I have no problem with the captain of the USS Vincenes being prosecuted for manslaughter.
He should be.

from John Pilger

The trial of the “Lockerbie bomber” was worse than a travesty of justice. Evidence that never came to court proves his innocence

The hysteria over the release of the so-called Lockerbie bomber reveals much about the political and media class on both sides of the Atlantic, especially Britain. From Gordon Brown's "repulsion" to Barack Obama's "outrage", the theatre of lies and hypocrisy is dutifully attended by those
who call themselves journalists. "But what if Megrahi lives longer than three months?" whined a BBC reporter to the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond. "What will you say to your constituents, then?"

Horror of horrors that a dying man should live longer than prescribed before he "pays" for his "heinous crime": the description of the Scottish justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, whose "compassion" allowed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to go home to Libya to "face justice from a higher power". Amen.

The American satirist Larry David once addressed a voluble crony as "a babbling brook of bullshit". Such eloquence summarises the circus of Megrahi's release.

No one in authority has had the guts to state the truth about the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 above the Scottish village of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, in which 270 people were killed. The governments in England and Scotland in effect blackmailed Megrahi into dropping his appeal as a condition of his immediate release. Of course there were oil and arms deals under way with Libya; but had Megrahi proceeded with his appeal, some 600 pages of new and deliberately suppressed evidence would have set the seal on his innocence and given us more than a glimpse of how and why he was stitched up for the benefit of "strategic interests".

“The endgame came down to damage limitation," said the former CIA officer Robert Baer, who took part in the original investigation, "because the evidence amassed by [Megrahi's] appeal is explosive and extremely damning to the system of justice." New witnesses would show that it was impossible for Megrahi to have bought clothes that were found in the wreckage of the Pan Am aircraft - he was convicted on the word of a Maltese shopowner who claimed to have sold him the clothes, then gave a false description of him in 19 separate statements and even failed to recognise him in the courtroom.

The new evidence would have shown that a fragment of a circuit board and bomb timer, "discovered" in the Scottish countryside and said to have been in Megrahi's suitcase, was probably a plant. A forensic scientist found no trace of an explosion on it. The new evidence would demonstrate the impossibility of the bomb beginning its journey in Malta before it was "transferred" through two airports undetected to Flight 103.

A "key secret witness" at the original trial, who claimed to have seen Megrahi and his co-accused, al-Alim Khalifa Fahimah (who was acquitted), loading the bomb on to the plane at Frankfurt, was bribed by the US authorities holding him as a "protected witness". The defence exposed him as a CIA informer who stood to collect, on the Libyans' conviction, up to $4m as a reward.

Megrahi was convicted by three Scottish judges sitting in a courtroom in "neutral" Holland. There was no jury. One of the few reporters to sit through the long and often farcical proceedings was the late Paul Foot, whose landmark investigation in Private Eye exposed it as a cacophony of blunders, deceptions and lies: a whitewash. The Scottish judges, while admitting a "mass of conflicting evidence" and rejecting the fantasies of the CIA informer, found Megrahi guilty on hearsay and unproven circumstance. Their 90-page "opinion", wrote Foot, "is a remarkable document that claims an honoured place in the history of British miscarriages of justice". (His report, Lockerbie - the Flight from Justice, can be downloaded from www.private-eye.co.uk for £5.)

Foot reported that most of the staff of the US embassy in Moscow who had reserved seats on Pan Am flights from Frankfurt cancelled their bookings when they were alerted by US intelligence that a terrorist attack was planned. He named Margaret Thatcher the "architect" of the cover-up after revealing that she killed the independent inquiry her transport secretary Cecil Parkinson had promised the Lockerbie families; and in a phone call to President George Bush Sr on 11 January 1990, she agreed to "low-key" the disaster after their intelligence services had reported "beyond doubt" that the Lockerbie bomb had been placed by a Palestinian group, contracted by Tehran, as a reprisal for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by a US warship in Iranian territorial waters. Among the 290 dead were 66 children. In 1990, the ship's captain was awarded the Legion of Merit by Bush Sr "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer".

Perversely, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, Bush needed Iran's support as he built a "coalition" to expel his wayward client from an American oil colony. The only country that defied Bush and backed Iraq was Libya. "Like lazy and overfed fish," wrote Foot, "the British media jumped to the bait. In almost unanimous chorus, they engaged in furious vilification and open warmongering against Libya." The framing of Libya for the Lockerbie crime was inevitable. Since then, a US defence intelligence agency report, obtained under Freedom of Information, has confirmed these truths and identified the likely bomber; it was to be the centrepiece of Megrahi's defence.

In 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Megrahi's case for appeal. "The commission is of the view," said its chairman, Graham Forbes, "based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice."

Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi the bomber who beleives after the trial?

This is not the first time that state expediency has laid honesty and scruples to rest. Recall some years ago the Kuwaiti dissident who lived in London and trade deals were at risk if he remained, so he was conveniently granted a Dominican passport for a life in the Caribbean; or the "Matrix-Churchill" affair, when Saddam Hussein was being sold arms by Britain even after the Gulf War had started. If a country can sell arms to the enemy to have same used to kill its own sons and daughters sent to fight a war
- does this latest affair really surprise anyone? Given that kind of track record I say that 10b is not enough, an absolute insult, it should be at least double the amount!

MJ:angrysoba: suggest you extract your head from the sand for a moment and listen to former FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. She has recently revealed that the US maintained 'intimate relations' with Bin Laden and the Taliban "all the way until that day of September 11".

Which is cutting things a little fine I feel.

Well, it's cutting it more than fine given that bin Laden was already wanted for the embassy bombings in Africa and there was already a CIA unit set up to track him.

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.

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?

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, he 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?

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

Welcome back Craig!

I was away when you said you might stop blogging but it seems your other fans did what I would have done and begged you not to.

As ever an interesting piece, and informative on a subject I was not well informed on.

I wonder though, given Libya agreed to al-Megrahi's sacrifice and then agreed to a deal to get him back, might it have been made part of the deal that it wouldn't have been so massively celebrated in Libya. The visual of him being greeted of the plane and feted has been part of the media problem for the UK. I guess this is just part of the NuLab lack of effective media handling.

Owen

Welcome back Craig!

I was away when you said you might stop blogging but it seems your other fans did what I would have done and begged you not to.

As ever an interesting piece, and informative on a subject I was not well informed on.

I wonder though, given Libya agreed to al-Megrahi's sacrifice and then agreed to a deal to get him back, might it have been made part of the deal that it wouldn't have been so massively celebrated in Libya. The visual of him being greeted of the plane and feted has been part of the media problem for the UK. I guess this is just part of the NuLab lack of effective media handling.

Owen

Welcome back..about bloody time Tai Pan...I was getting bored over here !

USS Vincennes, exactly, who has ever cried out for justice of 270 muslims, five of them from Georgia, coming back from their trip of a lifetime, well for some it would have been the first time they flew to Mekka? Who has ever screamed to have the command chain that gave the order to fire the missile?
Who has ever questiopned the stste of readyness this ship must have been under? why was it ready to dispatch a missile.

Experience tells me that there was either a manouver going on, or it must have been under code orange, at least.

Still nobody has explained why the commander of that vessel locked on to an aircraft, a seperate process, then forgot the readiness of his missiles and gave the 'accidental' order to shoot down a passenger aircraft.

Was the aircraft hailed by IFF? ( identification friend/foe) did they get a response? How come he locked on to a target flying at an altitude known for civilian aircraft, in the right flight corridor for a civilian aircraft?

I reiterate, should Obama really want to open up channels with Iran and talk issues, a re investigation and subsequent reprimand/prosecution of this clearly irresponsible military action that was apparently not sanctioned, 'accidental, it will be the lever that opens the door.

But I question his resolve, because the erngagement in Pakistans border region and, the digging in behind Bush strategy, the use of Diego Garcia as a torture camp, all that makes me think that he is not that interested in changing US foreign policy or their geostrategic drive to secure as many resources as possible.

If this shooting down and killing of 270 innocent worshippers was indeed accidental, why not open up the episode to public scrutiny by a reliable independent investigator?

Great post, Craig. All that can be said about the Lockerbie puppetshow has been said, but we have to keep on saying it cos no-one was listening.

And Angrysoba - would like to understand your arguments but you were dropping in quotes from elsewhere...without quotation marks, thus making it difficult to follow. Dig?

To Angrysoba:

I second Mike Cobley; I could disect your post to work out what came from where, and so could everyone else, but really you should re-post with clarity, to save many people that time.

From today's Scotsman newspaper

Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked

Published Date: 28 August 2005
By MARCELLO MEGA
A FORMER Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement claiming that key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated.
The retired officer - of assistant chief constable rank or higher - has testified that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 mass murder of 270 people.

The police chief, whose identity has not yet been revealed, gave the statement to lawyers representing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, currently serving a life sentence in Greenock Prison.

The evidence will form a crucial part of Megrahi's attempt to have a retrial ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). The claims pose a potentially devastating threat to the reputation of the entire Scottish legal system.

The officer, who was a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland, is supporting earlier claims by a former CIA agent that his bosses "wrote the script" to incriminate Libya.

Last night, George Esson, who was Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway when Megrahi was indicted for mass murder, confirmed he was aware of the development.

But Esson, who retired in 1994, questioned the officer's motives. He said: "Any police officer who believed they had knowledge of any element of fabrication in any criminal case would have a duty to act on that. Failure to do so would call into question their integrity, and I can't help but question their motive for raising the matter now."

Other important questions remain unanswered, such as how the officer learned of the alleged conspiracy and whether he was directly involved in the inquiry. But sources close to Megrahi's legal team believe they may have finally discovered the evidence that could demolish the case against him.

An insider told Scotland on Sunday that the retired officer approached them after Megrahi's appeal - before a bench of five Scottish judges - was dismissed in 2002.

The insider said: "He said he believed he had crucial information. A meeting was set up and he gave a statement that supported the long-standing rumours that the key piece of evidence, a fragment of circuit board from a timing device that implicated Libya, had been planted by US agents.

"Asked why he had not come forward before, he admitted he'd been wary of breaking ranks, afraid of being vilified.

"He also said that at the time he became aware of the matter, no one really believed there would ever be a trial. When it did come about, he believed both accused would be acquitted. When Megrahi was convicted, he told himself he'd be cleared at appeal."

The source added: "When that also failed, he explained he felt he had to come forward.

"He has confirmed that parts of the case were fabricated and that evidence was planted. At first he requested anonymity, but has backed down and will be identified if and when the case returns to the appeal court."

The vital evidence that linked the bombing of Pan Am 103 to Megrahi was a tiny fragment of circuit board which investigators found in a wooded area many miles from Lockerbie months after the atrocity.

The fragment was later identified by the FBI's Thomas Thurman as being part of a sophisticated timer device used to detonate explosives, and manufactured by the Swiss firm Mebo, which supplied it only to Libya and the East German Stasi.

At one time, Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent, was such a regular visitor to Mebo that he had his own office in the firm's headquarters.

The fragment of circuit board therefore enabled Libya - and Megrahi - to be placed at the heart of the investigation. However, Thurman was later unmasked as a fraud who had given false evidence in American murder trials, and it emerged that he had little in the way of scientific qualifications.

Then, in 2003, a retired CIA officer gave a statement to Megrahi's lawyers in which he alleged evidence had been planted.

The decision of a former Scottish police chief to back this claim could add enormous weight to what has previously been dismissed as a wild conspiracy theory. It has long been rumoured the fragment was planted to implicate Libya for political reasons.

The first suspects in the case were the Syrian-led Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC), a terror group backed by Iranian cash. But the first Gulf War altered diplomatic relations with Middle East nations, and Libya became the pariah state.

Following the trial, legal observers from around the world, including senior United Nations officials, expressed disquiet about the verdict and the conduct of the proceedings at Camp Zeist, Holland. Those doubts were first fuelled when internal documents emerged from the offices of the US Defence Intelligence Agency. Dated 1994, more than two years after the Libyans were identified to the world as the bombers, they still described the PFLP-GC as the Lockerbie bombers.

A source close to Megrahi's defence said: "Britain and the US were telling the world it was Libya, but in their private communications they acknowledged that they knew it was the PFLP-GC.

"The case is starting to unravel largely because when they wrote the script, they never expected to have to act it out. Nobody expected agreement for a trial to be reached, but it was, and in preparing a manufactured case, mistakes were made."

Dr Jim Swire, who has publicly expressed his belief in Megrahi's innocence, said it was quite right that all relevant information now be put to the SCCRC.

Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the atrocity, said last night: "I am aware that there have been doubts about how some of the evidence in the case came to be presented in court.

"It is in all our interests that areas of doubt are thoroughly examined."

A spokeswoman for the Crown Office said: "As this case is currently being examined by the SCCRC, it would be inappropriate to comment."

No one from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland was available to comment.

Why Syria and not Iran ? Surely Iran had the strongest motive.

Ingo

Actually there have been several documentaries on this matter as well as an excellent one by the National Geographic, rather renowned for thier impartiality...as you can post here, I assume you can Google...

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.

@ 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 Köchler 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. Köchler’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

Thank you for another great post.
I look forward to many more entries with high quality info.

[url=http://www.rain-clouds.com]craigslist software[/url]

Ooh dang i just typed a big comment and as soon as i hit post it come up blank! Please please tell me it worked properly? I dont want to write it again if i do not have to! Either the blog glitced out or i am an idiot, the latter doesnt surprise me lol. Cheers, www.denver-asbestos-attorneys.com

Good Day. Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what's for lunch. Help me! Need information about: Samsung syncmaster 245bw 24 lcd monitor. I found only this - lcd monitor video. Crt hints have their such specified monitors, lcd monitor. Lcd monitor, dot need may be established in successive languages, completely chips, with a smaller direction trying closer limit, or in connections per main computer, for insurance enclosures per rescaling, with a larger power linking closer range. With best wishes :cool:, Sherman from San.

Set your life more easy get the business loans and all you require.

Greetings everyone, This webpage is excellent and so is how the matter was expanded. I like some of the comments as well although I would prefer we all keep it on topic in order add value to the subject. It will be