I wondered at the time, then at the time of the trial of the intelligence officers, then when the U.S. renormalized relations with Libya, then when the Brits let the one guy go free –
How in the Hell did it ever happen that the intelligence operatives were arrested and tried and that more or less made everything right? Not that it made everything right, but did we all just kind of go along with the idea that because we had proof they’d been the ones who actually put the suitcase on the airplane, that that was the main event as opposed to a sideshow as to ultimate responsibility?
Did anyone ever seriously think that intelligence operatives of a ruthless dictatorship and known sponsor of terror committed an act of terror without the express permission and direction of the dictator?
Why would it still be newsworthy to report that someone confirmed Qadaffi had his fingerprints all over the crime? Or put differently, how did he and the regime escape a formal accounting for that up till now? I don’t have a GD as such, just an opinion that this has always been . . . really backwards.
Not that I doubt he had a hand in it, but remember no proof has actually been presented, yet.
My first reaction to this bit of news was thinking back to all those Iraqis who swore up and down that Hussein had an active WMD program. Many swore they had proof, and it turned out many of them were simply lying for their own ends (either personal advancement or the downfall of Hussein).
Basically, there’s no credible evidence, yet. Despite the likelihood, we can’t just go around accusing world leaders of terrorism on a “c’mon, it’s obvious” basis.
I didn’t come up with that example, but my thoughts went that way, too. I’m sure some folks would enjoy us kicking him ass for them and not give a damn about our reputation afterward.
I’m certain I remember reports of him having personally issuing the order shortly after the event. Whether it’s true or not, it seems odd that none of the new reports I’ve seen don’t seem to remember the earlier ones.
The American government have been making this claim for a long time, but there’s really no evidence for it. The type of bomb was commonly used by the PFLP-GC, not the Libyans. A circuitboard, commonly cited as evidence of Libyan involvement since being found in the wreckage, is nothing of the sort. Not only was the circuitboard wrongly represented as rare, and therefore almost certainly having been used by the Libyans (which the manufacturer has said was a lie), but the Chief Constable in charge of the area where it was found claims it was planted by the American intelligence agents on the site.
The “witness” who claims to have seen Megrahi buying the clothing supposedly wrapped around the bomb was shown a picture of Megrahi before picking him out of an ID parade, and then was paid a large sum of cash by the FBI for his testimony.
Then Megrahi, after being purchased from Gaddafi with the removal of sanctions against his regime, was given an offshore trial, in Holland but supposedly under Scottish jurisdiction and with Scottish judges (think Guantanamo, no real jurisdiction) and was denied the right to a jury he would have had in Scotland. He was still appealing against the decision, with a good chance of a retrial, when he was released, supposedly on compassionate grounds, apparently specifically to stop the appeal process revealing embarrassing information about the stitch-up.
Obviously some former minister, trying to get himself an in with the new regime and potential foreign safe-havens, has now claimed Gaddafi was behind it. The first reaction from a UK Families Flight 103 spokesman was “Perhaps he is trying to ingratiate himself with the US.”
I agree with the rest of your post, but a couple of things about this sentence. There’s no “supposedly” about it, Camp Zeist was under the jurisdiction of the Scottish court for the duration of the trial, under a treaty between the UK and the Netherlands. Scottish police and prison officers provided the security, for example. The two defendants were not “denied” a full jury trial, it was a Libyan stipulation that there be no jury, an option which exists under Scots law. Presumably they thought this would be fairer. Not sure how that worked out for them.
I can send you a PDF of the collected journalism by Paul Foot of UK investigative/satirical magazine Private Eye if you like. It covers most of that stuff. The section covering the critical eye-witness testimony of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci is particularly interesting. PM me if interested. (same for anyone else).