Last Sunday, the British press reported that a key piece of evidence, that was used to convict the Libyan security agent, Al Megrahi, in the Lockerbie Pan Am disaster, had been faked by the CIA and a FBI investigator. The American MSM has given this story scant, if any coverage, even though most of the victims were American, and it has enormous implications for the war on terror.
Here is the report from 'The Scotsman' on the new evidence from Pan Am Flight 103 that crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988.
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.
Now why was is this so interesting? First, because the American government vowed to honor the victims and find
And how did the US government, under George Bush Senior, react when all the preliminary evidence pointed to the PFLP? Read further... From a Paul Foot review of `Trail of the Octopus: From Beirut to Lockerbie--Inside the DIA` and another book on Lockerbie by Joan Deppa in the 'London Review of Books'
(the PFLP), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, led by Ahmed Jibril. The aim of the gang was to bomb an American airliner in revenge for the shooting down by an American warship of an Iranian civil airliner in the Gulf earlier in the year....
Paul Channon, British Minister of Transport then announced that the Dumfries and Galloway Police--the smallest police force in Britain--had concluded a brilliant criminal investigation into the Lockerbie crash.( In March,1989), they had found who was responsible and arrests were expected before long. The Minister could not conceal his delight at the speed and efficiency of the PC McPlods from Dumfries, and was unstinting in his praise of the European intelligence. (Was George Bush Senior delighted?)
"George Bush rang Margaret Thatcher to warn her to 'cool it' on the subject."
(Read why? the answer seems to be in part, that the first official suspects were the PFLP-Iran-Syria connection who were rumored) to be part of a shady bargain struck between elements within the CIA and the Syrian overlords of Lebanese narco-terrorism. In return for the Syrian using influence to free the remaining American hostages, the CIA helped them to safely transport their heroin on transatlantic flights.
And what are the less lurid, geo-political reasons which caused George Bush Senior to change his mind.
The Gulf War came along in 1990 and the support of Iran and Syria was needed.
Washington was anxious as well to achieve the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by groups close to Iran. The scurrying sound of backtracking then became audible in the corridors of the White House.
Suddenly -- or so it seemed -- in October 1990, there was a New Official Version: It was Libya -- the Arab state least supportive of the U.S. build-up to the Gulf War and the sanctions imposed against Iraq -- that was behind the bombing after all, declared Washington.
"This was a Libyan government operation from start to finish," declared the State Department spokesman. [NYT, Nov. 15, 1991]
"The Syrians took a bum rap on this," said President George H.W. Bush. [Los Angeles Times, Nov. 15, 1991]
Within the next 20 days, the remaining four American hostages were released along with the most prominent British hostage, Terry Waite.
One man whom I admire enormously, ex- Britsh ambassador, Craig Murray (his blog site is well worth checking out regularly) adds credence to the story that the Americans framed the Libyans.
In this period I mostly lived in my underground bunker, quite literally, and didn't get back to the (British) FCO much to keep an eye on the rest of my section. On one occasion when I did, I was told something remarkable by a colleague in Aviation section.
At this time we suddenly switched from blaming Iran and Syria for the Lockerbie bombing to blaming Libya. This was part of a diplomatic drive to isolate Iraq from its neighbours in the run-up to the invasion. Aviation section were seeing all the intelligence on Lockerbie, for obvious reasons. A colleague there told me, in a deeply worried way, that he/she had the most extraordinary intelligence report which showed conclusively that it was really Syria, not Libya, that bombed the Pan Am jet, and that the switch was pure expediency
And why would Libya accept responsibility and pay 2.7 billion in compensation to the families when it had nothing to do with the bombing..The answer is backmail. The UN sanctions were costing Libya up to 30 billion in lost revenue and there are enormous oil reserves in the Libyan desert that Gaddafi and a consortium of international oil companies desperately want to develop. Gaddafi proved, in the end, to be the perfect patsy.
In February, 2004, the Libyan prime minister told the BBC that his country was innocent but was forced to pay-up as a "price for peace".
When truth meets power, power usually wins...As we know, it's rare that a politician who makes it all the way up the American greasy pole, will stand up to CIA and military pressure, in what is invariably framed as a national security interest. The Flight#103 victims` famillies of this terrorist attack, and the world in general, will never be told what really happened, as long as successive US governments continue manipulating and hampering the investigation into the Pan Am crash.
Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!