Thursday, 28 April 2016

Wednesday, 23 March 2016

Scotland's Lord Advocate resigns

Scotland's Lord Advocate is to step down from his position as Scotland's leading law officer. Click here for more...

Lord Advocate Mulholland
His decision comes just days after a media conference held in Edinburgh's Dynamic Earth conference centre on 16th March, chaired by representatives of Justice for Megrahi.

At that conference there were calls for the Lord Advocate to consider his position, following a special police investigation - Operation Sandwood - into allegations of criminality including those by his predecessor Lord Boyd and a key forensic witness during the Lockerbie trial of Libyan Baset al-Megrahi.

It is understood that the Operation Sandwood report will be available for consideration in approximately two months time.

Recently in an unusual move, the National Scottish Police Force has appointed an independent QC to advise it on the Sandwood inquiry because it felt unable to ask Crown Office lawyers to assess the evidence of alleged wrongdoing against certain Crown officers.  Click here for more on this story.

Al-Megrahi was convicted in 2000 for the Lockerbie bombing, in which 259 passengers and eleven townspeople were killed by a bomb placed on flight Pan Am 103.

Saturday, 12 March 2016

Public challenge to Lockerbie prosecutors

Media Conference: Dynamic Earth, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AS Wednesday 16th March 2016 at 1.45pm

[Before reading the statement by Justice for Megrahi, please watch this interview of the chief Scottish lawyer and FBI investigator of the Lockerbie evidence ...

And study the following:
  
IF A PICTURE PAINTS A THOUSAND WORDS...

Here are three photographs.

The first is of the fragment of timer circuit board said by the prosecution to have been found at Lockerbie. 


Photographs two and three are of annotations written by Allen Feraday, the forensic officer on whose forensic report the Lockerbie verdict of Guilty was founded.

Photograph two is of his note dated 1st August 1991 concerning the above fragment. The words are "Plating on the two thin lines is of pure tin (Cu [copper] breaking through from underneath. Alan F.)"


The third is of his note on the same day concerning a set of circuit boards sent to him for comparison by the Swiss company Thuring. The words are "Tinning on the thin tracks is of 70/30 sn/pb [tin/lead]. However this may be dipped or roller tinned on top of either the Cu tracks? or the Cu tracks with a layer of pure tin? Alan F."


There is a clear metallurgical difference between the two items. Feraday indicates some puzzlement as to why this may be the case, hence his two question marks.

But did he draw this difference and his two questions to the attention of the judges in the Lockerbie trial?

No. He stated with absolute certainty: 

“The particular tracking pattern of the fragment has been extensively compared with the control samples of the [Thuring] MST-13 timers and circuit boards and it has been conclusively established that the fragment materials and tracking pattern are similar in all respects to the area around the connection pad for the output relay of the `MST-13' timer.” 

"Conclusively established ... materials and tracking pattern similar in all respects ..." Ten simple words. Yet on this false statement a man was condemned to a lifetime of imprisonment.  

What was the origin of the Lockerbie fragment? Who made it, where and when? It clearly did not come from Thuring and was not from the batch sold to Libya in 1985. Whatever its origin, it contradicts the unique central feature of the prosecution case. 

The Scottish Crown Office continues to stonewall the nation and Scottish Government by pronouncing that this evidence can only be considered in a court of law.  Well, here are the pictures. Please judge for yourself. 

There is further reference to this under allegations 5, 6 and 7 below.] 

Outline of Justice for Megrahi allegations against individuals and bodies involved in the Lockerbie investigation and the trial at Camp van Zeist in 2000

Dynamic Earth, Edinburgh
 

The case against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi relied on a number of points which are addressed by our allegations.  

A.  The bomb was held to have travelled unaccompanied from Luqa airport, Malta, on alight to Frankfurt which departed at a time when Mr. al-Megrahi was at that airport, preparing to catch a flight to Tripoli which was open for check-in at the same time as the Frankfurt flight.

B.  Both of the accused, Mr. al-Megrahi and Mr. Fhimah, were said to have been seen with a brown hard-shell suitcase at Luqa airport on 20 December 1988, the day before the disaster. (The suitcase containing the bomb was identified as a brown or bronze Samsonite hard-shell.)

C.  Mr. al-Megrahi was said to have purchased a selection of clothes which were identified as having been packed in the suitcase with the bomb. 

D.  The bomb was said to have been detonated by an electronic timer which was one of a bespoke batch of only 20 items supplied to the Libyan military by a manufacturer with whom Mr. al-Megrahi subsequently had unrelated business dealings.

Allegation 1

This relates to point B above. The witness who testified to having seen Mr. al-Megrahi and Mr. Fhimah with the suspicious-looking suitcase was one Majid Giaka, a Libyan national who had worked for the Libyan security services and who was a CIA informer. 

Giaka was originally the Crown’s star witness, and without his evidence it is likely that the indictments would not have been issued against the Libyan suspects in the first place. 

Giaka’s testimony was originally contained in contemporaneous cables sent by his CIA handlers to Washington when he provided the crucial evidence - mainly in 1991. These cables were presented in court in a severely redacted form, raising the question of whether the redacted passages might contain information damaging to the Crown case. 

In June 2000 members of the prosecution team were for the first time allowed by the American lawyers present to see the cables in an un-redacted form. The defence applied to the Bench to have similar sight of the cables, however this request was strenuously opposed by the prosecution. 

During the course of the discussion of this matter, Lord Coulsfield specifically asked the Lord Advocate Colin Boyd whether the redacted passages contained anything which might possibly bear on the credibility of the witness Majid Giaka. 

The Lord Advocate then consulted a colleague on the prosecution team who had had personal sight of the un-redacted cables.

After receiving his reply, the Lord Advocate informed the Bench that “.... there is nothing within these documents which relates to Lockerbie or the bombing of Pan Am 103 which could in any way impinge on the credibility of Majid on these matters.”

Despite this assurance the Bench did in fact order the un-redacted cables to be provided to the defence team. The contents of the redacted passages demonstrated Giaka to be entirely untrustworthy, and by referring to these passages Mr. Taylor for the defence was able to mount a successful challenge to the credibility and reliability of Giaka’s testimony. 

It is abundantly clear that the reassurance given to the Lord Advocate and passed on by him to the Court was wholly false. It was accepted by the court that there was no evidence at all to connect either accused to a brown hard-shell suitcase, at Luqa or anywhere else.

1.  This provides  prima facie evidence of an attempt to pervert the course of justice on the part of those members of the prosecution team who were aware of the contents of the redacted cables, and gave the Lord Advocate information they knew to be false, knowing that he in his turn would communicate this false information to the Court.

These facts have been in the public domain since June 2000, and it is unclear why no action has ever been taken against those members of the legal profession responsible.

Allegations 2, 3 and 4 

These relate to point A above. The evidence relied on to support the contention that the bomb suitcase had travelled unaccompanied to Heathrow from Malta via Frankfurt was extremely tenuous. 

Other evidence suggested the bomb had in fact been introduced directly into the baggage container while it was sitting unattended in the interline shed at Heathrow airport, but this was patchy and incomplete, and the Crown was successful in persuading the judges to discount this in favour of their preferred Malta theory. 

However, additional evidence relating to Heathrow which was not presented in court can be seen to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the bomb suitcase was indeed placed in the container at Heathrow over an hour before the feeder flight from Frankfurt landed. 

Allegation 4 deals with the fact that the Lockerbie inquiry ignored compelling evidence of the bomb being introduced at Heathrow, which was in its possession within a few weeks of the disaster. This evidence was so clear-cut it could not have been overlooked by mere incompetence, however the extraordinarily promising lead was not followed up and appears to have been actively suppressed. 

Allegation 3 deals with the concealing of one specific statement in this context, the evidence of the Heathrow security guard Raymond Manly who discovered a break-in into the airside area of Terminal 3 about 18 hours before Pan Am 103 departed from that terminal.

That evidence was effectively buried within three days of the statement being taken, so that it never formed any part of the understanding of the case, and was not disclosed to the defence in 1999-2000. 

Allegation 2 deals with the way the Heathrow evidence was handled by the Crown at Camp Zeist. At the Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1990-91, evidence was heard demonstrating that a brown Samsonite hard-shell suitcase had been placed in the corner of the container where the explosion later occurred, at least an hour before the Frankfurt flight landed, and that this suitcase had not been moved when the Frankfurt luggage was added on top of it. 

It was also demonstrated that none of the legitimate luggage routed to the container in the terminal at Heathrow was a brown Samsonite hard-shell.

Why, then, was that suitcase not the bomb? 

There were two main reasons. One was that the mysterious brown Samsonite was on the floor of the container and forensic evidence suggested that the bomb suitcase had been on the second layer. The suitcase on the second layer came from the Frankfurt flight. 

The second was that the FAI had no idea how weak the evidence was as regards the bomb suitcase having passed through Frankfurt airport.

The Crown revealed nothing of that aspect, on the grounds of protecting the ongoing inquiry, while at the same time urging the finding that the bomb “was among the bags from Flight 103A which arrived at Heathrow from Frankfurt.” 

The sheriff went along with the Crown submission and discounted the Heathrow evidence. 

When the prosecution received the evidence against Megrahi and Fhimah in 1999 and began to prepare its case for Camp Zeist, this material was re-evaluated. It must have been clear that the suitcase seen at Heathrow was the bomb.

The conclusion that the bomb suitcase had been on the second layer of luggage was far from certain. All six legitimate suitcases placed in the container before the feeder flight landed were recovered, none of them was a brown Samsonite hard-shell, and none of them had sustained damage consistent with its being under the bomb suitcase.

In addition, the mix of blast-damaged suitcase fragments consisted only of legitimate Frankfurt and Heathrow passenger luggage, and the bomb suitcase, with no sign of any other stray unidentified item in the middle of it all, brown Samsonite or not.

If the full set of relevant evidence had been presented in court, the conclusion that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow beyond reasonable doubt would have been inevitable. 

The Crown did not present all the relevant evidence. The results of the baggage investigation were with-held, so that the court did not know whose luggage was legitimately loaded in the container at Heathrow, what it looked like, what damage it had sustained, or even how many such items there were. This allowed the possibility that the mysterious brown Samsonite seen at Heathrow had been legitimate passenger luggage. 

In addition, despite the findings of the FAI having relied absolutely on the fact that the original Heathrow-loaded items had not been moved when the Frankfurt luggage was added, this scenario was reversed. 

The man who actually loaded the Frankfurt luggage, who had denied moving the original items in three separate police statements and again in the witness box at the FAI, was not called to give evidence. 

Instead the prosecution presented a scenario suggesting that the original Heathrow items had been randomly shuffled among the Frankfurt luggage during the tarmac transfer, thus allowing the possibility that the mystery suitcase had been moved out of the radius of the explosion, and so explaining the absence of any trace of an innocent unidentified item which might have been under the bomb.

The judges at Camp Zeist accepted this scenario, and helpfully consigned the embarrassing brown Samsonite to “some more remote corner of the container”.  

JfM believes that the conduct of the Crown prosecution in this matter goes beyond mere “sharp practice” and amounts to an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Allegations 5, 6 and 7 

These relate to point D above. Many commentators have suggested that the fragment of printed circuit board (PCB) held to be part of one of the 20 unique MST-13 electronic timers supplied to Libya in 1985-86 was fabricated by the authorities and planted in the evidence to incriminate Libya in the atrocity.

JfM makes no such allegation. 

The allegations in relation to this item of evidence (known as PT/35b) are in respect of the metallurgical analysis of the coating on its circuitry, and the comparison of this analysis with that of control PCBs from the same manufacturing batch. This analysis demonstrated that the evidential fragment, though visually identical to the corresponding area of the MST-13 timer PCB, could not have been from one of the 20 such items supplied to Libya. 

Allegation 5 deals with a specific untruth told under oath by a Crown forensic witness. This witness oversaw metallurgical analyses of both PT/35b and a control PCB which clearly demonstrated the crucial discrepancy - that the coating of the circuitry on the evidential fragment was pure tin, while that of the control PCB was a tin/lead alloy. 

Not only was he aware of the discrepancy, he demonstrated his awareness of its significance by annotating the test results with speculative theories attempting to explain this as an effect of the explosion. Nevertheless when he compiled his final report on these tests he omitted all mention of the discrepancy, instead stating that the fragment materials were “similar in all respects to the area around the connection pad for the output relay of the ‘MST-13’ timer.”

He repeated this assertion in the witness box at Camp Zeist. 

Allegation 7 deals with similar knowledge on the part of the police investigation, which arose from the results of independent tests carried out for the police by academic experts. These tests revealed the same findings, and before the association with the MST-13 device was made by a CIA operative, Scottish police expended some effort to trace a manufacturer who produced PCBs with a pure tin coating, without success. 

JfM believes that it was incumbent on the investigating officers, who were already aware of the significance of this finding in relation tithe manufacturing process, to ascertain whether the company which manufactured the PCBs for the MST-13 timers had used a pure tin coating. (It was discovered by the defence team in 2008 that the company concerned did not have the manufacturing capacity to produce PCBs with a pure tin coating, and the PCBs in all the MST-13 timers supplied to Libya were made with an alloy coating.) 

Allegation 6 deals with the failure to disclose critical evidence to the defence. The metallurgical analysis referred to under allegation 5 and its associated annotations were not disclosed, with the defence being permitted to see only the final report which the forensic witness referred to in court.

In addition the police memo which described the earlier testing of the fragment and the search for a manufacturer capable of producing tin-coated PCBs was not disclosed.

Lacking this information, the defence were unable to mount an effective counter to the prosecution’s assertion that the fragment PT/35b was a part of one of the MST-13 timer devices supplied to Libya.

Allegation 8 

This relates to point C above. The many and varied problems with the identification of Mr. al-Megrahi as “resembling” the man who bought the clothes packed in the bomb suitcase have been widely discussed, and formed a substantial part of the SCCRC’s grounds for appeal as communicated in 2007.

The identification process has been heavily criticised by three separate expert witness reports in the public domain. JfM believes that aspects of the handling of the identification witness Tony Gauci by the police investigation were manifestly at variance with any principles of fairness to the accused. 

The position of the defence 

The defence handled some of these issues well, and others less so. In some cases the failure of the Crown to disclose exculpatory evidence clearly played some part in their difficulties. Other points appear not to have been challenged because they were not seen as being as damaging as they eventually turned out to be.

Beyond that, it is clear that the defence missed a number of tricks, probably as a result of being overwhelmed with an enormous amount of material which had to be assimilated and analysed in a limited period of time. 

What must be appreciated is that in the context of investigator and/or prosecutorial misconduct, the fact that this worked, and that the defence and bench alike were bamboozled into accepting false scenario, is no defence. Saying “but the defence had the opportunity to spot that, and didn’t” does not excuse or mitigate an attempt to pervert the course of justice. 

Summary 

While allegations 1 and 5 represent the most clear-cut examples of misconduct (with point 5 obviously being an allegation of perjury), we would point out that it is within allegations 2, 3 and 4 that the real destruction of the Zeist conviction lies. 

If the Lockerbie bomb was introduced into the baggage container at Heathrow airport at around 4.30 pm on the afternoon of 21st December 1988, which it undoubtedly was, this entirely confounds the Crown case.

Indeed, it provides Mr. al-Megrahi with an alibi, as he was verifiably in Tripoli at that time. Not only did he not purchase the clothes in the bomb suitcase, he was not at the airport when the bomb suitcase was introduced into the baggage system. 

The Committee ofJustice for Megrahi, December 20124
  for the MST-13 timers had used a pure tin coating. (It was discovered by the defence team in2008 that the company concerned did not have the manufacturing capacity to produce PCBswith a pure tin coating, and the PCBs in all the MST-13 timers supplied to Libya were made withan alloy coating.) Allegation 6 deals with the failure to disclose critical evidence to the defence. The metallurgicalanalysis referred to under allegation 5 and its associated annotations were not disclosed, withthe defence being permitted to see only the final report which the forensic witness referred toin court. In addition the police memo which described the earlier testing of the fragment andthe search for a manufacturer capable of producing tin-coated PCBs was not disclosed.Lacking this information, the defence were unable to mount an effective counter to the prose-cution’s assertion that the fragment PT/35b was a part of one of the MST-13 timer devicessupplied to Libya.Allegation 8 ascommunicated in 2007. The identification process has been heavily criticised by three separateexpert witness reports in the public domain JfM believes that aspects of the handling of theidentification witness Tony Gauci by the police investigation were manifestly at variance withany principles of fairness to the accused.

The position of the defence

The defence handled some of these issues well, and others less so. In some cases the failureof the Crown to disclose exculpatory evidence clearly played some part in their difficulties.Other points appear not to have been challenged because they were not seen as being asdamaging as they eventually turned out to be. Beyond that, it is clear that the defence misseda number of tricks, probably as a result of being overwhelmed with an enormous amount of material which had to be assimilated and analysed in a limited period of time.What must be appreciated is that in the context of investigator and/or prosecutorial misconduct,the fact that this

worked 

, and that the defence and bench alike were bamboozled into acceptinga false scenario, is no defence. Saying “but the defence had the opportunity to spot that, anddidn’t” does not excuse or mitigate an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Summary

While allegations 1 and 5 represent the most clear-cut examples of misconduct (with point 5obviously being an allegation of perjury), we would point out that it is within allegations 2, 3 and4 that the real destruction of the Zeist conviction lies. If the Lockerbie bomb was introduced intothe baggage container at Heathrow airport at around 4.30 pm on the afternoon of 21 Decem-

st

ber 1988, which it undoubtedly was, this entirely confounds the Crown case. Indeed, it providesMr. al-Megrahi with an alibi, as he was verifiably in Tripoli at that time. Not only did he notpurchase the clothes in the bomb suitcase, he was not at the airport when the bomb suitcasewas introduced into the baggage system.The Committee of Justice for Megrahi, December 2012

 

Friday, 19 February 2016

Thatcher banned Lockerbie inquiry

Today's release of Thatcher cabinet papers from 1988/89 contains a sinister footnote to the Lockerbie story.

Pan Am 103 was blown from the skies over the Scottish town of Lockerbie just after 7 pm on the evening of the 21st December 1988. Within hours US FBI teams arrived in Lockerbie to "assist" the Dumfries and Galloway police force.

 Phone lines between the White House, the US embassy in London, and the offices of MI6 were running hot. The US ambassador to the UK had been kept informed. The secret US Navy base at Macrihanish on the Mull of Kintyre had been alerted and at dawn a surveillance helicopter would be scrambled.

At 9.30 on the morning of the 22nd December Thatcher and
Margaret Thatcher
her cabinet met to decide what to do.  Information about the tragedy had flooded into Downing Street from 8 pm the previous evening. Thatcher and entourage would fly to Scotland later that morning to survey the devastation.


At the cabinet table was head of MI6 Sir Christopher Curwen. He reported that US intelligence had instructed that on no account was there to be any form of public inquiry. His advice was supported by British Secretary of State for Transport Paul Channon.
Paul Channon


The tragedy would prove to be the biggest attack on the British mainland since the Second World War, yet no public inquiry must be allowed. If such an inquiry were to happen, the following matters would be open to public scrutiny and questioning: 

1. On board Pan Am 103 was a six-man CIA team returning from Beirut. In the suitcase of the team leader Charles McKee were sensitive state papers. The team had been on a praiseworthy mission to attempt to negotiate the release of US hostages at that time held in the Middle East.

2. One of the Pan Am passengers was Khaled Jafaar, a drug courier for the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).
Jafaar
His job was to take consignments of heroin originating from the Bekaa Valley to the US, to assist with the capture of drug traffickers in Mexico and the USA. UK security authorities cooperated with the drug shipments, known as "controlled deliveries" and sometimes "high risk flights". Passengers and public were unaware of the process.


3. Transport Minister Paul Channon was aware of a telephoned warning - made just days before the bombing - about possible bombs on US aircraft flying to the US. Known as the "Helsinki" warning it was, in the view of Heathrow security chiefs, a hoax. And yet the Department of Transport telexed the warning to Interpol and all airlines. Why would they do that, if the warning was a hoax?

4. Channon was aware also of a second warning from the German authorities in the form of a multi page coloured brochure. This included a photo of a mock-up of a bomb discovered in late
"Consign it to the hold of the plane"
October made by a terrorist group funded by Iran and Syria. The group were known to have been monitoring US flights from Frankfurt airport, focussing on Pan Am. It was certain that five bombs had been made by the group. Four were retrieved. A fifth bomb was never found.


5. In both warnings the Department of Transport had instructed airline check-in and security staff that if a tape recorder or radio in a passenger's luggage seemed suspicious, it should be "consigned to the hold of the plane". That is, exactly where the terrorist would want it to be.

6. Paul Channon was aware that Heathrow security was known to be in chaos. On the day of the Lockerbie attack 70,000 airside passes were in circulation at Heathrow, distributed to many nationalities and construction workers. Shortly after his retirement the former head of Heathrow security admitted to journalists in March 2012 that any country could have planted a bomb. There was no screening of staff, no restrictions on people walking through with bags. A rogue bag could be easily inserted into the baggage chain. 

But...  

Important as they were, none of the above were recorded in Cabinet minutes or released under the thirty year rule. 
 
Instead, all that is recorded and available to the public is that Thatcher and her ministers agreed that it was "not clear whether any further public inquiry would serve a useful purpose". An independent investigation would "serve no useful purpose". In general "it was important to avoid a plethora of inquiries that caused distress to individuals while unearthing no new facts."

On the contrary, Jim Swire and many bereaved relatives will be happy to undergo further distress caused by an independent inquiry. But will the Americans ever allow it?

Margaret Thatcher sleeps soundly in her grave knowing that her 1993 memoirs "The Downing Street Years" have consigned 270 murdered Lockerbie souls to the dustbin of history.  In 914 pages of closely remembered events and text she does not mention the word "Lockerbie".

The renowned journalist John Pilger has an appropriate saying for Thatcher's chicanery. When an event is inconvenient a government - aided by its intelligence services - will ensure that it "never happened".

Friday, 5 February 2016

Assange - US discussed murder of dying al-Megrahi

Julian Assange and Wikileaks have been pilloried by many as traitorous to Western interests. Yet those who believe in the sanctity of national and international law have cause to be grateful to Assange and those who support and assist him.

Assange
In December 2011 Jim Swire secretly travelled to Tripoli for his final meeting with Baset Al-Megrahi, a man shortly to die of cancer.



Unknown to Jim, American intelligence and some within the American administration had three months previously been discussing the illegal rendition and assassination of Baset Al-Megrahi. 

STRATFOR is a Texas headquartered global intelligence supplier to the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The company's Vice President is Fred Burton.
Burton



On August 19th 2011, in a classified email, Brian Genchur, an employee of Stratfor wrote: "I would like to kill the terrorist [Al-Megrahi] myself. I'm hunting for him on my own thru a few channels. If he can be found, I'll have him whacked." 

We can be sure that if Genchur and friends had carried out an assassination they would have killed any witnesses including members of the Megrahi family who were continually at Baset’s bedside.

 Five days later on August 24th CEO Fred Burton added a further classified email: “While the world is focusing on the chaos in Libya counterterrorism agents could take advantage of this window of opportunity to capture [Al-Megrahi]. The symbolism of grabbing [him] and bringing him back to stand trial in a U.S. court would resonate around the world.” 

The Genchur and Burton emails were revealed solely through the brave actions of Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Those who believe in the freedoms of an informed democracy should have cause to be grateful.

Wednesday, 27 January 2016

Libya now 'Like a Mad Max movie'


Justin Raimondo reports on Antiwar.com as follows. 

BEGINS:
The New York Times reports that the “government” of Libya is hiding in a hotel room in Tunis:

“Officials said there was agreement that the United States and its allies needed to find ways of shoring up Libya’s new government of national accord – established just this week with help from the United Nations but stuck, as of now, in a hotel in Tunis. France, General Dunford said, will work closely with the United States Africa Command on a plan.”

Plan? What plan? Why,the plan to “liberate” Libya for the second time in four years, which is even now in the works:

“Worried about a growing threat from the Islamic State in Libya, the United States and its allies are increasing reconnaissance flights and intelligence collecting there and preparing for possible airstrikes and commando raids, senior American policy makers, commanders and intelligence officials said this week.”
General Dunford
 Having destroyed the country in their 2011 intervention – when the US and its allies bombed the place to smithereens, funded Islamist militias, and had Ghadafi hideously murdered – the regime-changers are returning to the scene of their crime on the theory that repeating the same failed “solution” endlessly will somehow solve the problem they created in the first place.

So what exactly is going on in Libya since we took out Ghadafi? Think Iraq, Syria, Somalia – or, perhaps, a Mad Max movie. The “government” in the East is lorded over by General Khalifa Hifter, a CIA creation, who defected to the West after botching Libya’s invasion of Chad and was domiciled in Falls Church, Virginia, for years – conveniently close to CIA headquarters in Langley – waiting for his Big Comeback. It came when Hillary Clinton’s State Department and Samantha Power teamed up with National Security honcho Susan Rice and the three of them prevailed on President Obama to approve US intervention in Libya. Hifter returned to his homeland, had his chief rival, Abdul Fattah Younis, killed, and – backed by Egypt, the Saudis, and the United Arab Emirates – seized power in the eastern province, what used to be the independent state of Cyrenaica.

The western Tripoli-centered “government,” supported by Turkey and Qatar, consists of a collection of Islamist militias and ostensible “liberals” known as "Libya Dawn.” Their biggest point of unity is opposition to Gen. Hifter, whose brutality under the Ghadafi regime has not been forgotten. They also insist on the imposition of Sharia law, which is  why they’ve attracted support from groups like Ansar al-Sharia, responsible for the death of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Is it a coincidence that the so-called Islamic State has prospered in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and now Afghanistan? What do all these nations have in common? Yes, that’s right: these are all countries that fell victim to the regime-changers. And then, as night follows day, the dreaded Terrorist Threat arose like the desert sun.
ENDS 

And today, 29th January 2016, it is confirmed that the United Kingdom intends to join in a renewal of the madness. http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/einsteinian-insanity-momentum-grows-to-bomb-libya-again

The full article by Justin Raimondo can be viewed here. 

The New York Times article can be viewed here.

Thursday, 14 January 2016

What Hillary Clinton knew about Libya

The brutal destruction of the Libyan nation and slaying like an animal of its leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 was, in the view of many historians, quite predictable.

Former Supreme Commander of NATO, Four-star General Wesley Clark exposed one phase of the anti-Libyan mind-set when he related that within two weeks after the 9/11 attack on New York's Twin Towers, the White House had a plan to "bring down seven governments in five years". One of those nations was Libya.
Clinton: We came, We saw, He died... Laughter.


Here is an extract from a seriously informed account by a US commentator. We recommend that you watch the US mind-set in action during an interview which Hillary Clinton gave to CBS News. (The "new emails" referred to are by Hillary Clinton's unofficial intelligence adviser Sidney Blumenthal).

"As Brad Hoff of the Levant Report wrote, “historians of the 2011 NATO war in Libya will be sure to notice a few of the truly explosive confirmations contained in the new emails: admissions of rebel war crimes, special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, Al Qaeda embedded in the U.S. backed opposition, Western nations jockeying for access to Libyan oil, the nefarious origins of the absurd Viagra mass rape claim, and concern over Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves threatening European currency.”

Reality’s Hard Sell
But it probably would have been a hard sell to the American people if the U.S. government explained the dark side of the “R2P” mission – that it involved systematic executions of blacks and rapacious Western officials grasping for oil and gold – as well as creating a vacuum for jihadists. Instead, it worked much better to promote wild rumors about Gaddafi’s perfidy.

It is in this way that U.S. citizens, the “We the People” who were supposed to be the nation’s sovereigns, are treated more like cattle herded to the slaughterhouse.
Some of us did try to warn the public about these risks. For instance, on March 25, 2011, days before Blumenthal’s emails, I described the hazard from the neocon “regime change” strategies in Libya and Syria, writing:
“In rallying U.S. support for these rebellions, the neocons risked repeating the mistake they made by pushing the U.S. invasion of Iraq. They succeeded in ousting Saddam Hussein, who had long been near the top of Israel’s enemies list, but the war also removed him as a bulwark against both Islamic extremists and Iranian influence in the Persian Gulf. …
“By embracing these uprisings, the neocons invited unintended consequences, including further Islamic radicalization of the region and deepening anti-Americanism. Indeed, a rebel victory over Gaddafi risked putting extremists from an al-Qaeda affiliate in a powerful position inside Libya.
“The major U.S. news media aided the neocon cause by focusing on Gaddafi’s historic ties to terrorism, including the dubious charge that he was behind the Pan Am 103 bombing in 1988. There was little attention paid to his more recent role in combating the surge in al-Qaeda activity, especially in eastern Libya, the base of the revolt against him.” 

Though the 2011 concerns about Al Qaeda have since morphed into worries about its spinoff, the Islamic State, the larger point remains valid regarding Libya, which descended into the status of failed state after Gaddafi’s ouster and his brutal torture-murder on Oct. 20, 2011. Secretary Clinton greeted the news of Gaddafi’s demise with glee, exulting: “we came, we saw, he died” and then laughed. 
ENDS

For the full article containing a great deal more about US actions and intentions now and into the future, please see:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/12/what-hillary-knew-about-libya/