“The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.” (Samuel Adams, 1722-1803, letter 1775.)
This will surely have you falling down with surprise. According to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained by the (UK) Sunday Telegraph, the August 2009 release from Scotland’s Barlinnie jail of Libyan Abdelbaset al- Megrahi, accused of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, hinged on an oil and arms deal, allegedly brokered by roving war monger (sorry, roving “Peace Ambassador”) Tony Blair.
At this point it should be said that anyone who has read John Ashton and Ian Ferguson’s meticulous “Cover up of Convenience”(i) on the Lockerbie tragedy could only regard Mr al-Meghrahi’s conviction as between very unsafe and very questionable.
The British Labour Party, which Blair headed for ten years, until 27th June 2007, have always insisted that the release had no connection with commercial deals. After leaving Downing Street, Blair visited Libya some six times.
On 8th June 2008, the then British Ambassador to Libya, Sir Vincent Fean, sent Tony Blair’s private office a thirteen hundred word briefing on the UK’s eagerness to do business with Libya, according to the Telegraph. (ii) Blair flew to Tripoli to meet Colonel Quaddafi, just two days later, June 10th. Qaddafi paid: Blair, always lavish with other’s money had requested, and was granted, the Colonel’s private jet for the journey.
Sir Vincent’s “key objective” was for: “Libya to invest its £80 billion sovereign wealth through the City of London”,according to the Telegraph, which also cites the Ambassador writing of the UK being : “privately critical of then President George Bush for ‘shooting the US in the foot’by continuing to put a block on Libyan assets in America, in the process scuppering business deals.” Britain however, was voraciously scrambling to fill the fiscal gap.
Unlike the US and UK who abandon or drone to death their own citizens who are in trouble, or even accused of it, Libya’s Administration had stood by their man and seemed to be prepared to do even unpalatable deals to free him and had long been pressuring the UK to release al-Megrahi.
In May 2007, a month before he left Downing Street, Blair had made his second visit to Libya, meeting Colonel Qaddafi and his Prime Minister Al Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmoudi in then beautiful and now near ruined city of Sirte.
Surely coincidentally, on this trip, a deal was seemingly thrashed out, including prisoner transfer, just before British Petrolium (BP) announced their approximate £454 million investment to prospect for £13billion worth of oil in Libya.
Also, states the Telegraph report: “At that meeting, according to Sir Vincent’s email, Mr Blair and Mr Al Baghdadi agreed that Libya would buy a missile defence system from MBDA – a weapons manufacturer part-owned by Britains’s BAE Systems.”This seemed to (also) hinge on a Memorandum of Understanding for a Prisoner Transfer Agreement:“which the Libyans believed would pave the way for al-Megrahi’s release.” Various sources state that the arms deal was worth £400 million, and up to two thousand jobs in the UK. Sir Vincent referred to the arms deal as a “legacy issue.” Blair’s “legacy”, as ever, synonymous with destruction.
Ironically, it was Blair who credited himself with persuading Colonel Qaddafi to abandon and destroy his weapons programmes after his visit to the country in March 2004 (placing that Judas kiss the Colonel’s cheek)as a step to Libya returning to the fold of the duplicitous “international community.”With friends like Blair, enemies are a redundancy.
When Blair returned to Libya in June 2008, the Telegraph contends that the British Government, then under Gordon Brown, Blair’s former Chancellor of the Exchequer (who left the national coffers near empty) used the opportunity: “ to press the case for the arms deal to be sealed. At the time, Britain was on the brink of an economic and banking crisis- and Libya, though the Libyan Investment Authority – had billions of pounds in reserves.”
Saif al-Islam, Qaddafi’s son, expressed the concern over the arms deal being voiced from within the Libyan military, given their close ties to the “Russian defence equipment camp.”
An earlier discovery by the Sunday Telegraph shows, in letters and emails, that Blair held hitherto undisclosed talks with the Colonel in April 2009, four months before al-Megrahi’s release. (iii)
Again he was flown at the expense of the Colonel, in his private jet: “In both 2008 and 2009,documents show Mr Blair negotiated to fly to the Libyan capitol … in a jet provided by Qaddafi.” Blair’s Office denies the claims, saying they were transported in a Libyan government ‘plane.
By the time of the 2009 visit: “Libya was threatening to cut all business links if al-Megrahi stayed in a British jail.” Blair seemingly attempted to pour oil on troubled waters by bringing American billionaire, Tim Collins to that meeting to advise Qaddafi on building the beach resorts he was planning, on the Libyan coast.
Further adding to the murk, a spokesperson for Collins stated:”Tim was asked to go by Tony Blair in his position as a trustee of Mr Blair’s US faith foundation. Tim had no intention of doing any business with Qaddafi.”
However: “Sources in Libya said Qaddafi had discussed with Mr Collins opening beach resorts along the Libyan coast, but that Mr Collins had dismissed the idea because the Libyans would not sanction the sale of alcohol or gambling at the resorts.
Blair’s spokesperson said of the visit: ” … Tony Blair has never had any role, either formal or informal, paid or unpaid, with the Libyan Investment Authority or the Government of Libya and he has no commercial relationship with any Libyan company or entity.” A Blair first,seemingly, given the impression that he never touches down anywhere without emerging with a lucrative contract or a large cheque,
However, Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Libya, is quoted as saying : “Mr Blair is clearly using his Downing Street contacts to further his business interests.”
In a further coincidence, the Prisoner Transfer agreement for Mr al-Megrahi was signed the day before Blair’s 2009 visit.
When al-Megrahi, who had been diagnosed with terminal cancer, was released in August 2009, the British media and politicians were outraged. Scotland had done a deal and was benefiting financially from Libya. The latest revelations prove Scotland did no financial deals. When Mr al-Megrahi failed to die, politicians and media were even more outraged. They were a shaming spectacle.
Mental mind set can be a huge force in prolonging life in even the most serious cancer patients. No doubt in al-Megrahi’s case, being back in a home and with a family he loved contributed to his extra time. He survived long enough to see his country destroyed by the devious forces the West embodies – and at which Blair excels. Megrahi died in September 2012.
Incidentally, Ambassador Feanreportedly “expressed relief” at al-Megrahi’s release: “He noted that a refusal of Megrahi’s request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. ‘They could have cut us off at the knees.”(iv)
Qaddafi, however, never signed the arms deal.
Footnote: The 2004 visit by Blair was arranged by Saif al Islam, who Blair seemingly knew well and had allegedly even offered suggestions on his PhD thesis when Saif was studying at the London School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS.)
In September last year Saif al-Islam’s lady friend of six years, appealed, passionately, to Blair to intervene to save the life of his now captured, maimed and death penalty-facing friend: “The two are old friends – it is time that Mr Blair returned some loyalty. Mr Blair is a man of God – as a Christian he has a moral duty to help a friend in need”, she has commented. (v)
Seemingly there has been no response from Blair’s office. Further, an extensive search for a comment on the appalling death of Colonel Qaddafi – his former host and private ‘plane provider – and the demise of much of his family from this “Peace Envoy” and “man of God”, has come up with absolutely nothing.
To mangle a quote: Beware of British offering deals.
Exclusive: Even in death, Libyan Ali al-Megrahi is dubbed “the Lockerbie bomber,” a depiction that proved useful last year in rallying public support for “regime change” in Libya.But the New York Timesnow concedes, belatedly, that the case against him was riddled with errors and false testimony, as Robert Parry reports.
By Robert Parry
From the Now-They-Tell-Us Department comes the New York Times obit of Libyan agent Ali al-Megrahi, who was convicted by a special Scottish court for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. After Megrahi’s death from cancer was announced on Sunday, the Times finally acknowledged that his guilt was in serious doubt. (****NOW YOU TELL US AFTER THE LIBYAN PEOPLE SUFFERED NEARLY 13 YEARS OF EMBARGO PLUS MR. MEGRAHI WAS PUT IN JAIL SUFFERED CANCER AND DIED AND ALL OF THAT ONLY LATER TO DICIDE THAT HIS GUILT WAS IN SERIOUS DOUBT SHAME ON YOU! YOUR MEDIA! YOU PATHETIC LUNATICS! EVIL ASSHOLES THE ONLY THING YOU COULD NOT STAND WAS QADDAFI BECAUSE HE WAS RIGHT BY HIS PEOPLE AND YOU WANTED TO DESTROY HIM!!!)
Last year, when the Times and other major U.S. news outlets were manufacturing public consent for a new war against another Middle East “bad guy,” i.e. Muammar Gaddafi, Megrahi’s guilt was treated as flat fact. Indeed, citation of the Lockerbie bombing became the debate closer, effectively silencing anyone who raised questions about U.S. involvement in another war for “regime change.”
After all, who would “defend” the monsters involved in blowing Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing 270 people, including 189 Americans? Again and again, the U.S.-backed military intervention to oust Gaddafi in 2011 was justified by Gaddafi’s presumed authorship of the Lockerbie terrorist attack. (****YES WHO WOULD “DEFEND”THE MONSTERS involved in blowing Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing 270 people wich 189 where Americans yes but they DIDN’T TELL YOU THAT THE USA + UK TOGETHER BLEW UP THIS PLANE AS THERE WHERE PEOPLE ON THAT PLANE THAT THEY DIDNT WANT THEN ALIVE…. BUT WHO BETTER TO BLAME BUT THE NAUGHTY BOY QADDAFI LETS PUT HIM ASIDE LET’S MAKE HIM PAY BECAUSE HE DOES NOT OBEY US!!! SO WE WILL MAKE AN EMBARGO FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS LET HIS PEOPLE SUFFER THEY WILL HATE HIM IN THE END!! LET’S PUT THE MAN IN JAIL WHAT WE CARE HE IS A SCAPE GOAT! THEY WILL NEVER FIND OUT THE TRUTH! BUT THE TRUTH IS COMMING OUT BETTER LATE THAN NEVER!!!)
Only a few non-mainstream news outlets, like Consortiumnews.com, bothered to actually review the dubious evidence against Megrahi and raise questions about the judgment of the Scottish court that convicted Megrahi in 2001.
By contrast to those few skeptical articles, the New York Times stoked last year’s war fever by suppressing or ignoring those doubts. For instance, one March 2011 article out of Washington began by stating: “There once was no American institution more hostile to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s’s pariah government than the Central Intelligence Agency, which had lost its deputy Beirut station chief when Libyan intelligence operatives blew up Pan Am Flight 103 above Scotland in 1988.”
Note the lack of doubt or even attribution. A similar certainty prevailed in virtually all other mainstream news reports and commentaries, ranging from the right-wing media to the liberal MSNBC, whose foreign policy correspondent Andrea Mitchell would seal the deal by recalling that Libya had accepted “responsibility” for the bombing.
Gaddafi’s eventual defeat, capture and grisly murder brought no fresh doubts about the certainty of the guilt of Megrahi, who was simply called the “Lockerbie bomber.” Few eyebrows were raised even when British authorities released Libya’s former intelligence chief Moussa Koussa after asking him some Lockerbie questions.
Scotland Yard also apparently failed to notice the dog not barking when the new pro-Western Libyan government took power and released no confirmation that Gaddafi’s government indeed had sponsored the 1988 attack. After Gaddafi’s overthrow and death, the Lockerbie issue just disappeared from the news.
A Surprising Obit
So, readers of the New York Times’ obituary page might have been surprised Monday if they read deep into Megrahi’s obit and discovered this summary of the case:
“The enigmatic Mr. Megrahi had been the central figure of the case for decades, reviled as a terrorist but defended by many Libyans, and even some world leaders, as a victim of injustice whose trial, 12 years after the bombing, had been riddled with political overtones, memory gaps and flawed evidence.”
If you read even further, you would find this more detailed examination of the evidence:
“Investigators, while they had no direct proof, believed that the suitcase with the bomb had been fitted with routing tags for baggage handlers, put on a plane at Malta and flown to Frankfurt, where it was loaded onto a Boeing 727 feeder flight that connected to Flight 103 at London, then transferred to the doomed jetliner.
“After a three-year investigation, Mr. Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the Libyan airline station manager in Malta, were indicted on mass murder charges in 1991. Libya refused to extradite them, and the United Nations imposed eight years of sanctions that cost Libya $30 billion. …
“Negotiations led by former President Nelson Mandela of South Africa produced a compromise in 1999: the suspects’ surrender, and a trial by Scottish judges in the Netherlands.
“The trial lasted 85 days. None of the witnesses connected the suspects directly to the bomb. But one, Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who sold the clothing that forensic experts had linked to the bomb, identified Mr. Megrahi as the buyer, although Mr. Gauci seemed doubtful and had picked others in photo displays.
“The bomb’s timer was traced to a Zurich manufacturer, Mebo, whose owner, Edwin Bollier, testified that such devices had been sold to Libya. A fragment from the crash site was identified by a Mebo employee, Ulrich Lumpert.
“Neither defendant testified. But a turncoat Libyan agent testified that plastic explosives had been stored in Mr. Fhimah’s desk in Malta, that Mr. Megrahi had brought a brown suitcase, and that both men were at the Malta airport on the day the bomb was sent on its way.
“On Jan. 31, 2001, the three-judge court found Mr. Megrahi guilty but acquitted Mr. Fhimah. The court called the case circumstantial, the evidence incomplete and some witnesses unreliable, but concluded that ‘there is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt’ of Mr. Megrahi.
“Much of the evidence was later challenged.It emerged that Mr. Gauci had repeatedly failed to identify Mr. Megrahi before the trial and had selected him only after seeing his photograph in a magazine and being shown the same photo in court.The date of the clothing sale was also in doubt.
“Investigators said Mr. Bollier, whom even the court called ‘untruthful and unreliable,’ had changed his story repeatedly after taking money from Libya, and might have gone to Tripoli just before the attack to fit a timer and bomb into the cassette recorder. The implication that he was a conspirator was never pursued.
“In 2007, Mr. Lumpert admitted that he had lied at the trial, stolen a timer and given it to a Lockerbie investigator.Moreover, the fragment he identified was never tested for residue of explosives, although it was the only evidence of possible Libyan involvement.
“The court’s inference that the bomb had been transferred from the Frankfurt feeder flight was also cast into doubt when a Heathrow security guard revealed that Pan Am’s baggage area had been broken into 17 hours before the bombing, a circumstance never explored.
“Hans Köchler, a United Nations observer, called the trial ‘a spectacular miscarriage of justice,’ words echoed by Mr. Mandela. Many legal experts and investigative journalists challenged the evidence, calling Mr. Megrahi a scapegoat for a Libyan government long identified with terrorism.While denying involvement, Libya paid $2.7 billion to the victims’ families in 2003 in a bid to end years of diplomatic isolation.”
In other words, the case against Megrahi looks to have been an example of gross prosecutorial misconduct, relying on testimony from perjurers and failing to pursue promising leads (like the possibility that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, not transferred from plane to plane to plane, an unlikely route for a terrorist attack and made even more dubious by the absence of any evidence of an unaccompanied bag being put on those flights).
Also, objective journalists should have noted that Libya’s much-touted acceptance of “responsibility” was simply an effort to get punishing sanctions lifted and that Libya always continued to assert its innocence.
All of the above facts were known in 2011 when the Times and the rest of the mainstream U.S. press corps presented a dramatically different version to the American people. Last year, all these questions and doubts were suppressed in the name of rallying support for “regime change” in Libya.
On March 18, 2011, I wrote: “As Americans turn to their news media to make sense of the upheavals in the Middle East, it’s worth remembering that the bias of the mainstream U.S. press corps is most powerful when covering a Washington-designated villain, especially if he happens to be Muslim.
“In that case, all uncertainty about some aspect of his villainy is discarded. Evidence in serious dispute is stated as flat fact. Readers are expected to share this unquestioned belief about the story’s frame – and that usually helps manufacture consent behind some desired government action or policy.
“At such moments, it’s also hard to contest the conventional wisdom. To do so will guarantee that you’ll be treated as some kook or pariah. It won’t even matter if you’re vindicated in the long run. You’ll still be remembered as some weirdo who was out of step.
“And those who push the misguided consensus will mostly go on to bigger and better things, as people who have proved their worth even if they got it all wrong. Such is the way the national U.S. political/media system now works – or some might say doesn’t work.
“Perhaps the most costly recent example of this pattern was the Official Certainty about Iraq’s WMD in 2002-03. With only a few exceptions, the major U.S. news media, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, bought into the Bush administration’s WMD propaganda, partly because Saddam Hussein was so unsavory that no one wanted to be dubbed a ‘Saddam apologist.’
“When Iraq’s WMD turned out to be a mirage, there was almost no accountability at senior levels of the U.S. news media. Washington Post’s editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, who repeatedly reported Iraq’s WMD as ‘flat fact,’ is still in the same job eight years later; Bill Keller, who penned an influential article called ’The I-Can’t-Believe-I’m-a-Hawk Club,’ got promoted to New York Times executive editor after the Iraq-WMD claims exploded leaving egg on the faces of him and his fellow club members.
“So, now as Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi reprises his old role as ‘mad dog of the Middle East,’ Americans are being prepped for another Middle East conflict by endlessly reading as flat fact that Libyan intelligence agents blew up Pan Am Flight 103 back in 1988.
“These articles never mention that there is strong doubt the Libyans had anything to do with the attack and that the 2001 conviction of Libyan agent Ali al-Megrahi was falling apart in 2009 before he was released on humanitarian grounds, suffering from prostate cancer.
“Though it’s true that a Scottish court did convict Megrahi – while acquitting a second Libyan – the judgment appears to have been more a political compromise than an act of justice. One of the judges told Dartmouth government professor Dirk Vandewalle about ‘enormous pressure put on the court to get a conviction.’
“After the testimony of a key witness was discredited,the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission agreed in 2007 to reconsider Megrahi’s conviction out of a strong concern that it was a miscarriage of justice. However, again due to intense political pressure, that review was proceeding slowly in 2009 when Scottish authorities agreed to release Megrahi on medical grounds.
“Megrahi dropped his appeal in order to gain an early release in the face of a terminal cancer diagnosis, but that doesn’t mean he was guilty.He has continued to assert his innocence and an objective press corps would reflect the doubts regarding his conviction.”
But today, the United States has anything but an objective press corps. That should be obvious when you contrast the U.S. media’s certitude about Megrahi’s guilt last year – when outrage over the Lockerbie bombing was crucial in lining up public acquiescence to another Middle East war – against the nuanced doubts noted in Megrahi’s New York Times obit on Monday.
Abdel Basset al-Megrahi has died, May 20, 2012, at the age of 60 years died of cancer. He was the only person convicted in the case of the Lockerbie bombing, against PanAm flight 103, which killed 270 people , December 21, 1988.
Advantage of the fact that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has been destroyed by NATO, Agence France Presse writes: “ In 2003, the Gaddafi regime has officially recognized its responsibility for the attack and then paid $ 2.7 billion in compensation to the families of the victims. ”[ 1 ]. The agency also ironic that the deceased had survived three years of their release, while medical experts argued that he still had three months to live.
In fact, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has always denied the charge against él.Considerándose blackmailed by the great powers, however, agreed to pay compensation in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. By paying the costs of the various conflicts that pitted the United States to their country, Muammar Gaddafi hopes to stop the war preparations of NATO. History has shown that it was a miscalculation and that NATO does not lack imagination to invent new pretexts to justify the wars they have planned.
In a famous documentary, The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie , the U.S. journalist, Allan Francovich and others showed that the attack was perpetrated by a U.S. agent. Meanwhile, the Scottish authorities have admitted that the conviction of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi was based on false testimony [ 2 ] and have agreed to review the case. It is in this context that the defendant had been pardoned medical (contrary to the insinuations of the AFP, the issue of life expectancy could not be considered). Unfortunately, his death ends the procedure and deprived of the opportunity to be rehabilitated.
“ Vae Victis! ”(Woe to the vanquished!)
[ 1 ] “The Libyan Megrahi, convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, is dead” by Imed Lamloum, AFP, May 20, 2012.
The Sunday Herald and its sister paper, The Herald, are the only newspapers in the world to have seen the report. We choose to publish it because we have the permission of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing, and because we believe it is in the public interest to disseminate the whole document.
The Sunday Herald has chosen to publish the full report online today to allow the public to see for themselves the analysis of the evidence which could have resulted in the acquittal of Megrahi. Under Section 32 of the Data Protection Act, journalists can publish in the public interest. We have made very few redactions to protect the names of confidential sources and private information.
The publication of the report adds weight to calls for a full public inquiry into the atrocity – something for which many of the relatives have been campaigning for more than two decades.
Megrahi has also sent a copy of the full report to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who released him on compassionate grounds in August 2009.
Jonathan Mitchell QC told the Sunday Herald: “From a data-protection point of view, it is questionable whether this report is the ‘personal data’ of anyone other than Megrahi.”
The Data Protection Act was described as “one of the most poorly drafted pieces of legislation on the statute book” by Tom Hickman, a barrister at Blackstone Chambers, on a UK Constitutional Law Group website.
Mitchell believes the Sunday Herald is not constrained from publishing the report. He said: ‘‘Section 32 of the Data Protection Act has the effect – putting it shortly – that processing (which includes publication) of personal data, even sensitive personal data, is exempt from the relevant data-protection principles if it is for the purpose of journalism and the newspaper reasonably believes that, having regard in particular to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, ‘publication would be in the public interest’, and also reasonably believes that compliance with data-protection principles such as non-disclosure would be incompatible with the journalistic function.”
The Herald revealed earlier this month that, according to the report, the Crown failed to disclose seven key items of evidence that led to the Lockerbie casebeing referred back for a fresh appeal.
The SCCRC rejected many of the defence submissions but upheld six grounds which could have constituted a miscarriage of justice.
The commission made clear that, had such information been shared with the defence, the result of the trial could have been different.
Its full report details why the conviction of Megrahi was referred for a second appeal.
Megrahi has said in his official biography by John Ashton, Megrahi: You Are My Jury, that he believed dropping the second appeal would improve his chances of returning to Tripoli before succumbing to terminal prostate cancer.
The Scottish Government has said it wants to release the document in the interests of transparency but cannot do so because it is covered by data-protection law, reserved to Westminster.
First Minister Alex Salmond said: “It is important that everyone is able to read the SCCRC report in its entirely, rather than the selective and partial accounts of its contents which have made their way into the poubic domain through various media reports.”
When the SCCRC referred the case back for a fresh appeal in June 2007, they were only able to publish a summary of their findings. If they had published the full report, it would have constituted a criminal offence under the legislation which established the commission.
But on Friday the Crown Office in Scotland wrote to the SCCRC making it clear it would not prosecute the organisation or any of its members if it published the report.
The Crown office lifted legal restrictions just hours after the Sunday Herald had informed its press office we planned to publish the report ourselves.
In a press release issued on Friday the Crown Office criticised ‘‘selective and misleading reporting’’ of the SCCRC report in the media. ‘Notes to Editors’ attached to the press release said that any decision of the SCCRC to refer a conviction to the Appeal Court did not necessarily mean there had been a miscarriage of justice. Only the Appeal Court could declare there had been a miscarriage of justice and quash a conviction.
It added that the SCCRC was asked to look at more than 40 possible grounds for a referral to the Appeal Court in the Megrahi case. It had rejected the vast majority of these and referred the case to the Appeal Court on six grounds. And it stated the Crown ‘‘had every confidence in successfully defending the conviction in the Appeal Court for a second time.’’ A Crown ofice source was quoted in newspapers yesterday describing Megrahi’s grounds for appeal as having ‘‘more holes than a Swiss cheese’’.
The SCCRC has not so far published the report and is not expected to discuss the Crown Office advice until later this week. It declined to comment at this stage on the Sunday Herald’s decision to publish the report.
In an effort to get the report published, the Scottish Government has passed a statutory instrument – to slightly amend that legislation – which means it will no longer be a criminal act for the SCCRC to publish such reports. This was expected to come into force in May. The commission has written to the individuals mentioned in the report asking for their consent for publication. Consent was not given.
Megrahi said he would be happy to consent providing all other parties consented, but they did not. MacAskill has unsuccessfully written to UK Justice Secretary Ken Clarke several times to ask for an exemption under the Data Protection Act.
Megrahi was convicted of murder by Scottish judges sitting at Camp Zeist in 2001. He unsuccessfully appealed in January 2001. He dropped a second appeal shortly before the decision to release him on compassionate grounds in August 2009. He was expected to die from cancer within three months.
Showed a new book that the evidence and information that might have been exculpatory Abdel Basset al-Megrahi convicted only of the bombing of a U.S. airliner over the Scottish town of Lockerbie 1988, did not give the defense team,as stated in the newspaper The Independent on Sunday.
She said the British newspaper The background information on the parts of the circuit board used in the bombing which claimed the victim, 270 and police arrived in the period preceding the trial of Megrahi in 2000, but has not been disclosed.
Came of this information in a book written by journalist John Ashton, who says that the important parts of the plate circuit found at the crash site and recognized by the prosecution as part of a timer bomb, can not be among the devices that were sold to Libya by manufacturers.
The paper points out that those parts are considered a vital link in the argument to claim that the bomb was placed on the plane by al-Megrahi.
He said experts have followed the case closely, if that information is correct, it will be blown up the Lockerbie case.
The prosecution had agreed that the parts came from a timing device company Meebo Swiss admitted that she sold two tenths of a device of this type to the Libyans, but new evidence suggests that the parts that were found in the Lockerbie is not one of them.
Ashton says in his book The Time parts that were found were covered with tin,while those that were sold to Libya were covered with tin and alloys Alrsa.