Three Years Ago — CIA Asset Dr Richard Fuisz : TEREX & Lockerbie

Lawyer: “You were being told by members of the Syrian government that [Ahmed] Jibril, and or members of the PFLP-GC were taking credit for the [Lockerbie] bombing?”

Dr Richard Fuisz: “Yes.”

US court deposition by Dr Richard Fuisz (Early 2001)

“The truth [about Lockerbie] no doubt will never be told.”

Dr Richard Fuisz — Email to INTEL TODAY (July 27 2018)

Dr Richard Fuisz

Dr Richard Fuisz

September 1 2016 — In the fall of 1994, Dr Fuisz told a US Congressional staffer that the perpetrators of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie were based in Syria. Fuisz was adamant that Libya had played no role whatsoever in the tragedy. Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY

RELATED POST: Lockerbie and the SCCRC — A primer from Law Professor Robert Black

RELATED POST: Remembering Lockerbie — Pan Am 103 Quotes

RELATED POST: Ambassador Andrew Ivy Killgore (1919-2016): Lockerbie Trial Was a Cover-Up

RELATED POST: France — Former DST Director Yves Bonnet: “Libya NOT responsible for Lockerbie!”

RELATED POST: Suspicious Aviation Tragedies: Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie – December 21 1988)

RELATED POST: When the Washington Post rewrites History

UPDATE — On Tuesday July 4 2017, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission [SCCRC] confirmed that it has received a new application to review the conviction in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi.

In 2007, the SCCRC announced that there were six grounds upon which it had concluded that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred.

RELATED POST: Lockerbie — Megrahi Conviction to be Reviewed by the SCCRC

On May 3 2018, The  Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission announced it would examine the case to decide whether it would be appropriate to refer the matter for a fresh appeal.

Christine Grahame — a Member of the Scottish Parliament since its inception in 1999 — has been outspoken in her view that the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the 1988 Lockerbie tragedy is unsafe and represents a miscarriage of justice.

According to Grahame, the commission was expected to report by summer 2019.

RELATED POST: Lockerbie — Christine Grahame MSP : “Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied”

However, on July 21 2019, the SCCRC announced that a decision is not expected before 2020.

RELATED POST: Lockerbie — Appeal Decision Delayed Until 2020

Obviously, this new delay will cause frustration in some circles.

In an email to Intel Today, a long-time reseacher of the Lockerbie case wrote:

“It should come as no surprise that the SCCRC report is to be delayed: just about every other action by the Scottish, UK and US authorities has been delayed, sometimes by years.

It is a tactic to frustrate hope and retain control of events in the hands of those people who fabricated the Lockerbie false narrative.”

But some people remain optimistic. Megrahi family’s Scottish lawyer Aamer Anwar said:

“We presented significant material which requires robust investigation and a number of inquiries have unfolded after issues we raised.

The family want to insure every avenue is looked at and that no short cuts are taken. We have one chance and we expect this to go back to the appeal court.”

In an email to Intel Today, Robert Black QC FRSE – Professor Emeritus of Scots Law in the University of Edinburgh and best known as the “Architect of the Lockerbie Trial” wrote:

“While it is disappointing that the SCCRC will not be reporting by the end of the summer, the fact that their investigations are taking longer than anticipated is, in some ways, a hopeful sign.

My worry always has been that the Commission might find that, although there might have been a miscarriage of justice, it was not in the interests of justice that there be a third appeal (Megrahi having lost the first one and abandoned the second one in order to return home to die).

If this was going to be the ultimate decision of the Commission, I do not believe that they would be conducting such rigorous and lengthy investigations.

I’m reasonably confident therefore that the SCCRC will find that there may have been a miscarriage of justice, for the six reasons specified by their predecessors in 2007 and also on at least some of the further additional grounds advanced since then.

And, as I say, I think it unlikely that, having so concluded they would then say that it was not in the interests of justice for there to be a further appeal.”

Most Intel Today readers (90%) believe that the Lockerbie verdict is a spectacular miscarriage of justice.

I understand that a similar poll among Scotland lawyers would be even more devastating.

We would like to know what you think. Please, take this poll and encourage your friends to participate.

Truth never dies.

END of UPDATE

About Dr Richard Fuisz

Richard Carl Fuisz, M.D. (born December 12, 1939) is an American physician, inventor, and entrepreneur, with connections to the United States military and intelligence community.

He holds more than two hundred patents worldwide, in such diverse fields as drug delivery, interactive media, and cryptography, and has lectured on these topics internationally.

Fuisz is a member of the Board of Regents at Georgetown University, where he and his brother created an annual scholarship honoring their deceased elder sibling, and established the first endowed professorship at the Georgetown University School of Medicine. [WIKIPEDIA]

The TEREX Affair

On Jan. 25 1992, Seymour M. Hersh published an article in the NYT headlined “U.S. Linked to Iraq Scud Launchers”. [1]

Hersh reported that a Congressional subcommittee was investigating allegations against the Terex Corporation made by Dr. Fuisz. In Sept. 1987, Dr Fuisz was given a tour of the main Terex plant in Motherwell, Scotland. The Terex Corporation is a subsidiary of KCS of Westport, Connecticut.

“I had noticed two large armor-plated vehicles painted in desert camouflage with specially attached steel backs. I asked the plant manager, Art Rowe, about them and was told they were missile launchers for the Iraqi military,” Fuisz said in an affidavit taken for a US Congressional subcommittee investigating the matter.

“These shipments were all requested by the C.I.A. with the cooperation of the British intelligence people,” David J. Langevin, the vice president of Terex, told Fuisz according to his deposition.

John J. Clements was named a Terex vice president in 1987.

“One of Terex’s pressing needs when I joined the company was to borrow money for the purchase of the truck plant in Scotland,” Clements said.

Clements added that he had repeatedly heard Randolph W. Lenz, the president of Terex, tell potential investors:

“We’ve got a purchase order from Iraq for 90 to 100 units. It’s great business.”

“I knew there was business in Iraq,” Clements told NYT journalist  Seymour Hersh in 1992.

Terex successfully sued Fuisz for libel and the NYT apologized for the story in 1995. [2]

“The gist of the article could be read to charge Terex with supplying Scud missile launchers to Iraq before the Persian Gulf War, a charge neither The Times nor Mr. Hersh intended. This resulted from an inaccurate headline, erroneous changes made to the content and emphasis of the article in the course of the editorial process, and the inclusion of information supplied by Dr. Fuisz that Terex asserts is false. Terex vigorously denied the charge and instituted a libel suit against Mr. Hersh and Dr. Fuisz.

The article should not have suggested that Terex has ever supplied Scud missile launchers to Iraq, and The Times regrets any damage that may have resulted to Terex from any false impression the article may have created.”

On Feb 23 2003, the Sunday Herald published a story headlined “Revealed: 17 British Firms Armed Saddam with his Weapons”.

The Terex Corporation is listed as a UK company having provided rocket technology to Iraq. To my knowledge, Terex never sued the Herald for libel. [3]

Hersh and Fuisz had been right all along. And yet, the New York Times never went back to the story… The reader will notice the irony. For once the NYT was right, and they apologized for it!

The Lockerbie Tragedy

Just a few weeks after Dr. Richard Fuisz spoke to congressional staffer Suzan Lindauer in the fall of 1994, the Clinton administration placed a gag order preventing him from publicly discussing his knowledge of the Pan Am 103 bombing.

Fuisz had told her that the perpetrators of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie were based in Syria. He was adamant that Libya had played no role whatsoever in the tragedy.

“If the United States government would let me, I could identify the men behind this attack [Pan Am 1003] today.

I could do it right now. You want a police line up? I could go into any crowded restaurant of 200 people, and pick out these men. […] And you know what, Susan?

You won’t find this restaurant anywhere in Libya. No, you will only find this restaurant in Damascus,” Fuisz had told Lindauer.

The Sunday Herald picked up the story on May 28 2000. [2]

“The 1994 gagging order was issued following disclosures by Fuisz during other legal proceedings about alleged illegal exports of military equipment to Iraq.

The order claims that the information held by Fuisz is vital to the nation’s security or diplomatic relations and can not be revealed no matter how compelling the need for, and relevance of, the information.

The submission also makes clear that the government is empowered to protect its interests in this case in the future, thereby gagging Fuisz permanently.”

Upon learning about the existence of the Lindauer affidavit from the Sunday Herald, Eddie MacKechnie – the lawyer for one of the Libyan indicted of the bombing of Pan Am 103 – instructed his US partners to obtain a deposition from Dr Fuisz under oath and before a judge.

Fuisz was deposed in December 2000 in presence of three CIA attorneys as well as two others from the US DoJ. As not one single question, no matter how much trivial, was answered, the judge decided to adjourn.

In a matter of days, the head of the CIA personally wrote to the judge to seek his help in ending the legal process. Nevertheless, in a second meeting, Fuisz admitted that he had high level contacts in Damascus.

Moreover, vital information was placed under double seal. Neither the content of George Tenet’s letter nor the information under double seal was ever revealed, but it had become abundantly clear that Fuisz was a high level CIA HUMINT asset.

Secret CIA Testimony — Documentary

In the following video — released in December 2013 — you can get a feeling of what Dr Fuisz actually said.

 

REFERENCES

Secret CIA testimony identifies real Lockerbie mastermind — Channel 4 – 20 Dec 2013

1. “U.S. Linked to Iraqi Scud Launchers,” Jan. 26, 1992.

2. “Editors’ Note,” Dec. 7, 1995.

3. “Revealed: 17 British Firms Armed Saddam with his Weapons” — Feb. 23, 2003.

=

CIA Asset Dr Richard Fuisz : TEREX & Lockerbie

One Year Ago — CIA Asset Dr Richard Fuisz : TEREX & Lockerbie

Two Years Ago — CIA Asset Dr Richard Fuisz : TEREX & Lockerbie

Three Years Ago — CIA Asset Dr Richard Fuisz : TEREX & Lockerbie

This entry was posted in CIA, Dr Richard Fuisz, Lockerbie and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Three Years Ago — CIA Asset Dr Richard Fuisz : TEREX & Lockerbie

  1. Allan croft says:

    What a load of bunkham you will find the culprits in the FAA office who allowed Pan Am to fly a Aircraft on a expired air worthy certificate as the aircraft was only certified for 60,000 hours it crashed at 72,000 hours.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s