January 7 2021 — On December 21 2020 (the 32nd anniversary of the Lockerbie tragedy), the US DoJ announced new charges against a third former Libyan intelligence operative for his role in the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103. I this final post, I summarize my conclusions and I will also take this opportunity to tell a story about MASUD that has far-reaching consequences. Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY
RELATED POST: Four Years Ago — Dead Man Diary : Sarkozy 2007 Presidential Election Campaign Funded by Gaddafi [UPDATE : Prosecutors seek 4-years prison term for French President. Gaddafi strong man Abdullah Senussi wanted Sarkozy pardon for UTA. Now, he is in the US cross-hairs for Lockerbie.]
Lockerbie — Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…!
To make it easier for the readers to retrieve various chapters of my book, I have created a special page “Lockerbie” where all the links to the chapters will be listed with a brief description. You can access that page directly as it appears at the far right of the top bar of this blog.
Lockerbie — Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…!
UPDATE (November 8 2021) — Libya’s presidential council says it has suspended Foreign Minister Najla El-Mangoush for 14 days and banned her from travelling, pending an inquiry about the comments she made in her BBC interview about the Lockerbie bombing.
The transitional government rejected the decision, saying she would carry on as normal.
The Foreign Minister will attend the major international conference on Libya in Paris this Friday. [Vice President of the United States Kamala Harris is to join French President Emmanuel Macron and other world leaders at the Paris conference on November 12.]
What really happened? — According to the BBC [Libya: Row over attempt to suspend foreign minister Najla El-Mangoush] :
“Controversy ignited here after the minister spoke to the BBC about the possible extradition of a new Libyan suspect wanted by the US over the bombing.”
As always, the devil is in the detail. Let us pay close attention to what Najla El-Mangoush actually said.
“We also need to respect the laws.”
Contrary to the BBC report, she never said that Libya had decided the extradition of Abu Agila Mohamed Masud. In fact, she never mentioned once the name of Abu Agila Mohamed during this interview.
The Guardian was a bit more careful.
“She has been accused of carrying out foreign policy without coordination with the Presidential Council, including by suggesting in an interview with the BBC last week that a former Libyan intelligence officer implicated in the Lockerbie bombing might be extradited to the US.”
In truth, she said that the Libyan government needs “to respect the laws.”
And the law is very clear. Libya, like most countries, does not extradite its citizens. [art. 493 bis (a) of the code of Criminal Procedure]
Moreover, there is no extradition treaty between Libya and the United States. For sure, one could imagine a specific solution for this particular case… We have been there before, and it turned out to be a complete fiasco.
Of course, one would also have to look carefully at the Lockerbie agreements between Libya and the US to check if such an additional trial is even legal. There is room for a healthy debate…
“A $2.7bn compensation agreement signed by Gaddafi’s regime did not protect Libyan citizens from future prosecution, the US argues. It merely served to lift sanctions on the Libyan government and immunise the state from any other civil claims.”
Anyway… If someone has any doubt about the BBC interview of Foreign Minister Najla El-Mangoush, this additional statement from her office should make the situation very clear.
“This issue falls into the jurisdiction of the Libyan Public Prosecutor’s office, who is responsible for addressing the issue between the judicial authorities in both countries.”
For the time being, one conclusion is rather obvious. Some folks do not wish the Paris Summit to succeed…
An extravagant lie from The Guardian
According to The Guardian [Libya’s prime minster rejects foreign minister’s suspension] Foreign Minister Najla El Mangoush said:
the Libyan government “understands the pain and sadness” of the victims’ families but “needs to respect the laws”.
That is a whopper. Here is what she really said.
“We understand the pain and the sadness of the victims and the families.”
The Guardian removed the “and” to replace it by a possessive case. Why? Because the statement makes no sense if it is about the Lockerbie Case. (These victims are all dead and no longer experience pain and sadness…) What is going on here?
During her BBC interview, El Mangoush was talking about the Lockerbie bombing and the Manchester Arena bombing.
Of course, considering the links between the family of the Manchester bomber and British Intelligence (MI6), this subject is a bit sensitive in the UK nowadays…
More nonsense from Megrahi’s lawyer
In light of Libya FM’s latest statement to BBC on the Lockerbie bombing, Mr. Aamer Anwar, the leading defense lawyer for Abdelbast Al-Meghrahi, has issued the following statement :
Shame on you Najla El Mangoush for broadcasting to the world, the words “positive outcomes are coming” with regards to the extradition of Abu Agila Mohamed Masud.
Do you Miss El Mangoush have no shame? Do you really wish to repeat history? The question I ask is on whose authority did you speak? After all your Prime Minister was here in Glasgow for COP26 and said not one word, nor did he meet with us.
Once again, Mr. Aamer Anwar is completely wrong. If he had actually spent 5′ to listen to what she actually said, he would have avoided looking like a fool!
You cannot imagine how deeply insulting it was that your Prime Minister could not spare five minutes out of his busy diary, but could for the likes of Boris Johnson or meeting with Jo Biden. After all we act for a Libyan family and Al-Megrahi’s family, if we win the appeal at the UK Supreme Court then you as the people of Libya will also win your self-respect back.
Seriously? The Libyan Prime Minister is preparing the Paris Summit that will decide the future of the country and Mr. Aamer Anwar is shocked that he has no time to meet with him… This is almost a parody.
I have given my life’s work for the last seven years in the defence of Libya, to clear its name and to fulfil the wishes of a dying man, Al-Megrahi and I am not even Libyan, I did so in the interests of justice, yet you as a minister have betrayed the interests of Libya.
Your foreign minister is busy ingratiating herself with the USA, but is just another piece in the jigsaw of monstrous lies built on the back of the Libyan people and the victims of Lockerbie. It is time to remove the colonial slave mentality that jumps to the tune of its colonial master.
A reversal of the verdict at the UK Supreme Court would of course mean that the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom stand exposed as having lived a monumental lie for 33 years by imprisoning a man they knew to be innocent- but our legal team needs support from your government not to have our legs cut away from under us. (…)
As I have explained before, it is over. There will be no reversal of the verdict at the UK Supreme Court.
What was significant in the US criminal complaint against Masud was his claim that he bought the clothes to put into the Samsonite suitcase that is claimed went on to blow up Pan Am Flight 103.
Of course, the problem for the US Department of Justice is that the case against Megrahi is still based on the eye-witness testimony of Toni Gauchi stating that Megrahi bought the clothes. How can both men be held responsible?
If Mr Anwar would spend just a few minutes working instead of tweeting, he would read the document released by the US DoJ. The document specifically addresses this point. [“The government still believes that this allegation (Megrahi purchased the clothing at Mary’s House on December 7, 1988) is accurate. Other clothing items that were determined by RARDE to have likely originated from within the IED suitcase probably did not originate from Mary’s House.”]
The Al-Megrahi family believe that if the conviction against their father were to be overturned then the US case against Masud would be non-existent.
Because of the actions of El-Mangoush there will now be huge pressure on Libya to extradite Abu Agila Masud to the US, but of course the American authorities will be also aware that if the Megrahi’s were to be successful at the Supreme Court, then ‘so called’ case against Abu Masud would crumble.
There is simply not a snowball’s chance in hell that Anwar and the Megrahi’s family will be successful at the Supreme Court.
In April of this year, Senior Scottish judges have refused permission for the family of the ‘Lockerbie bomber’ to continue a legal battle to clear his name at Britain’s highest court.
A report in The Times (April 2 2021) discloses the judges’ reason for refusing leave to appeal.
“Although the case is clearly one of public importance, the proposed grounds of appeal do not raise points of law of general public importance. The principles of law which the court applied were all well known, settled and largely uncontroversial.” [The court’s Statement of Reasons can now be read here.]
Clearly, the Megrahi’s chapter of the Lockerbie saga is over as far as Justice is concerned. Let me repeat this. It is over. Full stop.
There are three kinds of people. Those who understand events before they happen. Those who only understand events after they have happened. And there are some people who never understand events, even after they have happened.
Obviously, Mr Aamer Anwar is among those people who will never understand…
Libya considers extraditing Lockerbie bombing suspect – BBC News
END of UPDATE
UPDATE (November 4 2021) — Libyan 3rd Suspect to be extradited to the U.S. — According to Libya’s foreign minister, a third suspect may be extradited to the United States in the near future.
Najla El-Mangoush told the BBC that “positive outcomes are coming” in the case of Abu Agila Mohammed Masud.
Ms El-Mangoush said the Libyan government “understands the pain and sadness” of the victims’ families but “needs to respect the laws”.
The US and Libya were collaborating on the case, she said, and it was progressing.
Mr Masud is a former Libyan intelligence official who is currently in a Libyan prison having been convicted on unrelated charges.
He has been charged in the US with terrorism-related crimes.
US officials claim he helped build the bomb which downed the aircraft, and set the timer.
US officials also say Mr Masud conspired with another Libyan intelligence official, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. [BBC News — Lockerbie bombing: Libya could work with US on extradition]
Once again, this BBC piece is all about opinions (“Maybe, ‘it’ was Iran according to some relatives…”), and entirely fact-free.
If these ‘journalists’ only had read the FBI affidavit, they would realize at once that there are serious issues with the new indictment.
Contrary to the statement made by FBI agent Rachel F. Otto, the confession of Abu Agila Masud is NOT “corroborated by evidence gathered by Scottish and American investigators in the years following the bombing, as well as evidence gathered and provided by other countries.”
To be clear, this statement is totally incorrect. As I have explained in this series, these new charges fully contradict the initial indictment as well as some of the facts which were established (by the CIA) even before the Lockerbie tragedy.
PS — Allow me to remind you that there is ZERO evidence of a bomb having caused the tragedy of Pan Am 103. I have summarized all my research on this subject in a single graphic.
I would argue that anyone who understands these data does not need to wait until at least 2026, and possibly much longer, to determine the real cause of the tragedy. It is plain obvious!
END of UPDATE
On December 21 2020 (15:30 GMT), Attorney General William Barr, Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Demers, and Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Michael Sherwin, announced new charges against a former Libyan intelligence operative.
The US DoJ believes that there is enough evidence to prosecute Abu Agela MASUD for his role in building the bomb that killed 270 individuals in the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988.
I started this series with a post about the new story of the “Magic Suitcase”.
Initially, the FBI claimed that Megrahi brought it himself to Malta on December 20 1988.
Now they claim that Masud brought the infamous SAMSONITE suitcase on December 14 1988.
But there is one problem. The FBI claims that Masud arrived in Malta on December 14 1988, bizarrely also described as “three or four days” before the tragedy.
At the same time, the indictment alleges that Masud was met by Megrahi at the airport.
That is of course impossible as — according to the FBI’s own TIMELINE — Megrahi was not in Malta from December 9 to December 17 1988.
In the second post of this series, I reviewed the information available regarding Abu Agela Masud.
And I concluded that post with a simple question for the FBI & CIA.
The CIA station in Malta had a Libyan agent — Majid Giaka — keeping them informed of all arrivals and departures of ESO officers to and from Luqa airport in Malta.
Yet, Giaka never reported the arrival of MASUD on December 14 1988. Why on earth not?
In the 3rd post, I pointed out the indisputable fact that the FBI Timeline has been falsified to support the new charges. There is no denying it.
TWO entries in that TIMELINE have clearly been fabricated.
December 9, 1988 — MASUD traveled from Malta to Tripoli
December 14, 1988 — MASUD traveled from Tripoli to Malta
Obviously, the FBI falsified the TIMELINE to make it ‘compatible’ with MASUD’s confession.
In the 4th and last post, I looked at the comments of MASUD regarding the IED he claimed to have built.
According to MASUD’s confession, he did not conceal the SEMTEX and the infamous MST-13 timer inside a TOSHIBA radio.
If true, that would imply that the initial evidence has been fabricated. That much has always been rather obvious.
And now, let me tell you a funny story…
When did GIAKA meet MASUD in Malta?
According to FBI “STAR” witness Majid GIAKA, MEGRAHI brought the primary suitcase to Malta on December 20 1988.
GIAKA made a few other claims regarding this event.
He said that MASUD had traveled with MEGRAHI who introduced him (GIAKA) to MASUD during a discussion they had outside the airport.
After GIAKA had been transferred to the US, he was shown a few pictures and he was asked to point to MASUD. At that time (1991), Giaka did not even know that MASUD was a black man!
GIAKA could not pick MASUD’s picture. In fact, Giaka simply never met MASUD.
Lockerbie Trial (Page 6933)
Q Well, you were shown a picture of him in
17 1991. We can see that at page 100. BBB, Masud,
18 Abouagela, CW, cooperating witness, and that is you,
19 did not recognise the person in the photograph.
20 For the simple reason you were never
21 introduced to him. You never met him; isn’t that
23 A I told you that I saw the person two
24 years before. Just because I didn’t recognise him in
25 the picture, I wouldn’t necessarily remember his
2 Q Well, let’s look at what you said about
3 this incident to some other people. If we go to
4 Production Number 859, and page 16. Let’s see what you
5 had to say about it to the Scottish police in a
6 statement that we know you gave in January of 1992.
7 The foot of page 16, please.
8 I cannot remember where I first saw Lamen. It
9 was either as he came out of immigration or at the
10 carousels. I saw that Baset was with Lamen and two
11 other Arabs or Libyans. One of them was a black —
12 Next image, please.
13 — Libyan, and the other was either a Libyan
14 or an Arab. I walked up to them, and I shook hands
15 with all four. I cannot recall if Lamen introduced me
16 to them or I just shook hands with them. It could even
17 have been Baset who introduced me to them. Some time
18 later I learned that the black Libyan was a member of
19 the technical administration of the JSO.
20 Did you say that to the police?
21 We can take the image off the screen now.
22 Did you say it to the police?
23 A If it is in the statement, or if in the
24 police’s records, then I must have said it. But maybe
25 this was a different visit, because Abdelbaset came to
1 Malta on various occasions.
But maybe this was a different visit? You better believe it. That visit occurred in early October 1988 and that visit had nothing to do with Lockerbie whatsoever.
And once again, Giaka was not at the airport to witness that visit…
By the way, who gave a picture of MASUD to the FBI? How come they had a picture, but he was a ghost? Why did MASUD become suddenly a bomb-maker when he was known to the CIA as a Telecom expert?
Intel Today Conclusion
Just minutes after Bill Barr had explained the new charges, people had already made up their mind regarding this extraordinary story.
Today, no one has time for reading, studying and/or thinking. Most people only have time for talking. Mostly nonsense…
For those who believe that Libya is responsible for Lockerbie, it was the triumph of Justice, as this editorial makes it very clear.
“Last week marked the end of Barr’s second act leading the DOJ. To say the least, he has not always behaved honorably in the position. But his final acts — flatly rebutting Donald Trump’s anti-democratic nonsense and bringing a terrorist who long evaded consequences to justice — have been his noblest ones.”
For those who would like to blame Iran for Lockerbie — without a shred of evidence — this was a parody of Justice.
Aamer Anwar — Megrahi’s lawyer — immediately gave one of his usual ‘grandstanding’ press conferences during which he made the most ridiculous statement about the FBI’s affidavit.
What he said was not just incorrect. It was the exact opposite of what is actually written in the affidavit! Who has time for reading? And this clown expects to be taken seriously?
In a letter to the Lord Advocate, the Justice for Megrahi campaigners wrote:
“We, and many other commentators, consider the statements made by Mr Barr and others, and the contents of the affidavit, to be prejudicial to the Megrahi family’s appeal, and that had they been made in Scotland they would have been deemed to be in contempt of court.”
That has not worked exactly as planned. This letter was so convincing… that the Lord Advocate now wants to prosecute MASUD himself! Good luck with that…
In truth, none of these people are actually thinking. The fact is that a serious analysis of the affidavit shows that the new charges could be highly problematic.
In her affidavit, FBI agent Rachel F. Otto writes:
“I have also determined, from my review of other evidence, and speaking with other investigators from Scotland and the FBI, that MASUD’s confession is corroborated, as laid out in greater detail below, by evidence gathered by Scottish and American investigators in the years following the bombing, as well as evidence gathered and provided by other countries.”
This statement is totally incorrect. As I have explained in this series, these new charges fully contradict the initial indictment as well as some of the facts which were established even before the Lockerbie tragedy.
Just one question. Was the CIA even consulted regarding the drafting of this document?
Former Senior Libyan Intelligence Officer and Bomb-Maker for the Muamar Qaddafi Regime Charged for The December 21, 1988 Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
US DoJ Website : Former Senior Libyan Intelligence Officer and Bomb-Maker for the Muamar Qaddafi Regime Charged for The December 21, 1988 Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
LOCKERBIE — Analysis of the New Indictment [UPDATE : Libyan 3rd Suspect to be extradited to the U.S.]
LOCKERBIE — Analysis of the New Indictment [UPDATE : BBC Fake News sparks political row in Libya]