|
Libya, the U.S., and The Quest for the Truth
I made the following transcript from a tape recording
of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station
WBAI-FM (99.5),
505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.,
New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707
PHYLLIS BENNIS:
Beginning in the Reagan Administration, demonization became a
crucial tool of United States foreign policy. With a constant
refrain of terrorism-baiting featured on the nightly news, day
after day, it was no surprise that Reagan's anti-terrorism crusade
gained popular acceptance among many American people. Libyan leader
Moammar Khaddafi and Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini became
interchangeable public enemies.
But it wasn't only a battle of images. In 1986, U.S. war planes did
attack Tripoli, killing, among [many] others [in residential
apartments], Khadaffi's infant daughter.
[JD: The U.S. bombed Libya in retaliation for what it claimed was
a Libyan terrorist bombing of a night club in Germany which
killed American servicemen. U.S. leaders probably knew that Libya
was innocent of this bombing, but President Reagan went right
ahead anyway and bombed civilian apartment dwellers in Tripoli.
Since the air raids, our leaders definitely had evidence showing
that Libya was innocent of the disco night club bombing, and that
Syrian terrorists were likely responsible for it. But did our
fair U.S. leaders apologize and pay reparations to the families
of the slaughtered civilians? No. Did our fair leaders declare
Libya to be innocent? No. Did our fair corporate-controlled
mass media tell the American People that it had made a mistake
in demonizing the Libyan People unjustly? No.
Another one of many atrocities by the criminal elite who rule
over our United States. More evidence that our evil rulers
only desecrate the flag of the United States and the principles
of justice, for which it stands.]
The recent return to attacks on Libya as a terrorist has raised anew
the possibility, if not yet the probability of another United States
military attack, perhaps as a last-ditch White House effort to raise
Bush's standing in his plummeting pre-election polls.
The United States' anti-Libya campaign is based, for now, in the
United Nations where Washington and London have joined forces in
the Security Council to prepare the ground for economic sanctions
against Libya -- the first steps, some believe, towards a
unilateral or internationally-sanctioned military assault. The
Security Council's first step was to pass a resolution demanding
that Tripoli hand over to the United States and Britain two of its
citizens claimed [by U.S. Government officials] to be involved in
the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.
While the United States and Britain did not succeed in this first
round of winning full Security Council backing for immediate
sanctions, it is likely that a sanctions resolution will follow.
The terms will likely focus on a civil aviation embargo,
prohibiting flights to or from Libya.
.....
SAMORI MARKSMAN:
Much of what the Bush Administration has touted as "hard evidence"
of the Libyan connection to the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 has to
do with a supposed "Maltese connection"; namely, that the two
accused Libyans placed the bomb on the flight from Malta after they
had purchased a number of items, in Malta, supposedly in connection
with the placing of a suitcase, containing the explosives, onto the
airplane.
But the Government of Malta and Air Malta -- in whose facilities
the alleged suitcase was supposed to have been transferred -- have
both issued statements in direct contradiction to those put out by
President Bush, the United States Justice Department and the U.S.-
dominated United Nations Security Council.
SPOKESMAN FOR AIR MALTA:
In the applications for the warrants, allegations are made
mentioning Air Malta and flight KM-180, specifically. But, in
particular, it is alleged that the baggage containing the bomb
which caused the tragedy was carried on said flight of December 21,
1988. The evidence in possession of Air Malta, and duly passed on
to the investigating police, shows that there was no unacceptable
baggage on board flight KM-180, of December 21, 1988. And Air Malta
has been assured by the investigating authorities, as far back as
October, 1989, that all passengers on board the flight had been
identified and all baggage accounted for.
It is also the belief of Air Malta, which has fully cooperated with
the Scottish police in the investigations locally, that the
presence -- on the Air Malta flight, of the baggage containing the
bomb -- is purely hypothetical; and so is the alleged possession of
an airline luggage tag by unauthorized persons.
These are the main allegations made with respect to Air Malta; and
they are -- to the best of Air Malta's knowledge and belief --
unsupported by any concrete evidence. They are no more than mere
suppositions, so much so that the Scottish police have no
explanation as to how they [these alleged acts] happened, if they
happened at all. Moreover, at the press conference, Lord Frazier[?]
stated that, although it is alleged that certain critical events
took place in Malta, there is no evidence that any Maltese citizen
was involved in the tragedy.
The statement by Air Malta applies equally to the statement made
yesterday, by the acting Attorney-General of the United States, on
the Lockerbie disaster, dated 15 November, 1991.
SAMORI MARKSMAN:
In addition to that statement from Air Malta officials, following
are excerpts from a statement issued by the Minister of Information
of the Government of Malta, in the presence of a visiting Libyan
delegation two weeks ago:
SPOKESMAN FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF MALTA:
As regards the tragic incident of Pan AM flight 103 over Lockerbie,
Scotland:
ONE: Both sides reaffirm anew their resolute stand against terrorism
in all its forms, including STATE TERRORISM [e.g. the bombing of
Libya, the bombing of Panama, the bombing of Iraq].
TWO: Both sides condemn the use, or the threat of the use of force
as a method of conduct in relations between states. They call for
the adherence to the U.N. Charter and full respect for
international law.
THREE: The Maltese side reiterated that, from the investigations
carried out, it was not found that any unaccompanied baggage was
taken on board Air Malta flight KM-180 to Franfort on December 21,
1988.
SAMORI MARKSMAN:
If the case made by the Bush Administration against Libya is a
faulty one, what, then, did happen to Pan Am flight 103? Who bombed
it, and why? And if Libya was not behind it, then why isn't the
Bush Administration willing to have the International Court of
Justice or other international bodies thoroughly investigate the
matter before issuing ultimatums and military threats?
Dave Emory is an intelligence research analyst based in California.
DAVE EMORY:
There is no substantive evidence of Libyan executive control of that
terrorist act. There have been reports of involvement of elements
of Libyan intelligence at some level. But the single most important
thing, to my way of thinking, concerning the Pan Am 103 bombing,
is that there is substantive evidence of involvement of elements of
United States intelligence in the background of the
Pan Am 103 downing.
One of the things that is not generally too well understood is that
the United States intelligence system -- our intelligence agencies
-- are anything but a monolith. Even the CIA is badly
fractionalized. There are elements of the CIA which work at cross-
purposes [to each other], and, beyond that, there are elements of
our other intelligence agencies which work at cross-purposes, as
well; although there are elements of our intelligence system which
will oppose drug dealing. There are also other elements which
enthusiastically engage in drug dealing. And, beyond that, the same
is true of terrorist support activities. And the two often go
together. There are elements of United States intelligence which
oppose terrorist support activities. There are others which have
actively collaborated with the same, for a variety of reasons.
The Iran-Contra scandal brought that into sharp focus, although we
were being told that "we do not deal with terrorists," in fact, we
obviously DO deal with terrorists.
Now the Pan Am 103 insurance investigators' report, which was put
together by a private intelligence agency called Interfor,
implicates a Syrian drug dealer and terrorist name Manzur
El-Khassar, who, it was reported -- well actually, it was
documented -- that he was involved with [U.S. Marine Colonel and
aide to President Reagan] Oliver North and Albert Hakim, and that
Manzur El-Khassar helped to broker a key weapons deal that involved
the Aria[sp] ship, a Danish ship, which was used to transfer the
weapons to Central America, ultimately destined for use by the Contras.
In the Interfor Report, there is a discussion of an off-the-shelf
United States intelligence operation, which they term "CIA One",
which was using Manzur El-Khassar in order to help locate American
hostages in Lebanon. In exchange for this, they were actually
covering for Manzur El-Khassar's weapons dealing. And it eventually
came to light, in the Interfor Report, that another element of
United States intelligence -- a team headed by U.S. Army Major
Charles McKee, a DIA team which was seconded to CIA -- was in
Lebanon, looking for U.S. hostages. This team not only came across
Manzur El-Khassar, but discovered Manzur El-Khassar's active
collaboration with another element of United States intelligence.
When the "McKee Team" (as it was known) reported their discovery,
not only of the location of some of the U.S. hostages, but also
reported their discovery of Manzur El-Khassar and his collaboration
with another element of United States intelligence, according to
the Interfor Report, CIA Headquarters did NOTHING. At that point,
the McKee Team decided to return to the United States and to report
directly to CIA Headquarters about what they had discovered.
When the McKee Team booked passage on Pan Am flight 103, they were
apparently observed by Syrian intelligence, and this was reported
directly to Manzur El-Khassar. According to the Interfor Report,
he, in turn, informed his "control". And when the West German
Federal Police (the BKA, the Bundes Kriminal Ampes[sp]) asked
whether or not they should interdict the bomb, according to the
Interfor Report, the "control" structure of Manzur El-Khassar told
them to let it go.
One of the questions that I have concerns exactly why that was done.
Was it actually done to protect the operation with Manzur
El-Khassar? Or was it done to interdict the McKee Team, and thereby
assure that the obviously illegal and outrageous activities of
this particular faction of United States intelligence would go
unreported? It is probable that elements of United States
intelligence would have actively opposed what this other element
was doing. And I'm not sure whether the failure to interdict the
Pan Am 103 bomb was to protect the hostage rescue mission -- which
was the rationalization for collaborating with Manzur El-Khassar --
or whether it was to protect this faction of United States
intelligence from discovery and from possible prosecution.
According to the Interfor Report, Manzur El-Khassar was also
involved in trafficking weapons, both to Iran and to the Contras,
in both directions of the Iran-Contra Operations.
Another interesting question concerning the Pan Am 103 bombing,
concerns the compromising of a United States intelligence operation
called "MC-10", based out of Nicosia, Cyprus. This operation
appears to have used the United States Drug Enforcement Agency as a
cover. In an article in the London Times of July 22, 1991, it is
revealed, in an interview with a member of that team named Lester
Coleman, a DIA agent, that this MC-10 operation, from which the
McKee Team was culled, was quite apparently blown, from the inside.
A number of its agents had been assassinated, and at that point,
they concluded that it was time to shut down the operation.
Many of the agents went into hiding.
It is also interesting that there was a great deal of CIA attention
to the effects of the McKee Team which were destroyed on Pan Am 103.
The mother of one of the members of this team was told that her
son's personal effects had been destroyed due to national security.
And three CIA agents -- who were in Berlin investigating the Pan Am
103 bombing -- were assassinated, according to a report in the
British Guardian of August 2nd of last year.
DAVE EMORY:
The evidence of the compromising of both the MC-10 operation and
the McKee Team, which was culled from it, raises questions, not
only about why this intelligence operation was compromised (who by),
but, ultimately, what the Bush Administration and United States
intelligence knows concerning the Pan Am 103 bombing, and the
probable involvement of some elements of United States intelligence,
at some level.
When Federal intelligence agencies in the United States decide to
move in a particular direction -- or when a faction of them decides
to move in a particular direction -- they do so when to move in
that direction would scratch a number of different itches at
different levels simultaneously. I question whether the Pan Am 103
bombing, among other things -- in addition to preserving the
security of the collaboration between Manzur El-Khassar and a
faction of United States intelligence -- I wonder to what extent it
might have been envisioned (the bombing, that is) as an excuse for
further military action. Certainly at this point, there is a great
deal of saber rattling in the direction of Libya, and there is no
public discussion, at least not in the United States, about the
numerous indications of the involvement of elements of United States
intelligence with Manzur El-Khassar.
SAMORI MARKSMAN:
Intelligence analyst, Dave Emory.
WORLD VIEW is a weekly half-hour broadcast with occasional expanded
special editions, such as this week's, which is examining the
alleged Libyan bombing of Pan Am flight 103, and what appears to be
the Bush Administration's use of this human tragedy for personal
political gain, as its re-election efforts appear to be in grave
trouble.
Dr. Francis Boyle is a professor of history at the University of
Illinois. He is a leading authority on U.S.-Libya relations, and is
currently involved in a thorough investigation of the Lockerbie
bombing. Before leaving for Geneva a few days ago in connection
with that investigation, he spoke with Barbara Nimri Aziz of
Pacifica Radio WBAI-FM here in New York.
DR. FRANCIS BOYLE:
It's very important to understand all the efforts that Libya has
taken to resolve this dispute with the United States and the United
Kingdom peacefully. And that has not generally been reported in the
mainstream U.S. news media. When the allegations first were made,
open in public last December on the anniversary of the Lockerbie
bombing, Libya formally offered to submit the entire matter to the
Internationl Court of Justice, or to an international arbitration
tribunal, or to an international commission of investigation.
All of those offers were just rejected unilaterally and summarily
by the United States and the United Kingdom.
Now, the Friday before the last U.N. Security Council vote against
Libya, the Libyan Government sent diplomatic notes to the United
States and the United Kingdom that formally invoked article 14 of
the Montreal Sabotage Convention. That is directly on point. The
Montreal Sabotage Convention deals with situations where individuals
are alleged to have blown up aircraft or to have tried to blow up
aircraft or assaulted aircraft or things of that nature.
Article 14 states that, in the event there is a dispute over the
interpretation or application of the convention that cannot be
resolved by means of negotiation, than any party has the right to
submit the matter to an international arbitration tribunal.
So, after having tried, for almost a month and a half, to resolve
the dispute peacefully, Libya then invoked the Convention and told
the U.S. and the U.K.: Alright, let's submit the matter to an
impartial, international arbitration tribunal. Both the U.S. and
the U.K. summarily rejected that right of arbitration, as well, and
then rammed through this Security Council resolution that was
critical of Libya and seemed to prejudge the situation against
Libya. And that is where we stand now.
BARBARA NIMRI AZIZ:
Now, regarding that attempt by Libya to have this issue submitted
to the Montreal Convention -- if the United States summarily
dismisses this .... I mean, the United States and Britain are both
signatories to that convention, and yet, they dismiss it. This is a
very serious matter in regard to international law, in general.
If there can be no invocation of any other authority, THE superpower
can simply disregard international law, even where it is a signatory.
FRANCIS BOYLE:
Well Barbara, this is what "the New World Order" is all about. As
President Bush boasted in his U.N. General Assembly speech this
fall, the United States Government is the only remaining superpower.
And pursuant to the philosophy that "might is right", we are simply
acting in a manner to disregard our treaty obligations -- not only
here with Libya, but in other particular areas of the World.
.....
BARBARA NIMRI AZIZ:
It has been suggested earlier, by United States intelligence, that
this bomb on the Lockerbie plane was on-loaded in Malta. We've had
information recently coming to light that this was not the case. The
bomb was not put on the plane in Malta. And this is a major issue
in whether or not Libya could have had a role in that bombing.
FRANCIS BOYLE:
First of all, Barbara, let me point out: this is standard operating
procedure that we've seen throughout the 1980s, when it comes to
Libya. The CIA has always attempted to manufacture disinformation
as to Libya's involvement in acts of terrorism.
For example, in the discotheque bombing in Germany that was
allegedly the pretext for the bombings of Tripoli and Bengazi
[wherein Khaddafi's home was bombed, killing his infant daughter]
while the U.S. Government was saying that it had conclusive evidence
that Libya was involved, the German Government was openly and
publicly saying that they had absolutely no evidence at all that
Libya was involved. So, what we're seeing here is the manufacturing
of evidence to try to justify a military attack against Libya.
The evidence here, that the United States Government is trying to
manufacture is pretty slim.
For example, on the "Malta connection", the Maltese Government has
already made an investigation of this so-called "unaccompanied
baggage" and it has issued a public report, that was circulated at
the United Nations, that there was no unaccompanied baggage.
It was highly suspicious how, all of a sudden, all of the blame got
put on Libya. As you know, for the first two and a half years since
the Lockerbie bombing, the United States Government was putting the
blame on a renegade Palestinian group, on the Syrian Government,
and on the Iranian Government, arguing that they had this in
reaction to the destruction of U.S. shoot-down of the Iranian Air
Bus by the USS Vincennes. ALL OF A SUDDEN, some miraculously new
evidenceg gets discovered out of Senegal that no one had ever heard
about before. Well, it's very interesting,if you were following
closely the pages of the European newspapers, that the EXACT same
week that all this new evidence was miraculously discovered in
Senegal that implicated Libya, ALL OF SENEGAL'S DEBTS WERE
RESCHEDULED by the Paris Club at a highly favorable rate that they
otherwise were not entitled to -- which leads me to believe that,
basically, the Senegalese Government was bribed to go along with
this new, manufactured evidence.
In my opinion, the United States and the United Kingdom know full
well that Libya was not behind this bombing. But, for a variety of
reasons, they have decided that it is politically expedient to
shift the blame from Syria and Iran (and I'm not saying that Syria
and Iran did it; I don't think we'll ever know exactly who did it)
because they wanted Haffez El Assad to go war against Iraq.
And, with respect to Iran, they wanted to get U.S. hostages out of
Lebanon. So they needed the cooperation of both these countries.
And so, the blame was shifted to an innocent party -- in this case,
Libya.
There has been a gross disservice done here to the families of the
victims of the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 bombing. THEY are ENTITLED to
the TRUTH as to what REALLY happened here! And now, their own
government is telling them lies, primarily for the purpose of
taking out Khaddafi, and also, to bolster President Bush's very
difficult re-election campaign here in the United States. And, also,
Major, over in Britain, is having a very tough electoral campaign
that's going to be confronting him, and a very difficult economic
situation. And so, it seems to me that both these leaders are
looking for a foreign government that's very easy to beat up on.
And that's Libya.
(end of transcript)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The story of these "crimes against humanity" has been
carefully suppressed by the American Mass Media, which has
always hypocritically exhorted us to: "Never again permit
another holocaust!"
Let us replace their hypocrisy with sincerity by exposing
the holocaust of `82 and the holocaust of `91 to the
TV-deluded consciousness of the American masses.
Please post the episodes of this ongoing series to computer
bulletin boards, and post hardcopies in public places,
both on and off campus. Dial-in numbers of BBSs can be
found in the Usenet newsgroup "alt.bbs.lists"
John DiNardo
|
|