In February 1990, a group of British relatives [of Lockerbie victims] went to the American embassy in London for a meeting with the seven members of the President’s commission on aviation security and terrorism. Martin Cadman remembers: ‘After we’d had our say, the meeting broke up and we moved towards the door. As we got there, I found myself talking to two members of the Commission – I think they were senators. One of them said “Your government and our government know exactly what happened at Lockerbie. But they are not going to tell you.” (Paul Foot (1937-2004), Private Eye, May, 2001)
Imagine the aftermath:
Officials in the Iranian and Syrian governments, incensed by the event and the arrogance by which a major power like the US can commit such a crime with impunity, seek revenge.
Using Palestinians not connected to the PLO, they arrange for a bomb to be placed aboard a Pan Am flight from London to New York on December 21, 1988. The plane blows up over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 aboard and 11 people on the ground.
A warning was posted at the US embassy in Moscow that there was a terrorist threat. At least one diplomat changed flights, as did a party of South Africans (which inspired the involvement of Nelson Mandela in solving the crime).
Investigation of the crash site was delayed due to CIA involvement, apparently looking for a cache of drugs they had placed aboard the airliner – unrelated to the larger crime. (The CIA did not blow up the plane. That needs to be said, as its agents snooping around usually indicates some kind of involvement.)
Early investigation pointed at Syrian President Assad and Iranians, but was derailed after a phone conversation in March of 1989 between Margaret Thatcher and George H.W. Bush. The US at that time was planning an attack on Iraq and needed Syrian cooperation, so that implicating them in the crime was an impediment. Also, the concept of blow-back is dangerous – the idea that the US was culpable in any way for Lockerbie was unthinkable.
A decision was made to point the finger at Libya, always culpable. A case was manufactured against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, two Libyans. Megrahi was convicted in a shameless proceeding by evidence even the three Scottish judges admitted was a slim reed – a piece of Samsonite luggage that was supposedly placed on a flight in Malta to Frankfurt. Even though they could not prove that to have happened, it became the basis for conviction.
Libya is put under increased sanctions and exports are severely harmed.
In September of 2004, George W. Bush agrees to lift sanctions on Libya in exchange for Muammar Qaddafi’s agreement to publicly admit guilt to Lockerbie and pay reparations to Lockerbie families.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is released from Scottish prison in 2009, perhaps a sign that honest people sometimes get their way, maybe a brokered deal between the US executive and Qaddafi. Much of the world is abhorred that the bomber is set free, unaware that the real bomber was never caught.
In 2009, Qaddafi begins extorting increased payments from western oil companies in Libya, as the payments to Lockerbie families are a heavy burden.
Tensions mount between the countries. Qaddafi is playing a dangerous game, as oil companies have the inside track on military reprisals.
In March of 2011, the US, Britain and France, the traditional imperialist powers of the region, attack Libya. The regime is brought down, Qaddafi murdered.
We don’t know the extent of damages to Libya or the lives lost in the attack, but it can be said with certainty that the country that started the whole process that culminated in the attack, the United States, is not interested in either justice or democratic rule, so that the tragedy is ongoing.
Maybe in 25 years we’ll know more, just as it has taken that long for some truth about the Lockerbie incident. , which was triggered by the Vincennes incident, to see light of day.
Piece of Mindful 
I have to ask: Do you think the Arab Spring was just made up? Do you seriously think that all of the protests in the Middle East are somehow driven by the U.S., and not by the fact that these regimes are genuinely authoritarian? That you can go through an entire post about the causes of all of this unrest and not mention the Arab Spring is genuinely insane to me. You do the same thing with Syria, where the regime has been demonstrably tyrranical.
LikeLike
You’re drawing a false dichotomy, authoritarian versus democratic. That is not relevant. The question is pro or anti US. Authoritairan regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait and Bahrain though extremely unpopular receive US backing. Anti US regime in Syria finds that the US loves democracy. For now.
Libya appears to be splitting in two now, into an oil rich region that will have a pro-US authoritarian regime, and one without oil which can go to hell. Chomsky mentioned this possibility many months ago.
The US is very unpopular throughout the region, ergo democratic governments would be anti US and cannot be allowed, ergo US backs authoritarian regimes ergo Arab Spring is anti US except in Syria, which is one uprising US likes.
LikeLike
Where did I draw a dichotomy? I did not mention the word authoritarian, I did not mention the word democratic. You are not responding to my argument, you’re responding to a caricature of it.
What’s happening in Syria is genuinely terrible. Before you try to pigeonhole me, I do not think the U.S. should intervene in any way shape or form – or, if we already are intervening (I doubt it, though I know you don’t), I don’t think we should be.
But you seem to gloss over how every major international organization, The Arab League, and the United Nations have condemned the Assad government’s actions during this uprising (which was a nonviolent protest for months and months before they took up any arms). over 1,000 civilians have died. Hommes has been leveled. It’s ugly, ugly, ugly. I am not proposing solutions here, only pointing out the obvious. The Assad regime is not some well-meaning government facing down U.S. aggression. They’re terrible.
LikeLike
You said authoritarian, the opposite of which is non-authoritarian. Excuse me if I said democratic. I guess I don’t follow your argument if we only get to discuss the opportunistic situations where the US 1) allows you to know there is an uprising, and 2) allows you to see the violent outcomes.
There have been uprisings in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, brutally put down. Why do you only know about Syria?
Again, the US the US does not give two shots about violence and death, usually causes most of it. When they express public dismay, there is an agenda.
LikeLike
I know about Bahrain. I know about Yemen. I, along with millions of others, watched in horror as the Youtube videos were posted of protestors in Bahrain being shot in the streets. Yes, those popular uprisings were brutally put down. Yes, the US supports those regimes, did nothing about the uprisings, and is wrong in doing so.
The deal is this: Those uprisings were put down. Syria is still happening. That’s why we are talking about it. It seems silly that if we are talking about Syria specifically I have to talk about revolts that have been over for 9 months in order to be showing some level of fairness in your eyes.
You’re probably right, our government doesn’t care about what’s happening in Syria. But I do. It’s genuinely awful, and it doesn’t do anyone a bit of good to minimize that.
LikeLike
It’s not that it isn’t awful, but rather how we are manipulated to focus one this or that while ignoring everything else going on. Even as we talk Libya is in turmoil splitting in to oil-rich and fuck-off sectors. Egypt never changed hands, military still in control. Syria is a repressive regime, but if Assad were a little more cooperative, the “rebels” would not be getting arms and support – people don’t just happen on weapons in that type of regime – there is a pipeline. Who do you suppose is funneling arms?
And what will be the outcome? If you think that the US, arms supplier to the rebellion, wants a less repressive government, think again. It wants a pro-US government. It’s about overlords and resources, people be damned.
By the way, on several occasions I have gotten comments here from Syrian sources claiming that the horrors seen on western TV are phonied up. Obviously I have no way of knowing, and even Al Jazeera is suspect these days. I saw them do that in Venezuela in 2002 – don’t trust media. Keep your channels clear for other possibilities.
How to get good information? Damned if I know. RT.com has been OK by me.
LikeLike
RT.com is pretty good, I agree.
I don’t think we disagree on much here. I’m focused on Syria and I think it’s a genuinely big deal, and genuinely awful. I don’t know the way forward, and I wish there was something productive to be done.
LikeLike
Technology is changing the world. Governments cannot control what people can see with their own eyes, and iphones. It’s way too early to judge the ultimate outcome. Governments are scrambling to control that which they cannot control: The instantaneous dissemination of images and information. Damn those kids.
LikeLike