About
Community
Bad Ideas
Drugs
Ego
Erotica
Fringe
Society
Politics
Anarchism
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Corporatarchy - Rule by the Corporations
Economic Documents
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Foreign Military & Intelligence Agencies
Green Planet
International Banking / Money Laundering
Libertarianism
National Security Agency (NSA)
Police State
Political Documents
Political Spew
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Terrorists and Freedom Fighters
The Nixon Project
The World Beyond the U.S.A.
U.S. Military
Technology
register | bbs | search | rss | faq | about
meet up | add to del.icio.us | digg it

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

 
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.

 

totse.com certificate signatures
 
 
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
Hot Topics
george galloway what do you think of him?
Hinchey Amendment
why UK accepts US subjugation and infiltration?
George galloway suspended from HP
Why Marxism IS Economically Exploitive...
Situation in Turkey
Putin not playing nicely
So, I hear they have Mcdonalds in China...
 
Sponsored Links
 
Ads presented by the
AdBrite Ad Network

 

TSHIRT HELL T-SHIRTS