Posted on 12/21/2007 6:41:09 AM PST by jdm
Nineteen years ago, a Pan Am flight took off from London to bring 259 people to New York, 179 of them Americans. It never made it past Scotland, where the plane exploded, killing all aboard. A trial in Scotland placed blame on Libya, and found a man guilty, despite mounting evidence that the trial had at least gotten the conspiracy wrong -- and did so under pressure from the American government. Jeff Stein at CQ Politics lays out the fascinating story:
Back in 1988, Iran was immediately suspected of authoring the mass murder, in retaliation for the accidental downing of one of its own airliners by a U.S. Navy warship in the Persian Gulf a few months earlier.
U.S. intelligence agencies, in overdrive to find the culprits, quickly compiled evidence that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, or PFLP-GC, had carried out the plot on behalf of Iran and Syria. (The PFLP-GC was formed to opposed PLO leader Yassir Arafat’s movement toward detente with Israel.)
Nevertheless, on Jan. 31, 1991, a panel of three Scottish judges found Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, officially the head of security for Libyan Airlines, guilty of carrying out the plot and sentenced him to life in jail. A Libyan co-defendant was set free.
Libya always denied any guilt in the crime, but agreed to compensate relatives of the dead to open the door for normal relations with the United States. It also agreed to compensate victims of the 1986 bombing of the LaBelle discotheque in West Berlin, a gathering place for U.S. soldiers. Libya also denied complicity in that attack, which killed three and wounded scores more, but likewise agreed on compensation payments.
Why did Scotland find the Libyan guilty instead of uncovering the Iran-Syria link? Stein argues that the US needed Syria for its upcoming invasion of Iraq, and indeed Syria remained in the first President Bush's coalition for Desert Storm. Everyone originally assumed that Iran had taken revenge for the loss of its own commercial airliner at the hands of the US Navy, but Libya made a good suspect as well, with its own record of terrorism aimed at the US.
The tale includes some wheels within wheels. While a growing number of sources have gone on the record to talk to Stein about the alleged frame of Libya for the crime, some have also claimed that this story has now arisen to assist the second President Bush to make a case for war against Iran. That seems a stretch; after all, Bush would have a much clearer case for war over the nuclear program, even with it weakened with the latest NIE -- and he hasn't pressed for war with Iran anyway. Also, with the provocation being nineteen years in the past and a retaliation for an American action, intentional or not, it seems very unlikely to be a propaganda move.
Another theory may hit closer to the mark. The Bush administration and the West in general wants to engage Libya economically. The French want to sell nuclear power, a strange notion for a nation that just surrendered a nuclear-weapons program. Americans want to gain licenses for Libyan oil fields. Freeing Libya of the stigma of Pan Am 103 might help keep down the protests over opening diplomatic and economic ties with Moammar Ghaddafi.
However, one cannot help but think that Iran made a more likely suspect all along. Libya had conducted its terrorism against our military; the disco that they bombed was frequented by our soldiers in Germany. Iran had a motive to target a commercial airliner and a need to show that they could hold their own against the US. One does not have to exonerate Ghaddafi from being a terrorist to think that this case may have been manipulated for political reasons.
Hey, wait. What we call “blame”, the muzlim world calls “credit”. Are you kidding? W/ Khomeini at the helm, the very idea of another country taking credit for a blow struck by Iran would be unthinkable. Ah, revisionism...
“Why did Scotland find the Libyan guilty...”
It HAD to have been Maggie Thatcher.
Quoth Marion Barry: “The b*tch set me up.”
Syria was supposed to be on our side during Gulf War I. However, I know a former Marine who was guarding an ammo dump. He was attacked by about 30 guys in Syrian uniforms. He killed most of them and drove off the rest. He was seriously wounded by shrapnel from exploding ordnance in the ammo dump during the firefight. Now he has to have his shoulder and knee replaced regularly. I know this because he worked for me a few years ago. G-d bless him and all of the other heros who keep us free!
Based upon a recent investigation by Dan Rather, documents have been found that it was 1stLt GW Bush who was the on leave from the Texas Air National Guard.
Developing...
Islamists weren’t.
It’s possible that Iran may have helped the Pan Am 103 bombers, but they had to do it in a way that completely covered their tracks to ensure “plausible deniability.” This means training and financing was probably done through Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
What is compelling is Qaddafi’s reaction to having his tent bombed. A lesson for all time about how to deal with Muslim terror merchants. Thank you President Reagan!
Indeed!
I don't buy the bit about Syria. The report could simply have been delayed a couple of months until the war was over, then Syria could've been fingered. I'm much more partial to the idea that many in the West wanted to be involved with commercial ties to Libya, and that this was an effective lever to use against Libya to get concessions. After Reagan's bombing in '86 (thank you, Ronnie), all anybody in the West (esp. us and the Brits) had to do was remind them of what happened, and they'd fold.
Let's not forget the "accidental" bombing of the French embassy compound with laser-guided bombs. I like Sam Kinison's (may he rest in peace) take on it: our pilots were SOOOOO tired after having to go all the way from the UK, around Spain and across the Med (instead of much more directly across Fwance) that a mistake was inevitable. Its just a delicious coincidence that the Fwench embassy compound was hit - yeah, that's the ticket, a coincidence!
So your theory is, the US Air Force, acting on official orders, knowingly bombed sovereign territory belonging to a NATO ally ?
My theory is that it was done on purpose - with not a single word ever printed on paper. It was a message - that if you’re an ally, ACT LIKE AN ALLY. France denied our planes passage over their territory, adding many hours to the mission and thereby jeopardizing it.
Anyway, it is a VERY strange accident - laser-guided bombs don’t miss, and my understanding is that this target was over a mile away from the nearest real target. How does that happen if not on purpose?
“Anyway, it is a VERY strange accident - laser-guided bombs don’t miss, and my understanding is that this target was over a mile away from the nearest real target. How does that happen if not on purpose?”
Because even a smart bomb isn’t only as smart as the dumbest guy guiding or programming it, I guess - not to mention even smart guys make mistakes. And in 1986, I’m not sure how smart the ammo was.
IIRC, the French embassy wasn’t the only civilian building hit by bombs from the raid.
Now if that was intentional, then it was, quite literally, an act of war, as a French embassy is French territory. I must say I have trouble imagining President Reagan ordering such a move, particularly when 60% of the French opinion supported the raid at the time - the only European country where a majority of citizens supported it actually.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.