Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked

Hey, wait a minute. The CIA planted evidence to assist in the frame up of the "usual suspects"? Who would a thunk it? I wonder if Lockerbie was the only time they might have done this.

See also this earlier DU thread The Key Piece Of Evidence Used To Implicate Libya In Bombing Is A Probable Fake

just how corrupt is yet to be determined.

Not sure about this one, but I'm guessing some other folks are on the sidelines wanting to create a "fake" conspiracy to blame our government with and are probably telling themselves "This is the best time for us to do this. Never have so many Americans have a lack of faith and trust in their government as they do now. We will be supported now moreso than we ever will likely be supported again.".

That's the sad truth, and another cost of this government continuing to let the criminals in charge of the asylum continue to successfully destroy it without any accountability. Another reason why we need to IMPEACH THEM ALL NOW!

That would be a much shorter list and an easier job.

was president then, having just taken over from Reagan. Bush at one time was the director of the CIA and of course also probably has the same ethics and scruples as his father and his son. Didn't Lybia just pay enormous amounts of money to the victims' families?

:cry:

anonymous witnesses. When he comes forward publicly and allows the evidence to be examined, then I can form a judgment about its validity.

Sorry you're not impressed but I don't think this should be dismissed out of hand.

GHWB was the President, after all.

I'm just withholding judgment.

He be quite safe going public.. I feel so bloody duped, it took me about 20 minutes for it to click.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2160655,00.html

"Vital Lockerbie evidence 'was tampered with'"

So the undisclosed (not anonymous, the lawyers know who he is..) witness is corroborating what's in the above article by someone who is named.

but cross examination that validates evidence.

I wasn't aware this message board was a court of law.

I'll shut up now and go away.

That appears to be a wise decision.

And he's not alone- there are others now willing
to testify that the primary evidence was faked.

Until the other side is told, I will withhold judgment.

Until that new evidence is cross examined, we haven't heard the other side.

I find it strangely disconcerting that I have to defend the concept of keeping an open mind. Can you explain why so many people are opposed to putting the evidence on trial? Why so many people are willing to jump to conclusions? Why fairness is tossed out the window? I don't get it.

And if you don't "get" why the CIA doesn't recieve much
"benefit of doubt" here in the year 2007, I truly doubt
that I can help you understand it.

Always nice talking to you though. :hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And how is this evidence "secret"? You and I
are talking about it right now, aren't we?
Because it was IN A NEWSPAPER?

I can't help but feel that this conversation has
little chance of becoming a productive one, so I'm
gonna end it now.

Feel free to get the last word in.

No doubt about it. Newspapers never lie or get the story wrong. Newspapers always tell the whole truth. How could I be so foolish as to disbelieve a NEWSPAPER? I must have been a fool to ever doubt a NEWSPAPER. :rofl:

Plenty of people know exactly who he is. They simply
haven't told you or me yet. Just because WE don't know
his name doesn't make him anonymous.

He's signing his name to those depositions- that's not "anonymous".
If he was slipping unsigned messages under those lawyers' door,
THAT would be anonymous.

Am I missing something here? Has this person had his/her name publicly "acknowledged"? See dictionary.com.

If not, I'd say anonymous is a fair description.

You're "missing" the fact that the definition you
posted does not include the word "publicly". You added
that caveat, and then act as though it doesn't change the
meaning of the phrase.

If the guy is signing his name to notarized legal statements,
how is that "anonymous"?

Caveat? Who's adding caveats?

And can you explain THIS?

"The transcript of a letter sent to the UN Security Council from Libyan UN envoy Ahmed Own, accepting responsibility for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing"

"In this context, and out of respect for international law and pursuant to the Security Council resolutions, Libya as a sovereign state:

has facilitated the bringing to justice of the two suspects charged with the bombing of Pan Am 103, and accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials;

has cooperated with the Scottish investigating authorities before and during the trial and pledges to cooperate in good faith with any further requests for information in connection with the Pan Am 103 investigation. Such cooperation would be extended in good faith through the usual channels;

has arranged for the payment of appropriate compensation. To this end, a special fund has been established and instructions have already been issued to transmit the necessary sums to an agreed escrow account within a matter of days"

Get back to me after reading THIS

Did you happen to come across that particular sentence
during your intensive search?

I suspect you did, and it spurred your sudden need to change
the "anonymity" subject you had been so doggedly fixated upon.

It's become clear that my discussion here with you is not serving
any useful purpose, so I'll end it now, just as I did above
with your fellow CIA-truster Cosmik.

Feel free to get in the last word- I know you enjoy that
sort of thing as much as he does.

Buh-bye! :hi:

They couldn't print it if it was a lie. right?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

We still don't know yet.

Let me try those R.O.F.L thingies. Because those really seem to make the argument.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


There I win.

The reason the envoy is accepting responsibility for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing is because this is after the trial and conviction of Lockerbie bombers, which now seems to be apparently based on falsified evidence. So apparently he has apologized and accepted the responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am 103 based on B.S. allegedly.

Try to further clarify this so you possibly might understand. That this person coming forward has stated, not anonymously because that would required nobody knowing his name including the lawyers, that the key evidence used to convict these two people was faked. All we have right now is that statement from him stating that such. This may or may not lead anywhere, but if it does?

Was that just to make us hate Libya?

if you followed the news at the time. Here is a quick one to get you started.

http://spookterror.blogspot.com/2005/08/lockerbie-bomb-london-bombs.html

a drug ring (in this case heroin) run by certain elements of the CIA, Mossad, or in this case, involvement of an agent of the MI6. Undoubtedly, there are also other connections to al Qaida or other collaborative corruption, for example as in the Sibel Edmonds case, 9-11, or even the falsification of intelligence implicating Saddam Hussein in developing WMDs.

and the stories that come out all seem to interlock.

And little by little we're starting to find out that Osama Bin Laden was given more credit for being responsible and being the mastermind behind the whole 9/11 plot than what most of the world's terrorism experts and Al Qaeda leaders say.

Sorry to be blunt, mate but our entire concept of the "real world" is filtered through agencies (both commercial and private) with a great deal to gain by lying to us.

The Necessary Embrace of Conspiracy
by Robert Shetterly

snip

................. In my talk on Martha’s Vineyard I spoke about William Pepper’s book, An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King, Jr. Pepper had been James Earl Ray’s lawyer. Ray was the man convicted of killing King. But both Pepper and the King family were convinced that Ray was innocent. The King family hired Pepper to represent them in a suit; they asked only $100.00 in damages to clear Ray’s name. Before the trial came to court in 1999, Ray had died in prison. The jury determined that King had been assassinated by a conspiracy involving the Memphis police, the Mafia, the FBI, and the Special Forces of the U.S. Army. Ray, the patsy, had left town before the shot was fired. Pepper had confessions from people involved from each of the organizations named. The verdict was barely mentioned in the U.S. media then and is not mentioned every year on the anniversary of his death. Why?

After my talk on Martha’s Vineyard a man came up to me and said, “I enjoyed your speech and was with you until you started that conspiracy stuff about MLK, Jr.” I said, “That’s not conspiracy. What I told you are facts.” End of conversation.

I think we’re confronted with two conspiracies here: one to commit the crime, the other to ignore it even when the facts are known. ( Two sides of the same coin.) The man who accused me of slipping into the neurotic, aliens-are-among-us land of conspiracy nuts was unable to hear the evidence, perhaps because he was so utterly convinced by our government and media that conspiracies don’t exist, people who espouse them are dangerous fruitcakes, and if you begin to think like that, your whole house of cards wobbles then topples. Who wants that? Better a standing tower of marked cards, than having to admit the game is rigged and the ground is shaking.

America is steeped in conspiracy, and even more steeped in propaganda that discredits those who try to expose the conspiracies. Whether we’re talking about MLK, Jr., JFK, RFK, Iran-Contra, 9/11, or, most importantly, the status quo, anyone who works to uncover the truth is branded a “conspiracy nut” and discredited before any evidence has a fair hearing. The government/corporate/media version is THE VERSION. Anything else is illusory.

In fact, the cultural success of labeling investigative reporters and forensic historians, and, simply, anyone who tries to name reality, “conspiracy nuts” is perhaps the most successful conspiracy of our time. Well, not the most successful. That prize goes to the conspiracy to give corporations all the rights of individual persons under our Constitution. That conspiracy has codified and consolidated corporate power so that it controls our lives in almost every meaningful way. It controls the election funds of our candidates, and them once they are in office. It controls our major media including public broadcasting. It controls the content of our television programming. It controls how are tax dollars are spent making sure that the richest get the most welfare. It controls the laws, the courts, the prison system and the mind numbing propaganda that we are the greatest democracy on earth. It controls the values with which we raise our children. It controls our ability to dispense justice. It controls how we treat nature, how we deface our land with strip malls, and blow the tops off our mountains — a form of corporate free speech. It dictates our modes of transportation. It controls our inability to respond to true crises like climate change. It attempts to create a spiritual deficiency in every person that can be filled and healed only with stuff — and no stuff is ever enough.

As Richard Grossman puts it, “Isn’t it an old story? People create what looks to be a nifty machine, a robot, called the corporation. Over time, the robots get together and overpower the people. … For a century, the robots propagandize and indoctrinate each generation of people so they grow up believing that robots are people too, gifts from God and Mother Nature; that they are inevitable and the source of all that is good. How odd that we have been so gullible, so docile, obedient.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/31/3521

How long have you lived on this planet?

You know which ones. And more. And there is no tin foil involved.

This is a really big deal. It means what we thought was happening, actually happened.


For example, remember the recent post here on the testimony that JFK's autopsy was tampered with?

And WMD's, and yellowcake, and anthrax, and 9/11, and and and...

Also, Matthew Gannon was on that flight.

Both were scheduled to testify about Iran-Contra in a few days....and surprise, surprise their plane blew up. I always thought that was the reason they took down that flight, and now this puts it under even more suspicion.

can be found here...

http://www.constitution.org/ocbpt/ocbpt_08.htm


btw, you ARE a TroubleMan! Kucinich and McKinney? They'd be my two picks (ok, maybe McKinney to head HHS, with Edwards or Gravel as VP)... but it's gonna be a HARD SELL.

peace to you!

:)

"A more plausible explanation is that the Octopus didn't want to compromise its profitable drug and gun running operation — an operation that traces its roots from the Corsican Mafia, through the Hmong tribesman in Laos, to the Mujahadeen in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and finally to the cartels in Columbia and Mexico. It is an enterprise run by many of the same spooks that ran the Cold War, channeling billions of taxpayer dollars into the military/industrial establishment, while funneling thousands of tons of heroin and cocaine into our cities' streets.<1048>"

Do you have a link for that info?
Thanks!

I just got home.

I saw that information on a PBS Frontline on Iran-Contra. However, for a good read, here is an interesting article from Time:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,975399-9,00.html


and one from The Guardian:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Lockerbie/Story/0,2763,740115,00.html


McKee and Gannon went to Beirut to free some hostages. They found out the terrorist kidnappers were being protected by a division of the CIA (that was part of Iran Contra). They told CIA headquarters and were ignored. Then they were going to testify in the Iran Contra hearings, and Pan Am flight 103 was one of their flights back to testify.

Some of the other responses to my post have links, which are helpful, too, and a google search of Charles McKee Iran Contra pulls up a wealth of info.

Thanks a lot!
I did find the Times article myself (see post 40) but your second article has the connection not only to the hostages (and implying a participation of Iran) but yet I don't find the crucial information that they were on their way to testify in both articles. (But certainly the Guardian article is very interesting read, indeed).
Do you have by any chance an article about the fact that the two guyes were going to testify?
Many thanks for your kind help!

He was one of the major players in Iran-Contra. The Guardian article mentions the Al-Kassar part.

Ok! Many thanks and wow!
:toast:

The ring was run by a "rogue" CIA unit working in collusion with Hizbullah, the resistance movement to Israeli occupation of south Lebanon. Some of the funds generated were intended to buy the freedom of six US hostages held by Hizbullah (which was bankrolled by Iran). DIA sources say that the CIA-Hizbullah drug ring was set up by Mossad agents, who had penetrated Hizbullah and were the local Arabic-speaking traffic managers for the CIA. At the same time, Israel would sell elderly US missiles, at ample profit, to Iran; a skim from both drugs and arms profits would be used, as part of Irangate, to subsidise the Contras, the right-wing terrorist movement in Nicaragua so favoured by Reagan and the iniquitous Oliver North.

Aviv carefully doesn't mention Mossad's role in all this, but implies that his detailed revelations come from his "excellent" (ie Mossad) source. It is certainly a known fact that Washington, while tilting toward Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war (and escorting its tankers), sent a delegation to Tehran to arrange the purchase of the Israeli missiles - which would, of course, be used against Iraq.

This might be an interesting read from 1992.
It states that indeed these two guys have been important agents yet their task wasn't giving testimoney for Iran-Contra but they were dealing with the liberation of hostages in Beirut.
"His real assignment reportedly was to work with the CIA in reconnoitering the American hostages in Lebanon and then, if feasible, to lead a daring raid that would rescue them.Almost immediately after the Pan Am bombing, which killed the 259 people aboard the plane and 11 more on the ground, the prime suspect was Ahmed Jibril, the roly-poly boss of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (P.F.L.P.-G.C.). Two months earlier, West German police had arrested 16 members of his terrorist organization. Seized during the raids was a plastic bomb concealed in a Toshiba cassette player, similar to the one that blew up Flight 103. There was other evidence pointing to Jibril. His patron was Syria. His banker for the attack on the Pan Am plane appeared to be Iran. U.S. intelligence agents even traced a wire transfer of several million dollars to a bank account in Vienna belonging to the P.F.L.P.-G.C. Iran's motive seemed obvious enough. The previous July, the U.S.S. Vincennes had mistakenly shot down an Iranian Airbus over the Persian Gulf, killing all 298 aboard.

Suddenly, last November, the U.S. Justice Department blamed the bombing on two Libyans, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah. The scenario prompted President Bush to remark, "The Syrians took a bum rap on this." It also triggered an outcry from the victims' families, who claimed that pointing the finger at Libya was a political ploy designed to reward Syria for siding with the U.S. in the gulf war and to help win the release of the hostages. Even Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's investigation of the bombing, told the New York Times it was "outrageous" to pin the whole thing on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,975399,00.html

the face of the earth that the BFEE and the CIA that it has corrupted.

So it wasn't Libya.. it was Iranian backed terrorists? um.. is it me or is this just a tad shadey considering the timing?

First of all Iran was under suspicion right away. But things are more complicated and also Mossad and CIA might have had their hands in it. Read the two great articles in post 48

I shudder.

Was this just negligence? Or does it go deeper?

Tuesday, 22 August, 2000, 16:01 GMT 17:01 UK
Court 'order' over CIA documents
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/890582.stm

Tuesday, 19 June, 2001
Ex-CIA chief hails Lockerbie probe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1397211.stm

The BBC has many links on the page right side section @ these links.

Lockerbie -- CIA witness gagged by US government
http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/20000601alocktshuk.htm

July 1, 2007
Unpicking the Lockerbie truth
Our correspondent, who has covered the case for 18 years, explains why the conviction may be overturned.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2009603.ece

"Cover-up of Convenience—the Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie"
by John Ashton and Ian Ferguson, Mainstream Publishing, 2002, ISBN 1840183896
By Steve James
24 April 2002
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/apr2002/lock-a24.shtml

Trial timeline at CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/LAW/trials.and.cases/case.files/0010/lockerbie/testimony.html

See also this interview with Caspar Weinberger on PBS right after 11. september 2001:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/interviews/weinberger.html

Which refers to this timeline of attacks against American targets between 1979 - 1988:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html

"Parallels with PA 103
Wreckage of the aircraft was sent to France for forensic examination, where traces of the explosive pentrite were found in the forward cargo hold. Then pieces of a dark grey Samsonite suitcase covered in a layer of pentrite convinced the investigators that this was the source of the explosion. It had been loaded in Brazzaville. Also found was a tiny fragment of a green-coloured printed circuit board which, as in the case of Pan Am Flight 103, turned out to have been from a timing device. This fragment was identified by the FBI's Thomas Thurman as being manufactured by the Taiwanese firm "TY", which had supplied a number of such devices to Libya.<3><4>

On June 28, 2007 the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was granted a second appeal against his conviction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTA_Flight_772