|
Two Wrongs Do Not Make A Right
By Omer Bin Abdullah
08/02/2001
In 1988, a Pan Am airliner blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland killing 270 people, including 35 students from this writer's alma mater, Syracuse University.
In that same year, an American warship, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger plane with a ground-to-air missile, killing all its occupants - 290 Iranian pilgrims on their way to Makkah.
In 1998, twin blasts in U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 224 people, including 12 Americans, and wounded thousands of others.
In April 1986, two-and-a-half years before Lockerbie, U.S. warplanes attacked Libya and killed up to 100 people, including the two-year-old adopted daughter of the Libyan leader Gaddafi.
The bombing of the embassies in East Africa came as a blessing for Clinton who was then hounded by the revelations of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The wag-the-dog missile strikes on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan killed many innocent people and destroyed vital structures such as a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.
In addition, the U.S. and its allies, including Russia, have slapped sanctions against Afghanistan because it will not hand over Osama M. Bin Laden whom the U.S. alleges led these and other bombing attacks. However, the American perpetrators of the Iranian tragedy were let off with a reprimand.
In both instances, the U.S. and its allies violated their own principles of condemning alleged perpetrators of crime without trial. In addition, in both instances, the U.S. circumscribed the authority of the U.N. and took the law in its own hands. Of course, no one has challenged these trespasses of law.
The U.S. thus lost its moral authority - a catch phrase that its loves to spew. Moral authority that is as selective as hypocrisy can sanction.
The U.S. finds no issue in dealing with terrorists from Tel Aviv or destroyers of mosques from New Delhi. Instead, such criminals are honored guests in Washington - with not only heads of state, but also with politicians who are aspiring for office.
In recent times, Western law has lost credibility. It is an acknowledged fact that American lawmakers and enforcers have frequently treated non-whites unfairly. The trials of the alleged World Trade Center (WTC) bombers showed the hollow face of American justice, convicting Muslim activists of alleged crimes on insufficient evidence. In this case, a million dollar government witness was the centerpiece.
A similar drama is being enacted in New York in the trials of those accused of the African embassy bombings. Likewise, a well-paid government witness is testifying in this trial - Egyptian-born Ali Mohamed, 48, who served with the U.S. Special Forces until 1989.
The WTC defendants did not have access to, or the funds to hire, their own lawyers. Similarly, the embassy trial defendants have government appointed lawyers. Their defense lawyers have said that their clients are being prosecuted unfairly; that they are on trial simply because of their association with Osama bin Laden.
The Lockerbie bombing led to sanctions against Libya, sanctions that deprived common citizen of the necessities of life. In all of the countries where America has imposed sanctions, the masses suffer while the rulers continue to indulge in their luxury - albeit in Iraq or Libya.
The Lockerbie mystery has been further complicated by the man accused of perpetrating the crime - Gaddafi. It was only after the announcement of the judgment by the Scottish judges declaring Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi guilty that the Colonel declared that he had proof of the condemned man's innocence - evidence he claimed that would compel the judges to either acquit Al Megrahi, resign or commit suicide.
Gaddafi had promised to accept the judgment of the court, but had warned that it would be fruitless for the trial to result in further investigations into the actions of Libyan officials.
The question is that if Gaddafi had such incontrovertible evidence that would prove the convicted man's and Libya's [read Gaddafi's] innocence, why was he hiding it since 1988?
The Lockerbie judgment has been clouded by the criticism of the person who set up the trial court. A defense lawyer suggested that an unwitting passenger could have placed on board the bomb that downed Pan Am Flight 103. In order to inject the benefit of doubt, the defense also questioned the security arrangements at the airport that handled the luggage containing the bomb.
The prosecutors closed their case with an admission that they do not know how the bomb got onto the jumbo jet.
On November 20, 2000, an American journalist told the trial that the two defendants were not guilty and he knew who was responsible for the bombing. On November 8th, Syria was asked to release a document relating to new evidence. However, Mohammed Abu Talb, a Palestinian convicted for being a terrorist, denied involvement in the bombing.
On November 24th, the trial was adjourned for another week to allow the defense to study the new information handed over by an unnamed foreign government. This government was, however, never named. An interesting revelation was brought out, but from a weak source. Libyan defector and CIA mole, Abdul Majid Giaka, is said to have told the CIA that Colonel Gaddafi was an international mason.
Al Meghrahi was a Libyan airlines security official in Malta. It was testified that two accused persons, one using a false name, flew to Malta the day before Flight 103 blew up. Witnesses said that one of the accused handled bags and tags at a Maltese airport where it is said the bomb was loaded.
However, the July 11th testimony of a Maltese clothing shop owner that he sold clothes to a Libyan man (al-Meghrahi), fragments of which were later found in debris on the crash site, was the deciding factor in his conviction.
The Lockerbie trial, which started on May 3, 2000 at Camp Zeist, a specially convened Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands and was expected to run for more than a year, concluded in 9 months. At its onset, the two defendants pleaded not guilty. In a special defense, they alleged that they know those responsible for the atrocity and named a number of individuals and organizations including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Palestinian Popular Struggle Front.
Theories about the mystery abound. CIA's Vincent Cannistraro is convinced that after the German police sweep, known as Operation Autumn Leaves, the Palestinian group's leader, Ahmed Jibril, who was based in Damascus, handed over the bomb plot to his Libyan friends. If Cannistraro is right, Iran and Syria have gotten off lightly and Libya has paid a heavy price. Thus, the reasons for the switch away from Iran and Syria may have perhaps been political rather than judicial.
In August 1990, 20 months after Lockerbie, Saddam Hussein marched into Kuwait. Within weeks, a vast multi-national coalition led by the U.S. was put together to force him out. Iran and Syria were both among the nations that the U.S. wanted to join the anti-Iraq crusade.
Also, the lure of oil seeks another scenario. The Washington-based lobby group, USA Engage, suggests that sanctions cost American companies billions of dollars in lost exports every year. Libyan oil is cheap to extract, of high quality, and close to European markets. By last fall, Libya was proffering $35 billion in new projects, and Western businessmen were flocking there. Britain reestablished relations with Libya some time ago after an agreement dealing with Libyan responsibility for the shooting of a London police officer. The impulse is to close the door on the past and move on. However, the question is will Americans allow them to enjoy the loot alone?
Another aspect in the whole discussion is America's urge to control, especially Muslims. The Christian world has not been able to erase their memory of the fact that Muslims once ruled parts of Europe.
Muslim political observers say that the Bin Laden extradition story is a mere ploy whose real purpose is to destabilize Afghanistan and stop it from becoming a rallying point for worldwide Islam. They maintain that the U.S. will never accept a strong Islamic government anywhere, including Kabul, be it of the Taliban or anyone else.
The question is with Gaddafis and Fahds ruling the Muslim world, will Muslims be able to unite to help Afghanistan or any other brother nation in confronting the world-devouring arrogance of Western imperialism?
The Lockerbie trial, like all other high profile trials, will remain a mystery until, perhaps, some thirty years later when some facts may trickle out from declassified documents.
|
