Lockerbie Families Ask: Was There a Deal with Libya?
The controversy over the release of al-Magrahi, the convicted terrorist responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, continues. Family members and those in charge of the investigation cannot understand the reasoning behind his release and point to politics as the true reason.
Richard Marquise, the FBI’s chief investigator, told NewMajority that the writing was on the wall when Tony Blair went to Libya in 2007 and tried to negotiate an agreement to transfer Magrahi from a jail in Scotland to one in Libya. According to those interviewed, the Scottish Government, asserting its independence from Britain, refused to agree to the deal. Two years later, Scotland agreed to release him under its own terms, citing compassion as the reason.
The question remains: why was Magrahi released at this time? Robert Mueller, the FBI Director, wrote in his open letter to the Scottish Attorney General:
You apparently made this decision without regard to the views of your partners in the investigation and the prosecution of those responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy. Although the FBI and Scottish police, and prosecutors in both countries, worked exceptionally closely to hold those responsible accountable, you never once sought our opinion… hiding behind opaque references to the ‘need for compassion.’
Many feel that America and the United Kingdom wanted a complete normalization of relations, which included business contracts. Marquise pointed out to NewMajority that “a couple of weeks ago Gaddafi came out and said unless Mr. Magrahi is released and sent home, there will be a great amount of difficulties for all the British and American companies that want to do business in Libya. There are a lot of things we do for the Libyans that is over the top since there are still unanswered questions.”
Peter Lowenstein, who lost his son on the flight, explained that the UK depends heavily on oil from Libya. He feels that Magrahi’s release and the business ventures are definitely related and stated, “if you connect the dots it surely is part of the equation. The Libyans are thankful for the release and will now do business with the UK. Its’ all falling into place.”
Frank Duggan, President of Pan Am Families United, told NewMajority that Scottish law allows for compassionate release if someone has three months or less to live. He pointed out that there must be other reasons than being compassionate for the release by bitterly stating that “there were seven other prisoners (unrelated to Pan Am 103) who were denied compassionate release. Now what could those people have done that he (the Scottish A.G.) has decided not to release them when he turns around and releases the guy who has killed 270 people.”
All those interviewed feel that the Obama administration is also to blame. Susan Cohen, who lost her daughter on the flight, commented that she is an Obama supporter but was disappointed because the President “should be speaking out. He should end diplomatic relations with Libya… How far do we go for someone who blew up a plane full of innocent citizens. Even Obama does nothing but concessions and appeasements.”
Duggan goes further when he explained that there is the desire with both the American and British governments to normalize relations with Libya. He was hoping the Obama administration would see Gaddafi for what he truly is: a terrorist. He stated that “our own government, I am sorry to say, has gotten very involved with the Libyan Government. We are talking about exchanging military hardware with them… there was a race since 2007 to get American business in there.”
All those interviewed agree with Susan Cohen’s point that Gaddafi was asked to keep quiet, and stay out of sight because America and the United Kingdom “don’t want the people to see what you are and don’t want people to know what we’re doing.” What the countries are doing is best said by Bob Monetti: “Gaddafi is in charge of a country with oil and money and so his butt is kissed.”