It happened 11 years ago -- on December 21, 1988 -- but the media returned to the Pan Am 103 bombing case on December 7 when the two Libyans accused of bombing the plane made their first public appearance where their trial is being held. The bombing killed 270 people, including 189 Americans, over Lockerbie, Scotland, but the trial is being held before a Scottish court in the Netherlands.
The occasion was a motion by the defense to have a key charge against them thrown out, and to have the prosecutors quit referring to them as Libyan intelligence agents. The Washington Post thought the hearing went good for the Libyans, headlining its story, "Prosecutor Stumbles In Pan Am Bomb Case." The reporter said the prosecutor "appeared flustered and confused" during the hearing.
But the prosecutor won the next day when the Scottish judge presiding at the hearing threw out both defense motions. He ruled that the charge of conspiracy to murder could remain, and that the defendants could still be described as intelligence agents. But the Washington Post's dubious story was less important than a so-called ABC News "investigation" of the case that aired the same day. Correspondent Sheila MacVicar tried to poke holes in the prosecutor's case and suggested that the evidence against the defendants was so weak that they might get off.
The case is very complex, but the main charge is that the Libyans destroyed the aircraft by causing a suitcase to be put on board containing a bomb hidden in a radio-cassette player. MacVicar made much of confusion over whether the Libyans were the ones who actually bought the clothes in the suitcase. She also presented a Scottish law professor, Robert Black, who claimed the evidence against the Libyans was weak. Black also surfaced on a CBS 60 Minutes story about the case that aired last April. But Black is viewed with distrust by American families of the Pan Am victims because he assisted the Libyans in getting the trial held before a Scottish court in a country other than the U.S. or Britain. He traveled to Libya at his own expense to finalize the deal.
On the issue of a weak case, former CIA counterterrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro, who has been a consultant to ABC News, was not consulted on this story. He says MacVicar was way off-base. He says the evidence is strong, especially on the role of Libyan terrorist leader Moammar Gadhafi. But he has not been charged in the case!
The British government earlier this year stopped the London Sunday Times from publishing details of an intelligence operation showing that Gadhafi personally ordered the bombing. If MacVicar had brought that up, she might have moved into an area of controversy that really deserves more scrutiny: why has Gadhafi not been charged, and why have the British already restored diplomatic relations with Libya? The real story is how the British government of Tony Blair is sabotaging the case against the Libyans so oil deals can be made with Gadhafi. Being based in London, Sheila MacVicar is in a perfect position to cover that story. She ought to do so.
America’s Survival, P.O. Box 146, Owings, MD 20736 www.usasurvival.org |