None of the inquiries that found Blair didn't lie on Iraq were independent - they were all full of political appointees ; John Rentoul and Tony Blair try to pass off political fixes as independent inquires

John Rentoul, Tony Blair’s biographer and mini-me, and politics editor for the Independent,  added another disingenuous denial that Blair and his associates were dishonest about Iraq last September. This time he echoed Blair’s claim that “every independent analysis” has found he did not lie about Iraq (1). Rentoul helps out by specifying what these supposedly independent analyses are

‘Foreign Affairs select committee inquiry, 2003.

Intelligence and Security Committee inquiry, 2003.

Hutton inquiry, 2004.

Butler inquiry, 2004.

General election, 2005.’ (2)

Yet not one of these supposedly “independent” inquiries was actually independent at all – they were all headed by appointees of Blair or had a majority of members appointed by Blair’s government.

The heads of the Hutton and Butler inquiries were appointed by Blair, who also decided what powers they would have, what their remit would be (i.e what they could as about) and what evidence they could and could not see. Not surprising then, since the accused got to appoint the judges, decide the charges and limit what evidence they could see, that the accused was found not guilty on all charges. If all trials were conducted that way, no one would ever be found guilty of anything no matter how much evidence there was of their guilt.

(The Chilcot Inquiry is similarly made up entirely of people who supported the war or who owe their positions in the House of Lords to Blair or Brown)

Parliamentary Select Committees like the Foreign Affairs and intelligence and Security Committees have MPs as members, in proportion to the number of MPs of that party in parliament. As Labour had a big majority after the 2000 General Election, that would mean that in 2003 the majority of MPs on those committees would be Labour – and so not inclined to criticise their own party leader too much. On top of that, in 2003 Select Committee members were still appointed by party leaders – so all the Labour members of those committees were appointed by Blair, so would not be rebels on Iraq. Most other MPs on those committees would be Conservatives – and the vast majority of Conservative MPs voted for the war. So the idea that these were independent inquiries is utterly ridiculous.

Citing the 2005 General election is particularly ludicrous, as an election is not an inquiry into anything ; and as no British general election in the last century has been decided by any foreign policy issue. Many people who voted Labour in 2005 were completely against the Iraq war and thought Blair had lied about it, but voted Labour as they thought Labour were less bad than the Conservatives on domestic policies.

It seems that the Independent newspaper’s politics editor doesn’t know the difference between independent inquiries and political fixes – at least certainly not where his hero Tony Blair is concerned.

(1) = John Rentoul ‘Eagle Eye’ blog 5 Sep 2012 ‘Monbiot: the big coward’,
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/09/05/monbiot-the-big-coward/

(2) = Observer 02 Sep 2012 ‘Tony Blair should face trial over Iraq war, says Desmond Tutu’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/02/tony-blair-iraq-war-desmond-tutu

The price of NATO membership for an independent Scotland would be being involved in unwinnable wars like Afghanistan ; and continuing to pay for Trident nuclear weapons and upgrades which we wouldn't need any more than Norway does ‏‏

First Minister Alex Salmond, writing in the Sunday Herald (‘Why we can ban nuclear weapons and stay in Nato’ Sunday Herald 14^th October) gives welcome assurances that an independent Scotland in NATO wouldn’t take military action without UN authorisation and a Scottish parliament vote, mentioning Iraq (1). He doesn’t mention NATO’s UN backed war in Afghanistan though. NATO membership could draw an independent Scotland into similar unwinnable wars, fought for dubious motives and with dubious methods, in future.

Nor does he explain how we could persuade the UK government, let alone the US, the most influential member of NATO, to allow us full membership while costing the UK a fortune to move it’s submarine bases, especially when Trident contracts are going to English and US based firms with (excessively) close links to the British and American governments.

Even UK Ministry of Defence base maintenance and submarine refit contract work on Trident submarines has gone to a British subsidiary of the US Defence firm Lockheed Martin, the English based company Babcock and AWE plc (based in Reading, England and two-thirds owned by US based Lockheed Martin and Jacobs Engineering, with the rest owned by the UK government and English based firm Serco (2) – (3).  The first £350 million of Trident upgrade contracts went to Lockheed Martin, English based Rolls-Royce and English based firm BAE, which also has a large arm in the US (4).  BAE is expected to get most of the rest of the upgrade contracts too (5).

The Campaign Against the Arms Trade in the UK has also shown dozens of instances of the revolving door between these arms manufacturers and the MoD, the British government and senior positions in the British military (6).

According to the MoD building another base suitable for the UK’s nuclear submarine fleet in England, Wales or Northern Ireland could take up to a decade (7).

So why would the remaining UK government support NATO membership for an Independent Scotland except on the condition that we allowed it to keep its nuclear submarine fleet and it’s only base capable of repairing, maintaining and refitting that fleet in Scotland?

A nuclear free independent Scotland might even result in the UK dropping it’s Trident upgrade altogether and going for a joint nuclear deterrent, or at the least temporary base sharing, with France, preliminary negotiations on which took place both under the last Labour government and under the current Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition (though the French government seems keener than the British) (8) – (9).

That would mean the UK’s military co-operation with France would become closer, reducing US influence with the UK. US firms would be likely to lose out even if this didn’t happen. Either way the US government would not be happy.

So a nuclear free Independent Scotland and NATO membership are simply not compatible with each other. We need to choose one or the other ; and if we want to avoid paying for maintenance , running costs and upgrades of the UK nuclear deterrent, we need to choose being nuclear weapons free.

Why NATO or Partnership for Peace membership could draw an Independent Scotland into more wars like Afghanistan
– and why the war is as ineffective in achieving it’s stated aims as it is morally dubious and unwinnable

Nor does the First Minister offer any guarantee of a referendum on any decision to go to war that would give the Scottish people the final decision on an issue of many lives and deaths ; nor any guarantee that backbenchers or the opposition in an independent Scottish parliament could  initiate a vote (or a vote to have a referendum) on withdrawing our troops from a war they had previously voted to approve sending troops to.

The Afghanistan war has pulled in the UK as a NATO member; and even those members of NATO (e.g Canada and Poland and even Norway which sent special forces to the initial US led invasion and then over 500 troops to the ISAF force which are only now leaving) and its joint-training associated arm Partnership for Peace (e.g Ukraine), ended up sending significant numbers of troops either to the initial invasion or as part of the UN approved but NATO (and effectively US) led ISAF force, or both.

Hundreds of British troops, including Scots, have been killed in the war, which has lasted over 11 years and counting, twice as long as World War One, coming up twice as long as World War Two; and over half way to being as long as the Vietnam war (10).

It has also involved not only the notorious killings and suicide bombing attacks on civilians by the Taliban, but also torture of Afghans by US, NATO and Afghan government forces, including civilians with no involvement in terrorism, sometimes to death; and many thousands of civilians killed by air strikes under Bush, as well as by air strikes and night raids (often targeting teenagers who turn out to be innocent) under Obama. Civilian deaths from US air strikes actually increased under Obama compared to under Bush and torture has continued at secret ‘black sites’ in Afghanistan under Obama (11) – (19).  

US intelligence estimate 90% of Afghan insurgents are neither Taliban nor motivated by religion, but by opposing foreign military presence, or revenge for the injury or deaths of members of their family, village or tribe by NATO forces (20). So this is not primarily a war against the Taliban at all, but one which turns the majority of Afghans against NATO countries and the Afghan government.

NATO says Pakistan’s military intelligence continue aiding the Afghan Taliban , despite now being at war with the Pakistani Taliban (21). Yet the US continues to provide financial aid to Pakistan, some of which will be passed on to the Taliban, because the shortest supply route for NATO forces in Afghanistan is through Pakistan (22) – (24). So NATO has to indirectly fund the Taliban in order to supply it’s troops in Afghanistan – a hopeless situation.

Wars are not effective against Al Qa’ida, a global terrorist organisation which can operate in any country in the world, the 9-11 hijackers having trained in the US and Germany (25) – (27). Intelligence, policing and Special Forces can be.

There are also ulterior motives for the war. The main ulterior motive was to try and get a Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline to export oil and gas from former Soviet republics like Kazakhstan (which has vast oil and gas reserves and where BP, Exxon, Halliburton have had contracts since the 1990s) , Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan (both have significant proven gas reserves). The advantage of this pipeline route would be that it would avoid passing through countries where Russia has significant influence and might be able to cut off exports at will (e.g Georgia – which is on the route of the western oil company AIOC group’s Baku-Ceyhan pipeline route – especially after the Russian-Georgian War in which Russia allowed a secessionist movement to succeed) and Iran. The pipeline route was the reason the US gave political backing to the Taliban at first and quietly approved the Saudis and Pakistanis funding, training and arming them. They couldn't get a deal between UNOCAL and the Taliban at a transit price per barrel that oil firms were willing to pay. (28) – (32)

After the invasionin 2002 the Presidents of Turkmenistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan signed a deal on the pipeline route and in 2010 a deal was made planning to extend it to India (33) – (34)

Salmond’s smooth moves to convince Scottish voters that Independence wouldn’t be a big change ignore the  high costs and risk of much of the Status Quo, including NATO membership

Would backbenchers in the Scottish parliament have the power to initiate a vote on withdrawing troops from wars parliament had previously approved by majority vote? Shouldn’t a referendum also be required before going to war to give everyone a say in a matter of life or death for thousands.

Alec Salmond is certainly making smooth moves by trying to make voters see independence as less of a big risk, by reassuring them that lots of things will remain unchanged – NATO membership, EU membership, our currency, the Queen as head of state, an open border with England etc.

However the status quo carries its own risks. In the case of continued NATO membership the risks are not only that we might be required to keep nuclear weapons on Scottish territory and continue to pay a proportion of the costs of running, maintaining, refitting and upgrading them as a condition of continued membership (despite the fact an independent Scotland would have no more need for a nuclear deterrent than Norway does), but also that we could be drawn by the alliance into more long, bloody, unwinnable wars fought mostly for the benefit of US and British oil and arms companies.

Sign the No to NATO Scotland statement and follow the campaign

You can sign an online statement opposing NATO membership for an independent Scotland on the No to NATO Scotland Coalition website on this link (scroll down the page till you see an orange button with 'Sign the Statement' on it on the right - click it, fill in details and enter them). There's also news and information, including on protests by the campaign that you can take part in, on the website.

Sources

 (1) = Sunday Herald 14^th October 2012 ‘Why we can ban nuclear weapons and stay in Nato’,
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/why-we-can-ban-nuclear-weapons-and-stay-in-nato.19134185

(2) = Ministry of Defence 27 Jul 2012 ‘MOD signs Trident support contract’,
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/ModSignsTridentSupportContract.htm

(3) = guardian.co.uk Trident 30 Jul 2012 ‘bases to be run by private companies’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/30/trident-bases-run-private-companies

(4) = BBC News 22 May 2012 ‘Trident contracts worth £350m unveiled by MoD’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18155835

(5) = CAAT Revolving Door Log, http://www.caat.org.uk/issues/influence/revolving-door.php

(6) = Independent 22 May 2012 ‘Government awards contracts worth £350m for new Trident submarines’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/government-awards-contracts-worth-350m-for-new-trident-submarines-7778161.html

(7) = Telegraph 26 Jan 2012 ‘Nuclear subs will stay in Scotland, Royal Navy chiefs decide’,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9043092/Nuclear-subs-will-stay-in-Scotland-Royal-Navy-chiefs-decide.html

(8) = guardian.co.uk 19 Mar 2010 ‘France offers to join forces with UK's nuclear submarine fleet’ , http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/19/france-britain-shared-nuclear-deterrent

(9) = Independent 30 Sep 2010 ‘Britain and France may share nuclear deterrent’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/britain-and-france-may-share-nuclear-deterrent-2093539.html

(10) = BBC News 24 Sep 2012 ‘UK military deaths in Afghanistan’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10629358 , (433 as of 24^th September, around 24 Scottish)

(11) Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 ‘Torture and Inhumane Treatment: A Deliberate U.S. Policy’, http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k6/introduction/2.htm#_Toc121910421 ; ‘the abuse at Abu Ghraib paralleled similar if not worse abuse in Afghanistan, Guantánamo, elsewhere in Iraq, and in the chain of secret detention facilities where the U.S. government holds its “high value” detainees’

(12) = Human Rights Watch 20 May 2005 - ‘Afghanistan: Killing and Torture by U.S. Predate Abu Ghraib ' - http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/05/20/afghan10992.htm

(13) = NYT 20 May 2005 ‘In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths’,
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?ei=5088&en=4579c146cb14cfd6&ex=1274241600&pagewanted=all

(14) =  Wikipedia Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Aggregation_of_estimates (This provides estimates of civilian casualties caused by the various forces involved by various sources including Professor Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire , the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan  (UNAMA) , Human Rights Watch and The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission – whichever estimates you take, thousands have been killed by NATO forces before counting the thousands also killed by Taliban and other insurgents. The reports by the sources are also listed and linked to)

(15) = according to The Afghanistan Conflict Monitor of Simon Fraser University in Australia in 2011: “Estimates of the number of civilians killed vary widely and must be treated with caution. Systematic collection of civilian fatality data only began in 2007. The United Nations is creating a civilian casualty database, but is not publicly accessible. Periodic updates can be found in Reports of the Secretary-General on peace and security in Afghanistan. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) is also collecting data, but the efforts of both agencies are hampered by insecurity and a lack of resources. As a result, figures released by these agencies likely represent a substantial undercount.”

(16) = See this blog post , scrolling down to sub-headings ‘‘Civilian and military deaths caused by both sides in the war – is it necessary or worth it?’ and ‘Night Raids and the El Salvador Option moving from Iraq to Afghanistan’ – as well as the sources listed for each section under the same headings further down the post (they include Human Rights Watch and Afghan Independent Human Rights Watch reports as well as BBC and Times newspaper reports among others ) http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/one-more-push-for-what-in-afghanistan.html

(17) = See this blog post ‘Have NATO airstrikes killed fewer civilians in Afghanistan under Obama? And have they fallen under McChrystal?’ which is fully sourced with mainstream sources ; http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/have-nato-airstrikes-killed-less.html

(18) = For more details and sources on torture by US forces in Afghanistan under Bush see the page on this link  ; for torture under both Bush and Obama in Afghanistan see the blog post on this link, scrolling down to the bolded sub-heading ‘Guantanamo to Bagram : extra-ordinary rendition  (kidnapping) and torture’

(19) = Jennifer K Harbury (2005) ‘Truth, Torture and the American Way’, Beacon Press, Boston, 2005 ; Harbury, whose Guatemalan husband Everardo was tortured and then disappeared during CIA led operations by the Guatemalan military, provides masses of evidence that torture by US intelligence and military forces has always happened, even when it was illegal under US law, casting doubt on whether Obama’s formal ban on most forms of torture (except psychological torture and sleep deprivation) will be enough to end it

(20) = Boston Globe 09 Oct 2009 ‘Taliban not main Afghan enemy’, http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2009/10/09/most_insurgents_in_afghanistan_not_religiously_motivated_military_reports_say/?page=1

(21) = BBC News 01 Feb 2012 ‘Pakistan helping Afghan Taliban - Nato’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16821218 , ‘The Taliban in Afghanistan are being directly assisted by Pakistani security services, according to a secret Nato report seen by the BBC… the report… exposes…the relationship between the ISI and the Taliban…. based on material from 27,000 interrogations with more than 4,000 captured Taliban, al-Qaeda and other foreign fighters and civilians.’

(22) = Reuters 22 May 2012 ‘U.S. senators vote to tie Pakistan aid to supply routes’,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/23/us-pakistan-usa-aid-idUSBRE84M03Y20120523

(23) = CNN 04 Jul 2012 ‘Pakistan reopens NATO supply routes to Afghanistan’,
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/03/world/asia/us-pakistan-border-routes/index.html ,
‘Meanwhile, the U.S. military will now pay Pakistan $1.1 billion it owes as part of the deal struck to reopen the NATO supply lines …The money is part of a U.S. military program …which reimburses the Pakistani military for counterterrorism efforts.’

(24) = BBC 03 Jul 2012 ‘Pakistan to reopen supply lines to Nato Afghan forces’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18691691 , ‘US officials say the existing charge of $250 (£160) per truck will not change - Washington had baulked at a Pakistani demand for $5,000 per container to let supplies flow again.’

(25) = Minneapolis Star Tribune 20 Dec 2001 ‘Eagan Flight Trainer Wouldn't Let Unease About Moussaoui Rest’, http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=11642646

(26) = USA Today 28 May 2002 ‘Letter shifts heat to FBI’,
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/28/letter-fbi.htm

(27) = NYT 24 Feb 2004 ‘C.I.A. Was Given Data on Hijacker Long Before 9/11’, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/24TERR.html?ex=1225252800&en=ce51b8f44bd6a30c&ei=5070

(28) =  Also see this page on my website and sources in it

(29) = Rashid , Ahmed(2001) Taliban Tauris, London , paperback, 2001 – p167, 173

(30) = Guardian 24 Oct 2001, ‘Route to riches’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,579401,00.html (Afghanistan has huge strategic importance for the west as a corridor to the untapped fuel reserves in central Asia, reports Andy Rowell)

(31) = U.S. INTEREST IN CENTRAL ASIA:JOHN J. MARESCA , TESTIMONY BY JOHN J. MARESCA VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS UNOCAL CORPORATION TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC , FEBRUARY 12, 1998 WASHINGTON, D.C., http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0f.htm

(32) = Coll, Steve (2004) 'Ghost Wars : The secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden' , Penguin paperback, London, 2004, pages 308, 313

(33) = BBC News 27 Dec 2002 , ‘Central Asia pipeline deal signed’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2608713.stm

(34) = BBC News 11 Dec 2010 ‘Turkmen natural gas pipeline Tapi to cross Afghanistan’ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11977744

The Real Lockerbie bombers must be unable to believe their luck that the witch hunt against Megrahi is still letting them get off with mass murder even after he's dead

The real Lockerbie bombers, whoever they are, must be unable to believe their luck that they are still not even facing any charges for their criminal act of mass murder, due to most politicians and much of the media continuing witch-hunting Megrahi even after his death. This is helping governments deny Scottish and British relatives of Lockerbie victims from getting the truth which they are demanding, by helping the Scottish and British governments deny them an independent public inquiry.

Megrahi is still routinely labelled a 'mass murderer' or 'convicted Lockerbie bomber' by many politicians and much of them media, despite his trial having been a show trial that Stalin would have admired. There was no jury (1). Key evidence - the timer fragment - was tampered with and probably fake according to witness and timer manufacturer Edwin Bollier. Bollier also says the fragment he was shown in court had a brown circuit board, while those he sold to the Libyan government had green circuit boards (2).

Witness Tony Gauci - who identified Megrahi as the person who bought clothes said to have been found in a suitcase surviving the plane crash - was paid $2 million by the US government to identify Megrahi as the man who bought them ; and had seen photos of Megrahi in magazines before doing so (3) - (4).

Scots Law Professor Robert Black (who helped negotiate the establishment of the trial), UN observer Dr Hans Kochler and Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the bombing, are among the many reliable neutral observers present at the trial and appeals hearings who say they were shams and that Megrahi was innocent (5) - (7).

Kochler said the trial verdict made no sense based on the evidence, while the appeal hearing (in which Megrahi was denied an appeal) was more like an intelligence operation than a legal process and also"a spectacular miscarriage of justice" (8) - (11).

Black has written that "for the judges to be satisfied of all these matters on the evidence led at the trial, they would require to adopt the posture of the White Queen in Through the Looking-Glass, when she informed Alice: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." In convicting Megrahi ... this is precisely what the trial judges did. I am absolutely convinced that if the evidence had come out in front of a Scottish jury of 15 there is absolutely no way he would have been convicted." (12)

Theories that should be investigated

There are three theories plausible enough to warrant investigation.

Iranian revenge for the killing of 290 Iranian airliner passengers by the USS Vincennes?

The first is that the bombers were Palestinian and Lebanese terrorists contracted by Syria's government for Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini after he vowed revenge for the killing of 290 Iranian civilians when the US navy warship the USS Vincennes entered Iranian waters during the Iran-Iraq war (in which the Reagan administration was allied to Saddam Hussein) and shot down an Iranian Airbus airliner earlier in 1988 (13) - (14).

This would be embarrassing to the US government and it's allies because it highlights a massacre of civilians by their own forces, whether deliberately or , more likely, accidentally through sheer recklessness and carelessness in starting a battle that could have been avoided and not using their radar system properly (15).

If this did lead to the Lockerbie bombing in revenge it would also show that terrorist attacks are not always random or based on irrational hatred, but sometimes acts of revenge for the murder of other civilians by the US government and it's military.

It was also the original line followed by the first British police investigations into Lockerbie, but rapidly reversed after a phone call to Margaret Thatcher from President Bush senior in 1989. Bush would go on to enlist Syria as an ally against Iraq in the 1990 Gulf War and secure Iran's neutrality in it (16) - (20).

Gaddafi's revenge for US airstrikes using planes refuelling in the UK in 1986?

The second is that Gaddafi ordered it as revenge for US bombing attacks on Tripoli in 1986, in which the planes involved used British airbases with to refuel (with the permission of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher). The bombings killed dozens of people including Gaddafi's adopted daughter but fai (21) - (22).

Cover-up of CIA drug trafficking involvement from the Middle East to Europe,
similar to that from central and Southern America in the 1980s as part of Iran-Contra?

The third is that the CIA bombed the flight to kill operatives who were about to reveal their involvement in Middle Eastern heroin trafficking. Former US Defence Intelligence Agency operative Lester Coleman says some CIA and DEA (US Drug Enforcement Agency) agents' bags were never checked when they flew through Frankfurt or London Heathrow airports (23) - (24).

This would explain how the bomb, which the prosecution claimed was in Megrahi's suitcase, managed to get through airport security without being detected.

John Ashton and Paul Foot’s investigation found that Jim Wilson, a farmer whose farm was near Lockerbie, found a suit-case containing bags of white powder which he suspected were drugs among the debris on his land. He was not called to give evidence at the trial. The name on the case was not on flight's passenger list. On the night of the bombing two bus loads of FBI agents arrived the same night at the site. Residents reported that they had a coffin on one of the buses. Scottish doctors and police had tagged 59 bodies. Only 58 were ever mentioned by the FBI and the prosecution. According toe Coleman the 59th body was Major Charles Mckee - a US intelligence agent who was about to blow the whistle on a deal with Lebanese drug traffickers. (25).

This may sound far-fetched unless you know about the part of the Iran-Contra scandal which involved the CIA and US military intelligence, using Latin American drug smugglers' planes to fly guns to the contras, with the purchase of the guns funded by the CIA taking a cut of the profits from cocaine smuggling into the US in the same planes. This was authorised by senior members of the Reagan administration in order to get round the congressional Boland Amendment which banded any US government funding of arms for the contra terrorists. This has been established by congressional inquiries and investigations by American academics - and it was going through the 1980s - with the Lockerbie bombing happening in 1988 (26) - (28).

This third theory is strengthened by the fact that the US government, after recieving a warning phone call, warned many of it's employees not to get on the flight, but did not warn McKee nor other governments or members of the public (29).

The truth did not die when Megrahi did : Give Scottish and British Lockerbie relatives the Independent Public Inquiry they demand

Whether one of the above theories is the truth or something else entirely, we should give the relatives of Lockerbie victims the independent public inquiry which they are demanding, deserve and are being denied by politicians of every major party in Scotland and Britain (30).

By an independent public inquiry I mean one in which the inquiry is given governmental authority and powers, but it's powers, remitt (the evidence it can consider, questions it can ask and conclusions it can draw) and who heads it are all decided by the Scottish and other British relatives of those killed at Lockerbie.

The truth being embarrassing for politicians and judges is not a good enough reason to deny it to the families.

The governments and politicians and judges for whom an end to any questions about Lockerbie would avoid embarrassment ; and those in the media who have chosen to parrot the government line might prefer to claim that the truth about Lockerbie was lost when Megrahi died , but it was not and will not be.

Sources

(1) = BBC News 20 May 2012 'Lockerbie questions remain following Megrahi's death', http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-12191604

(2) = Observer 02 Sep 2007 'Vital Lockerbie evidence 'was tampered with'', http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/sep/02/theairlineindustry.libya

(3) = Herald 03 Oct 2007 'Revealed: CIA offered $2m to Lockerbie witness and brother', http://www.heraldscotland.com/revealed-cia-offered-2m-to-lockerbie-witness-and-brother-1.866400

(4) = BBC News 28 Aug 2008 'Lockerbie evidence not disclosed ', http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/7573244.stm ; '...Tony Gauci, who picked al-Megrahi out in a line-up, had looked at a magazine photograph of him just four days before he made the identification. BBC TV programme The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie has now seen documentary evidence that Scottish police knew this was the case. That information should have been passed to the defence, but the disclosure did not take place. '

(5) = Professor Robert Black's 'The Lockerbie Case' blog, http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/

(6) = Dr Hans Kochler , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_K%C3%B6chler%27s_Lockerbie_trial_observer_mission

(7) = Lockerbietruth.com - The website of Dr Jim Swire and Lockerbie researcher Peter Biddulph, http://www.lockerbietruth.com/

(8) = Independent 21 Aug 2009 ‘Hans Köchler: I saw the trial – and the verdict made no sense’, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/hans-kchler-i-saw-the-trial-ndash-and-the-verdict-made-no-sense-1775217.html

(9) = BBC News 14 Mar 2002 ‘UN monitor decries Lockerbie judgement’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1872996.stm

(10) = The Firm (Scottish lawyers’ magazine) 10 Jun 2008 ‘UN Observer to the Lockerbie Trial says ‘totalitarian’ appeal process bears the hallmarks of an “intelligence operation”’, http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/901/UN_Observer_to_the_Lockerbie_Trial_says_%E2%80%98totalitarian%E2%80%99_appeal_process_bears_the_hallmarks_of_an_%E2%80%9Cintelligence_operation%E2%80%9D_.html

(11) = Report on the appeal proceedings at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands (Lockerbie Court) in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi v. H. M. Advocate by Professor Hans Köchler, international observer of the International Progress Organization nominated by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the basis of Security Council resolution 1192 (1998)

(12) = ‘The Lockerbie Case’ 21 Aug 2009 , http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/08/this-shameful-miscarriage-has-gravely.html (blog written by Professor Robert Black)

Sources - Iranian revenge for killing of 290 Iranian airliner passengers by the USS Vincennes?

(13) = NYT 15 Jul 1988 ‘Iran Falls Short in Drive at U.N. To Condemn U.S. in Airbus Case’, http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/15/world/iran-falls-short-in-drive-at-un-to-condemn-us-in-airbus-case.html

(14) = Newsweek 13 Jul 1992 ‘Sea of Lies : Sea Of Lies : The Inside Story Of How An American Naval Vessel Blundered Into An Attack On Iran Air Flight 655 At The Height Of Tensions During The Iran-Iraq War-And How The Pentagon Tried To Cover Its Tracks After 290 Innocent Civilians Died’, http://www.newsweek.com/id/126358

(15) = See (14) above

(16) = Guardian 31 March 2004 ‘Lockerbie's dirty secret’, by Paul Foot, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/mar/31/lockerbie.libya

(17) = Paul Foot (1989-2001) ‘The Great Lockerbie Whitewash’ in Pilger, John (ed.) (2005) ‘Tell Me No Lies’, Vintage/Random House, London, 2005, pages 214-254

(18) = Sunday Times 01 Jul 2007 ‘Unpicking the Lockerbie truth’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2009603.ece (19) = Guardian 07 Apr 1999 ‘Lockerbie conspiracies: from A to Z ; Based on a 1995 Guardian investigation by Paul Foot and John Ashton’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/apr/07/lockerbie.patrickbarkham (20) = Guardian 29 Jul 1995, SECTION: THE GUARDIAN WEEKEND, Page T22 ‘INSIDE STORY: BODY OF EVIDENCE’, http://leninology4.blogspot.com/2007/06/paul-foot-john-ashtons-1995.html

Sources - Gaddafi's revenge for US airstrikes using planes refuelling in the UK in 1986?

(21) = Bovard, James (2003) ‘Terrorism and Tyranny’, Palgrave-MacMillan, NY,2003, Chapter 2, pages 24-26

(22) = Geoff Simons (2003) ‘Libya and the West’ Center for Libyan Studies, Oxford, UK, 2003,Chapter 7, pages 131-134 of hardback edition

Sources - Cover-up of CIA drug trafficking involvement from the Middle East to Europe, similar to that from central and Southern America in the 1980s as part of Iran-Contra

(23) = Coleman, Lester K & Goddard, Donald (1993) ‘Trail of the Octopus: From Beirut to Lockerbie - Inside the DIA’

(24) = Guardian 29 Jul 1995, SECTION: THE GUARDIAN WEEKEND, Page T22 ‘INSIDE STORY: BODY OF EVIDENCE’, http://leninology4.blogspot.com/2007/06/paul-foot-john-ashtons-1995.html

(25) = See (24) above (26) = Cockburn, Alexander & St. Clair, Jeffrey (1998), ‘Whiteout – The CIA, Drugs and the Press’, Verso, London & N.Y , 1998, Chapters 12 & 13 (27) = Scott, Peter Dale & Marshall, Jonathan (1998) ‘Cocaine Politics – Drugs, Armies and the CIA in Central America (1998 edition)’, University of California Press, Berkeley, London & Los Angeles, 1998 (28) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North#Involvement_with_drug_trafficking (this is a wikipedia entry but provides reliable sources - including the Kerry report - a congressional inquiry into links between drug traffickers, the contras and the CIA - and FBI investigations)

(29) = See (24) above

Sources - Give Lockerbie relatives the Independent Public Inquiry they demand

(30) = Herald (Scotland) 22 May 2012 'Lockerbie families vow to force public inquiry', http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/crime-courts/lockerbie-families-vow-to-force-public-inquiry.17660141