ShareThis Page
News

The Lockerbie deal

| Sunday, Jan. 30, 2011

New evidence uncovered by Vanity Fair writer David Rose further confirms the unthinkable -- a conspiracy among Libya, Britain and Scotland to secure freedom for the only person convicted of the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Mr. Rose exposes a series of "linkages" two years before Libyan agent Abdel Baset al-Megrahi's August 2009 release:

• Libyan despot Moammar Gadhafi insisted that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair advance a prisoner-transfer agreement, upon which hinged lucrative Libyan accords with U.K. companies, including BP.

• Scottish officials "cut a self-serving deal with the British government -- to let al-Megrahi go, as London wished, in return for a specific quid pro quo."

• Mr. Gadhafi got al-Megrahi home in time for the dictator's 40th anniversary bash.

Palms were amply greased. And the 270 bombing victims, including four Southwestern Pennsylvanians, were denied justice.

Thus is the stuff of bartering in the blood of innocents.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me