Revealed: US 'knew of other Lockerbie suspects'

December 24, 2013 12:56 PM

"On the 25th anniversary of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which led to the deaths of 270 people, a specially commissioned report by Channel 4 News claims that a CIA agent, Dr Richard Fuisz, was given detailed information from within US intelligence and from 15 high-ranking Syrian officials in the immediate years after the December 1988 bombing...The CIA briefing to Dr Fuisz, in the months after bombing, also claimed the PFLP-GC, then based in Syria, had organised the mid-air destruction of the Pan Am jet." Indy article on Jim Swire's speech at the 25th Anniversary Memorial Service.
posted by marienbad (10 comments total)

US 'knew of other Lockerbie suspects'

I don't think anyone is going to be shocked by that.
But . for the passengers.
I heard part of a BBC docco the other day on the lives of those in the town at the time. It sounded horrendous.
posted by Mezentian at 2:46 PM on December 24, 2013

Dr. Richard Fuisz does not appear to be a particularly credible source based on the biographical information published on wikipedia and his alleged prior accusations.
posted by humanfont at 5:59 PM on December 24, 2013 [3 favorites]

Why do so many former CIA assets later turn out to be so easily dismissed as unreliable and lacking in personal integrity and/or credibility? I can't remember the last time one turned out to be a stand-up guy or gal after leaving the service and somehow coming to public attention after the fact. You'd think we'd be a little more careful about who we extend such extraordinary secrecy and leeway to...
posted by saulgoodman at 7:21 PM on December 24, 2013 [1 favorite]

Dr. Richard Fuisz does not appear to be a particularly credible source

precisely as planned.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 8:59 PM on December 24, 2013 [1 favorite]

My knowledge of the various branches of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, including Jibril's PFLP-GC, is admittedly pretty superficial. But as far as I know, this outfit was always pretty focused on attacking Israel and Israelis directly. They were also generally pretty willing and eager to take credit for their operations and attacks. Blowing up Pan Am 103 and then saying nothing about it would have been pretty far from their normal M.O. At first glance this looks like pretty typical obfuscatory conspiracy theory FUD.
posted by jackbrown at 1:47 AM on December 25, 2013

Also, ever since the Independent got bought out by the Russian mafia, the quality has gone spectacularly down the tubes.
posted by jackbrown at 1:51 AM on December 25, 2013 [1 favorite]

I remember hearing about Lockerbie as a kid, and being bewildered--in my white fairly middle-class very leftist 'use your words not your hands' upbringing (so, yes, privilege)--by the very idea that there were people out there who'd hurt lots of other people on purpose.

In some ways I'm still that kid. I can get, as I think anyone can, the impulse of violence towards someone in close proximity. I couldn't then, and can't now, understand the impulse to hurt innocents in pursuit of a political goal. I mean, in a really abstract sense I can follow the (il)logic chain, sure. Most people here are significantly smarter than me, so I figure everyone here can get it in that sense.

But what I can't imagine is "I want X, so I'm going to kill a bunch of people to get it" being a rational thought that could ever enter a rational person's head. I mean there's defending yourself against actual bullets flying your way, and in that situation I can completely get "I want to live so I'm going to kill the people who are killing me."

But killing for a total abstraction that is, if one is even remotely realistic, unlikely to happen? Boggles my mind. Terrorism from about the mid 20th century on seems to strike me not as an agent to attempt social change, and more like "well nothing's gonna change so I'm going to take a bunch of you bastards down with me."

In short, I don't buy the 'true believer' terrorism idea. I believe, or maybe I just want to believe because the alternative is too horrifying, that even the worst terrorist (whether white or brown or polka dot) knows, deep down, that killing innocent people is wrong. Other desires may have overridden that knowledge, but I need to believe that somewhere, somehow, they know what they are doing isn't sanctioned by anyone or any imaginary being anywhere. I'm not a Pollyanna kind of person at all, just saying that not believing this would drive me (further) to total insanity. The idea that other human beings are not simply expendable is kind of central to the small-l liberal/humanist view of things, which I unsurprisingly think is the right view of things. I think conservatives, too, don't think that other groups are simply expendable. Maybe the threshhold is a bit different.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:47 AM on December 25, 2013

I remember hearing about Lockerbie as a kid

Precious few remember Iran Air Flight 655 (290 people aboard). The passenger plane blown out of the sky by a ground-to-air missile fired by the USS Vincennes six months earlier.
posted by Mister Bijou at 4:00 PM on December 25, 2013 [1 favorite]

More about that forgotten Iranian flight of nearly 300 civilians the US navy gunned down in the "fog of war."
posted by saulgoodman at 6:53 PM on December 25, 2013 [1 favorite]

Oh, God, I do--kids property, bodies bobbing in the water.
posted by etaoin at 12:34 PM on December 26, 2013