72 West leaking stories against ElBaradei, to get IAEA to discredit US intelligence report on Iran

(1) West leaking stories against ElBaradei, to get IAEA to discredit US intelligence report on Iran
(2) Thomas Fingar, author of US intelligence report which said Iran halted its covert N program
(3) Iran "Rebel" Says US Ordered Attacks
(4) The Secret War Against Iran
(5) Washington’s double standard: The elections in Iran and Afghanistan
(6) Socialist Workers Party (Trot, US) takes aim at Leftists who back Ahmadinejad
(7) WSWS Trots say US funded & manipulated Iranian Opposition to Ahmadinejad
(8) Green Left Weekly (Trot, Aus) backs Iranian Opposition, says "not a CIA plot"
(9) Freed Lockerbie bomber says he'll name the Real Bomber

(1) West leaking stories against ElBaradei, to get IAEA to discredit US intelligence report on Iran

From: IHR News <news@ihr.org> Date: 29.08.2009 06:20 PM

The Leaking Game: Planted News Stories to Discredit Iran

Gareth Porter

http://www.counterpunch.org/porter08262009.html

Planted News Stories Show New Bid by West to Say Iran Seeks Nuclear Weapons

The Leaking Game

By GARETH PORTER

Western officials are leaking stories to the Associated Press and Reuters aimed at pressuring the outgoing chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, to include a summary of intelligence alleging that Iran has been actively pursuing work on nuclear weapons in the IAEA report due out this week.

The aim of the pressure for publication of the document appears to be to discredit the November 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the Iranian nuclear programme, which concluded that Iran had ended work on nuclear weapons in 2003.

The story by Reuters United Nations correspondent Louis Charbonneau reported that "several" officials from those states had said the IAEA has "credible information" suggesting that the U.S. intelligence estimate was "incorrect".

The issue of credibility of the NIE is particularly sensitive right now because the United States, Britain, France and Germany are anticipating tough negotiations with Russia and China on Iran's nuclear program in early September.

The two parallel stories by Charbonneau and Associated Press correspondent George Jahn in Vienna, both published Aug. 20, show how news stories based on leaks from officials with a decided agenda, without any serious effort to provide an objective historical text or investigation of their accuracy, can seriously distort an issue.

Reflecting the hostile attitude of the quartet of Western governments and Israel toward ElBaradei, the stories suggested that ElBaradei has been guilty of a cover-up in refusing to publish information he has had since last September alleging that Iran has continued to pursue research on developing nuclear weapons.

Charbonneau referred without further analysis to U.S. and Israeli accusations that ElBaradei has deliberately underplayed the case against Iran to "undermine the U.S. sanctions drive".

Jahn explained ElBaradei's refusal to publish the intelligence summary as the result of his eagerness to "avoid moves that could harden already massive Iranian intransigence on cooperating with the agency" and his worry that it would increase the chances of a U.S. or Israeli strike on Tehran's nuclear sites.

He also suggested ElBaradei had made "barely disguised criticisms of U.S. policy" in the past and that some of his statements on Israel and Gaza were viewed by the West as "overtly political".

In fact, however, the tensions between ElBaradei and the George W. Bush administration were directly related to ElBaradei's public declaration in March 2003 that the documents on alleged Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Niger - later known as the "Niger forgeries" - were not authentic, after he received no response from Washington to an earlier private warning to the White House.

Charbonneau quoted a "senior Western diplomat" as confirming that some of the information the four Western countries want published in the coming IAEA report relate to intelligence documents concerning an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons research program, which the IAEA has referred to as "alleged studies".

What the anti-ElBaradei coalition is now demanding, as Charbonneau's report confirms, is that ElBaradei attach a report prepared by the IAEA safeguards department which reflects the slant of the quartet and Israel on the issue, as an "annex" to the coming report.  ...

(2) Thomas Fingar, author of US intelligence report which said Iran halted its covert N program

Intelligence expert who rewrote book on Iran

Report has torpedoed plans for military action and brought 'howls' from neocons

Ewen MacAskill in Washington

The Guardian, Saturday 8 December 2007

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/08/iran.usa1

The intelligence came from an exotic variety of sources: there was the so-called Laptop of Death; there was the Iranian commander who mysteriously disappeared in Turkey. Also in the mix was video footage of a nuclear plant in central Iran and intercepts of Iranian telephone calls by the British listening station GCHQ.

But pivotal to the US investigation into Iran's suspect nuclear weapons programme was the work of a little-known intelligence specialist, Thomas Fingar. He was the principal author of an intelligence report published on Monday that concluded Iran, contrary to previous US claims, had halted its covert programme four years ago and had not restarted it. Almost single-handedly he has stopped - or, at the very least, postponed - any US military action against Iran.

His report marks a decisive moment in the battle between American neoconservatives and Washington's foreign policy and intelligence professionals - between ideologues and pragmatists. It provided an unexpected victory for those opposed to the neocon plans for a military strike.

The report, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which represents the consensus of the 16 US intelligence agencies, gave President George Bush one of his most difficult weeks since taking office in January 2001.

Fingar's findings were met in many Washington offices occupied by foreign policy and intelligence professionals not only with relief but with rejoicing. They had lost out in the run-up to the war in Iraq in 2003, but they are winning this one.

A backlash is under way; with the neocons being joined by even moderate foreign policy specialists who claim the report seriously underestimates the threat posed by Iran. Senate Republicans are planning to call next week for a congressional commission to investigate the report.

Senator John Ensign, a Republican, said: "Iran is one of the greatest threats in the world today. Getting the intelligence right is absolutely critical."

Flynt Leverett, a former CIA analyst and former National Security Council adviser in the Bush administration, was among those celebrating this week, and praised Fingar and his colleagues. "We seem to have lucked out and have individuals who resist back-channel politics and tell it how it is," he said. "That is what the CIA and other agencies are supposed to do."

He continued that Fingar and one of his co-authors, Vann Van Diepen, national intelligence officer for weapons of mass destruction, had opposed the war in Iraq. "They both felt the intelligence was misused in the run-up to the Iraq war. The conservatives are now attacking them, saying they are taking their revenge," Leverett said. "It is not mutiny for intelligence officers to state their honest views."

Fingar, Van Diepen and Kenneth Brill, a former US ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), were able to put out what they regard as an objective assessment because those occupying senior roles in the Bush administration had changed. Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Douglas Feith and Donald Rumsfeld have given way to those who oppose war with Iran, including Robert Gates, the defence secretary and former CIA director, and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.

Only the vice-president, Dick Cheney, remains to advocate military strikes against Iran. Wolfowitz, out of work since resigning from the World Bank earlier this year, has been invited back into the administration by Rice as an adviser on WMD, but that is an act of pity for an old mentor, not a shift in power to the neocons.

Joseph Cirincione, author of Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons, also welcomed the report, saying: "What is happening is that foreign policy has swung back to the grown-ups. We are watching the collapse of the Bush doctrine in real time. The neoconservatives are howling because they know their influence is waning." ...

The "howling" of the neocons that Cirincione spoke about began within hours of the report's publication. Bolton, who remains close to Cheney, appeared on CNN complaining about the authors without naming them. In the comment section of the Washington Post on Thursday he wrote: "Many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the state department." He accused the officials, who he said had held benign views of Iran's nuclear intentions five or six years ago, of presenting these same policy biases as "intelligence judgements".

The Wall Street Journal, the editorial pages of which have long been aligned with the neocon agenda, went straight on to the attack within a day of the report's publication, expressing doubt in the officials and their conclusions. It quoted an intelligence source describing Fingar, Van Diepen and Brill as having reputations as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials". ...

(3) Iran "Rebel" Says US Ordered Attacks

By Arab Times & Agencies

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23363.htm

August 26, 2009 "Arab Times" -- ZAHEDAN, Iran, Aug 25, (Agencies): A top Sunni rebel who is awaiting execution in Iran said on Tuesday that his militant group received orders from the United States to launch terror attacks in the Islamic republic.

Abdolhamid Rigi, brother of shadowy Jundallah (Soldiers of God) group leader Abdolmalek Rigi, told reporters his brother was an Al-Qaeda point man in Iran six years ago but that later the group broke off ties with him.

“The United States created and supported Jundallah and we received orders from them,” Rigi said in Iran’s restive southeastern city of Zahedan, the capital of Sistan-Baluchestan province bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“They (US officials) told us whom to shoot and whom not to. All orders came from them. They told us that they would provide us with everything we need like money and equipment.”

Wearing normal clothing, and not a prison uniform, Rigi addressed reporters in a government building in Zahedan, amid relatively light security.

Iran has accused Jundallah of launching several attacks inside the country, mainly in Sistan-Baluchestan.
The group also claimed a May 28 bomb attack on the Shiite Amir al-Momenin mosque in Zahedan in which more than 20 people were killed and 50 wounded.

That attack came just weeks before Iran’s June 12 presidential election which returned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power.

Iran has in the past blamed US and British agents based in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan for launching attacks on border provinces with significant ethnic minority populations.

The day after the mosque bombing, officials accused the United States of “hiring” those behind the attack, linking it to the presidential election.

Washington rejected the accusation. ...

(4) The Secret War Against Iran

By Brian Ross and Christopher Isham Report:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17480.htm

04/03/07 "ABC News' -- -- A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.

The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.

It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials.

U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight.

Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states.

Jundullah has produced its own videos showing Iranian soldiers and border guards it says it has captured and brought back to Pakistan.

The leader, Regi, claims to have personally executed some of the Iranians.  ...

(5) Washington’s double standard: The elections in Iran and Afghanistan

28 August 2009

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/pers-a28.shtml

Despite the increasing evidence of systematic and massive vote fraud, the Obama administration and the American media are still seeking to sustain the pretense that Afghanistan’s August 20 presidential election was a basically democratic affair.

The Electoral Complaints Commission, a United Nations-backed oversight group, said that it had received more than 800 charges of irregularities, with 50 of them so serious that they could potentially alter the result of the vote.

A half dozen candidates who opposed incumbent president Hamid Karzai, including his leading challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, have charged the government with falsifying the vote. Abdullah’s campaign released video footage Tuesday showing Karzai campaign supporters and election officials marking blank ballots for Karzai and threatening voters at the polls. Another candidate, Mirwais Yasini, produced bags full of ballots he said were cast for him in Kandahar but dumped by election officials and recovered by his campaign.

In the two southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand, the site of some of the bloodiest fighting between the US-NATO occupation force and Afghan guerrillas, foreign election observers estimated turnout to be only 5 to 10 percent. The Karzai regime claimed a 40 percent turnout, giving ample margin for systematic ballot-stuffing.

While the American press reported the charges of fraud and the indications of low turnout, the official US position remains one of endorsing the election as an expression of the popular will and a victory, albeit limited, for “democracy” over “terrorism”—i.e., the Taliban-linked insurgents.

President Obama hailed the election in a statement issued August 21, declaring, “This was an important step forward in the Afghan people’s effort to take control of their future...”

Top US officials on the spot, including Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, General Stanley McChrystal, the top military commander, and Richard Holbrooke, chief US envoy to the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, all chimed in with endorsements of the basic legitimacy of the vote, suggesting the widespread reports of irregularities were merely the growing pains of democracy.

No such forgiving approach was taken to the election in Iran two months before. The American media denounced the presidential vote in Iran as fraudulent almost as soon as the polls closed June 12. Both the Obama administration and the European powers called into question the legitimacy of the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

As opposed to Afghanistan, however, neither the Iranian opposition nor its American backers could produce any significant evidence of vote fraud. There were no videos of ballot-stuffing, no boxes of ballots marked in advance for Ahmadinejad. This in a country where the opposition had a significant presence in all parts of the country, and where the technical resources to publicize election irregularities—using cell phone photos and videos, text-messaging, and so on—are far greater than in Afghanistan.

There is a clear political explanation for the double standard. The decision to charge vote fraud in Iran, and to downplay the obvious ballot-rigging in Afghanistan, is driven by the foreign policy interests of American imperialism, not the supposed devotion of Washington and the American media to democratic principles.

The charge of ballot fraud was employed to destabilize the Ahmadinejad government, which Washington regards as an obstacle to its plans to strengthen its control over the oil and gas resources of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia.

The calculated nature of the provocation was made clear when the leading Iranian opposition candidate, Mirhossein Mousavi, declared himself the winner of the vote even before the polls had closed, in order to discredit the official results in advance.

The contrast with Afghanistan is instructive. When the Karzai and Abdullah camps each issued claims of victory shortly after the polls closed, Holbrooke met with both candidates and gave them their marching orders: No claims of victory should be made until after the bulk of the votes have been officially certified in Kabul. ...

(6) Socialist Workers Party (Trot, US) takes aim at Leftists who back Ahmadinejad

http://socialistworker.org/2009/08/12/iran-which-side-are-you-on

Revolt in Iran: Which side are you on?

Lee Sustar looks at the arguments of Ahmadinejad's apologists on the left.

August 12, 2009 | Issue 703

A silent protest in Tehran against repression by the Ahmadinejad regime (Hamed Saber)

A REPRESSIVE government crushes independent unions, steals an election, shoots down unarmed protesters, tortures detainees and stages a show trial of opposition leaders. For the left, it should be a no-brainer: support for the pro-democracy movement against an increasingly despotic regime.

But not in the case of Iran.

Incredibly, sections of the U.S. left have teamed up with neoconservatives to pronounce that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the legitimate winner of the June 12 elections, despite the ludicrous claims of the Iranian government to have achieved an overwhelming majority in the first round of a hotly contested vote.

For the right, the agenda is clear enough. The neocons are out to rehabilitate their careers, and they need Ahmadinejad to shore up what remains of the "axis of evil" cited by George W. Bush as the pretext for an aggressive new phase of U.S. imperialism. As Daniel Pipes, the anti-Muslim, anti-Arab intellectual hit man for the right, wrote on his blog: "better to have a bellicose, apocalyptic, in-your-face Ahmadinejad who scares the world than a sweet-talking Mousavi who again lulls it to sleep, even as thousands of centrifuges whir away. And so, despite myself, I am rooting for Ahmadinejad."

But why are individuals and organizations on the U.S. left--such as the Party for Socialism and Liberation and the Workers World Party--rooting for Ahmadinejad as well? How can a respected left-wing Web site, MRzine, debase itself by becoming a platform for apologists for a dictatorial, corrupt and murderous regime?

The arguments of the pro-Ahmadinejad left are based on essentially five claims: (1) the election returns are in fact legitimate; (2) Ahmadinejad is a populist with the support of the poor; (3) Ahmadinejad is a frontline leader in the struggle against U.S. imperialism; (4) Ahmadinejad is the representative of a progressive revolution; (5) the opposition led by Mir Hussein Mousavi is the cat's paw of U.S. imperialism.

None of these arguments holds water. Let's look at each in turn. ...

James Petras, a leading left-wing author, vigorously supported the government's official election return. ...

Most women's rights were eliminated as the supposed norms of Islamist behavior became enforced by the state.  ...

(7) WSWS Trots say US funded & manipulated Iranian Opposition to Ahmadinejad

Denials of US interference in Iran not credible
By Peter Symonds
29 June 2009

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/iran-j29.shtml

The US administration has responded to Iranian allegations of manipulating opposition protests inside the country with flat denials. President Obama declared last week that the United States respected Iran's sovereignty "and is not at all interfering in Iran's affairs".

The American and international media, which has mounted a strident campaign in support of defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, has similarly dismissed out of hand any suggestion that the US and its European allies had a hand in the events since the presidential poll on June 12. Just as the press never examines the claims of Mousavi and his supporters that the election was rigged, so it ignores the considerable evidence of extensive US operations against Iran, spanning a range of diplomatic, intelligence and military activities.

USA Today last week noted that the US Agency for International Development (USAID) was handing out $20 million in grants this financial year to unnamed organisations "to promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Iran". For next year, the Obama administration is seeking another $15 million via the Near Eastern Regional Democracy Initiative, which has similar aims. ...

One of the funnels for funding is the state-funded National Endowment for Democracy, which has been intimately involved in "colour revolutions" in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics. The NED website lists a number of Iranian organisations including the National Iranian American Council as recipients of its funds.

This openly acknowledged program is, however, just the tip of the iceberg. In a series of articles in the New Yorker, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh provided details of the Bush administration's efforts to foster "regime change" in Tehran and prepare for a military strikes. There is no reason to believe that the Obama administration has ended any of these covert activities by the CIA and the Pentagon.

In one of his first articles entitled "The Coming Wars" in January 2005, Hersh reported that the US military had been staging commando operations inside Iran for months to accumulate "intelligence and targeting information on Iranian nuclear, chemical and missile sites" for future military strikes. US special forces were operating from bases inside neighbouring, US-occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. The use of the military for covert operations avoided the formal legal constraints under which the CIA operated. ("US carrying out acts of war against Iran, magazine reports")

The WSWS also noted an article in the Guardian reporting that the Pentagon was using members of the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) for intelligence operations inside Iran. The MEK, which is listed as a terrorist organisation by the US State Department, had been under the protection of Saddam Hussein, having fought on Iraq's side during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Following the US occupation of Iraq, the group was based at Camp Ashraf near Baghdad, watched over by American troops.

In 2006, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sought an extra $75 million to fund anti-Tehran propaganda and support opposition groups inside and outside the country. ...

(8) Green Left Weekly (Trot, Aus) backs Iranian Opposition, says "not a CIA plot"

Defying the regime — Iran's people demand change

Tony Iltis
27 June 2009

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/800/41202

Daily protests have continued in Iran against alleged vote-rigging in the June 12 presidential elections, despite an intensification of violent repression.

The protests reflect the deep anger of wide sections of the Iranian people with the brutal anti-democratic policies of the regime. The street protests have been joined by important sections of the organised working class.

The Western media have largely portrayed the protests as pro-Western middle class youths, even labelling it a "Twitter revolution". This view was challenged by US freelance journalist Reese Erlich, just returned from Iran, in a June 26 Therealnews.com post.

"I witnessed tens of thousands of mostly young people coming out into the streets in spontaneous campaign rallies in the days leading up to the election — most of whom had never heard of Twitter.

"They shared a common joy ... in being able to freely express themselves for the first time in many years."

After the election, "hundreds of thousands of Iranians poured into the streets in Tehran and cities around the country ...

"Contrary to popular perception, these gatherings included women in chadors, workers and clerics — not just the Twittering classes.

"Spontaneous marches took place in south Tehran, a decidedly poorer section of town and supposedly a stronghold for Ahmadinejad."

Erlich said the protests involved all classes and were not the result of a CIA plot — as the regime and some in the international left have alleged. ...

(9) Freed Lockerbie bomber says he'll name the Real Bomber

From: sapere--aude@web.de Date: 31.08.2009 02:35 AM

The lawyer acting for the freed Lockerbie bomber is flying to Libya to prepare for the release of a dossier of evidence "proving" his client's innocence.

'I'LL REVEAL TRUE IDENTITY OF BOMBER'

Megrahi is to point the finger

Sunday August 23,2009

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/122299/-I-ll-reveal-true-identity-of-bomber

By Ben Borland

AN AMERICAN citizen is to be named by the Lockerbie bomber as the man who really carried out the terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 103.

Megrahi's early release from prison on compassionate grounds.

Lawyers for the bomber were to argue that an "elusive" terrorist codenamed Abu Elias planted the bomb in December 1988, causing the deaths of 270 innocent people.

Megrahi is now expected to identify the man behind this alias.

The Scottish Sunday Express tracked this man down to his home in the US, and he strongly denied having anything to do with the atrocity.

However, we can reveal that he has connections to at least two international terrorists and a Palestinian terror group, as well as links to the US intelligence services.

The man, who works as a schools engineer for the US government, was to become the central figure in Megrahi's aborted appeal.

'Elias', a commander in a Palestinian terror organisation, was identified as the CIA's primary Lockerbie suspect but was never caught.

Megrahi set to name US citizen as prime suspect who hid behind terror alias of Abu Elias

Sources close to Megrahi believe he may actually have been a double agent working for the FBI or the CIA.

Last night the man, who we have chosen not to name, said: "Sorry, I don't think that I can help in this case. It is a clear case of either mistaken identity and/or fabrication.

"I don't wish my name to be mentioned in any capacity in the press. I am sure you understand the sensitivity of this matter since I have a family and children."

However, Christine Grahame MSP, who visited Megrahi in Greenock prison and campaigned for his release, is believed to be considering naming the man in the Scottish Parliament chamber.

She said: "It is apparent that US intelligence has known or must have known the primary suspect of the Lockerbie bombing was alive and living safely in Washington.

"There has been a suggestion made that he is in some way an 'intelligence asset' for the US and that is why he has been allowed to live in peace.

"He must be deeply relieved that Megrahi was forced to drop his appeal and that he will never face justice for this atrocity."

Yesterday, Megrahi promised that before he dies he will present new evidence gathered for the appeal which will exonerate him. He said he will call on the British and Scottish people "to be the jury".

The man Megrahi believes was Abu Elias now lives in a suburban neighbourhood near Washington's Dulles airport, just a few miles from the White House and the Lockerbie memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. He even has his own Facebook social network page.

He is the nephew of Syrian terror warlord Ahmed Jibril, the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC).

Jibril was allegedly paid $10million by Iran to bomb an American passenger jet in retaliation for the US Navy accidentally shooting down an Iranian plane earlier in 1988, killing all 298 pilgrims on board.

The man is also related to Nezar Hindawi, a Syrian currently serving a 45-year sentence in Whitemoor high-security prison in Cambridgeshire for plotting to blow up an Israeli jet flying from Heathrow to Tel Aviv in 1986.

A document submitted to the appeal court by Megrahi's lawyers states: "The FBI had apparently investigated 'X' and knew he was the nephew of Ahmed Jibril. ==

Lockerbie bomber:
Megrahi's lawyer to release dossier 'proving' his innocence

By Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter

29 Aug 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/6111059/Lockerbie-bomber-Megrahis-lawyer-to-release-dossier-proving-his-innocence.html

Tony Kelly, a Scottish solicitor, said that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, 57, who returned to his homeland ten days ago after being released from prison on compassionate grounds, remains determined to show his guilty verdict was unjust.

Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, withdrew his second appeal against conviction just two days before he was allowed to return to Libya.

Those close to him say he did so reluctantly because he was convinced it would improve his chances of being freed from a Scottish jail, eight years after being convicted of murdering 270 people.

The disclosure will further enrage critics of the decision to free Megrahi, the only man convicted of the atrocity.

It also raises the likelihood of further embarrassment for Scotland over the handling of the original trial and it could lead to fresh questions over whether Megrahi was innocent and, if so, who was really behind the bombing.

Mr Kelly intends to fly to Tripoli, the Libyan capital, within days to receive instructions from his client. ...