A FORMER American secret service agent, who claims he has been hounded
by the US Government since he wrote a book questioning the Libyan
Lockerbie theory, is to seek political asylum in France.
He is being supported by Labour MP Tam Dalyell, who believes the
author's life would be in danger if he returned to the US.
Mr Lester Coleman, author of On the Trail of the Octopus, yesterday
told The Herald from Paris that his French lawyer would be ready to make
the formal application in a week.
''In terms of the Geneva Convention, the American Government is
persecuting my family and myself. We have evidence of FBI documents
which have been proven to contain fabricated statements regarding the
investigation of me in America,'' he said.
''The FBI tried to have me deported based on evidence that is a proven
fabrication. They have brought trumped-up charges of perjury against me
in America: a threat to try to stop publication of the book.
''But the book has been published by Bloomsbury and by Penguin and is
to be published in the US by Argonaut.''
Sweden has refused to grant asylum to Mr Coleman. The current move is
calculated to cause maximum embarrassment to the Americans. Mr Coleman
is hopeful the French will view his application seriously, particularly
in light of recent American-French diplomatic difficulties over alleged
spying.
Only a week ago, he says, the Americans granted asylum to Frenchman
Ali Bourequat, who allegedly faced persecution in France over claims
that French police had acted in partnership with drug dealers.
The central thrust of his book is that, in the late '80s, the United
States Drugs Enforcement Agency had in its employ in Lebanon more than
30 informants over whom it had no direct control because it could not go
directly to Lebanon.
They were running controlled deliveries of heroin from Beirut through
Frankfurt to London and thence to New York and eventually Detroit, a
classic DEA ''sting'' operation aimed at entrapping American drugs
importers.
However, security was so lax that knowledge of the sting route was
leaked and the Syrians, paid $10m dollars by the Iranians, smuggled a
bomb on board PanAm Flight 103, carried aboard unwittingly at Frankfurt
by the passenger Khalid Jafar. He died when the flight came down over
Lockerbie in December 1988, killing 270.
The theory is in direct conflict with the line being pursued by both
US and British governments, that Libya alone was behind the bombing and
that the bomb was loaded at Frankfurt from a Malta feeder flight. The
extradition of two Libyan agents is being sought for trial either here
or in the US.
Mr Dalyell, MP for Linlithgow, said yesterday: ''Although he was not
at a very high level, he was in a position to know what he wrote about.
The book was co-authored by a man called Dan Goddard, who is a very
serious man, for 10 years an assistant editor of the New York Times.
''In what Coleman has said to me there is much which I could not prove
was false and much that was accurate to my knowledge. He seems to have
the weight of the US on his back and has been much attacked by them
because he is a potential threat to certain people. I think he has to be
taken extremely seriously.''
Mr Dalyell said he believed the Americans had put pressure on the
Swedes. ''I have no doubt that if Coleman went back to the United States
he would end up under a train. France has a distinguished record in the
matter of political asylum. I think this is a genuine application in
that his life is undoubtedly at stake if he goes back to the US.''
In another twist to the Lockerbie saga, it emerged yesterday that the
controversial documentary, The Maltese Double Cross, is to be screened
on national television in Germany and Australia. The film, made by Allan
Francovich, challenges the British and American view that the bombing
was solely the work of two Libyan agents.
It has already been screened in the House of Commons and at Glasgow
Film Theatre but was withdrawn from the schedules by Channel 4.
Francovich's principal researcher, Mr John Ashton, said it was important
that the film be shown as widely as possible.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article