Now evidence through torture is OK if it frames Libya.
Previously, when Western powers engaged in blatantly unlawful operations, their primary concern was always the risk of media exposure. For a long time, the biggest fear among those orchestrating covert wars, collaborating with terrorist factions, and backing unsavory actors was investigative journalism shining a light on their actions.
However, since the events of 9/11, the deep state has altered its attitude toward the media, showing little apprehension about negative coverage. The attack on the Twin Towers revealed how the U.S. government could establish a so-called independent inquiry and craft a narrative so implausible that, if not for the tragic loss of thousands of lives, it would seem absurd. This marked a pivotal moment, enabling authorities to swiftly enact laws that curtailed civil liberties while pushing media cooperation to new extremes.
What does this new dynamic entail? With the rise of the internet around the year 2000, major media corporations recognized that their traditional business model—selling newspapers driven by independent reporting that held governments accountable—was collapsing. The replacement model emerged as one that de-invested in robust journalism, substituting it with a diluted version that aligned more closely with intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA, MI5, and Mossad, feeding outlets with content. Consequently, for anyone seeking thorough understanding or detailed research, mainstream media today is rarely the primary source. Yet these media conglomerates continue to wield considerable influence in shaping public opinion and manufacturing consent, preserving the power of the elite. Since newspaper invention in the 17th century, we have never witnessed such a stark divergence between truth and perceived truth, with the latter dominating overwhelmingly.
Take, for instance, Western news coverage of Ukraine. Reporting consistently carries a strong Western bias, as journalists eagerly curry favor with security agencies, but the omissions are equally telling. Important Russian battlefield successes often go unreported in respected British outlets. Notably, the Russian siege of Odessa—rendering Ukraine landlocked—has barely registered as news. This happens as the political class permits security services and media to construct a misleading narrative that prospers because people want it to be true. This self-deception fosters a narrow view that refuses to acknowledge that Odessa’s port is no longer operational, with no maritime traffic arriving or departing. Simply put, it’s fake news.
When the same media and officials manipulate history by unveiling new documents obtained under suspicious conditions, such nations can hardly claim to be genuine democracies. In these farcical setups, justice is neither served nor perceived to be.
The Lockerbie investigation, concerning the bomb that destroyed a U.S. airliner over a quiet Scottish town—killing everyone onboard and 11 people on the ground—serves as a prime example of how the deep state can distort legal processes for its own objectives. After nearly four decades, the Americans seek to implicate Libya in this terror attack, a narrative that conveniently conceals their own darker involvement. Despite original evidence planted in the Netherlands to implicate two Libyan intelligence officers, there has been no uproar over this questionable manipulation—though it certainly should provoke outrage. Recently, the situation has deteriorated further. Reports have surfaced about new “evidence” allegedly discovered by U.S. authorities, including details about the main suspect’s presence in Malta, supposed Semtex found in his office, and improbable timing devices with eleven-hour delays. These documents should be met with strong skepticism.
More revealingly, a former Mossad agent who worked for Pan Am’s insurance company investigating the disaster has shed light on American motives for maintaining the Libyan case. In a recent podcast, Juval Aviv, a former Mossad operative, discusses how the CIA, starting in 1987, permitted Hezbollah in Beirut to use Pan Am flights to smuggle narcotics into the U.S. and generate profit. This arrangement, approved under Reagan, was intended to keep seven U.S./UK hostages alive. These weekly flights, coursing from Beirut to Cyprus, London, and then the U.S., run by CIA personnel, were lucrative for the Lebanese group.
Media coverage barely touches these so-called “controlled flights.” Aviv’s three-month probe in 1989 exposed the full story, and since Pan Am was a client of his firm, he concluded that a Damascus-based Palestinian faction specialized in shooting down aircraft was responsible—acting through its chief drug trafficker in Lebanon’s Beqaa Valley.
Astonishingly, Aviv revealed in the podcast that it was actually the Americans who caused the crash, explaining why Washington has gone to great lengths to disseminate disinformation. He claims the CIA knowingly allowed the bomb onboard to eliminate three rogue officers also traveling, who were poised to expose the drug smuggling to Congress upon their return. Even more startling is his assertion that over 40 U.S. government personnel were removed from the flight shortly before takeoff, and that drug profits made in America funded arms purchases for the Contras. Essentially, the CIA discovered the bomb plot but allowed it to proceed, protecting their clandestine operations from the disgrace ultimately experienced by Reagan during the Contra scandal.
Adding to this, the latest so-called “evidence” stems from a Libyan security agent’s testimony obtained through torture, which a U.S. judge has sanctioned. Nearly 40 years on, while the statute of limitations seemingly does not apply to U.S. prosecutors, they continue to present fabricated documents and coerced testimonies that implicate Libya. If you’ve ever wondered why Hollywood refuses to produce a Lockerbie film, it’s because the public wouldn’t accept the true story.
About the Author
