Talk:Craig Williamson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terrorist[edit]

With today's correct removal of the Category:Terrorist from this page, Williamson is now more appropriately mentioned on the Category:State terrorism (South Africa) page.Phase1 23:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, Has Nelson Mandela also be listed under "terrorist" ? --41.151.124.147 (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In all fairness"? How many six-year-old girls did Mandela kill? KindaQuantum (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many, but Mandela hardly made his hands dirty, he had his minions to kill people including children. These weren't dragged into this by parents who were traitors neither. --41.151.223.135 (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critique[edit]

This page on Craig Williamson is badly written and is factually incorrect for a number of reasons:

1)The submission speaks of the "Decoy navigation beacon theory" concerning the Machel Aircrash as if it is accepted fact. It is not an accepted fact by the aircrash investigators, it is merely one of several theories.

2) No mention is made of the international contributors to the Machel Aircrash investigation. Officials from the then Rep. of West Germany, France and the USA were involved as were such organisations as the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation)and NASA. Pik Botha was specifically critised by the Americans for taking so long to get to the scene of the crash site once it became known that a head of state was involved in the aircrash.

3) The alleged motive for South Africa downing an American aircraft is weak and one cannot quite figure out what was supposed to be achieved by it.

4)The links provided by the source that made this submission frequently refer to their own website, viz. www.contrast.org.truth Links are supposed to refer to independent sources.

Dglschapman 13:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

You are correct in describing the decoy navigation beacon as a theory, thus by definition it cannot be a fact, accepted or otherwise; "international contributors to the Machel Aircrash investigation" were presumably invited as observers but do you have citations for the involvement of officials from FRG, France and USA?; it was a Soviet Tupolev aircraft that was downed, not an American one; there have been many editors of this article and links do refer to independent sources other than www.contrast.org.truth.

Your critique of the article therefore lacks both rigour and justification.

Phase4 20:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st Defence[edit]

Phase 4: You requested links to other online sources:

Please see the New York Time Archives for November 9th 1986 Headline: "Aviation Experts visit Mocambique" and November 22nd 1986: "3 nations Agree on Venue for Inquest on Machel Aircrash. Both of these sources refer to investigation contributors other than S. African, Mocambiquan and Soviets.

My references to the American aircraft refer to the passages concerning the downing of Pan Am flight 103 and not the Machel aircrash, however, I acknowledge that I could have been more specific in my text.

The website www.contrast.org.truth is a Dutch based website that is responsible for various conspiracy theories linking S. African agents to the Machel Aircrash, the Lockerbie disaster, the assassination of Olaf Palme amongst others. The wording on this website is identical to the wording in the Wikipedia submissions. It is my complaint that the relevent investigative institutions in all these cases viz. the ICAO (who were consulted by the Margo commission), FBI, Scotland Yard, Scottish Police (who investigated the PAN AM 103 crash) and the Swedish Police who investigated the Olaf Palme murder, have never taken the claims made on this website seriously, therefore they do not belong in Wikipedia!82.205.219.195 17:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blunderbuss approach[edit]

Fair enough, 82.205.219.195, you've made some interesting points about evidence related to the Machel Aircrash, the Lockerbie disaster and the assassination of Olof Palme. But this is the talk page on Craig Williamson who – to a greater or lesser extent – is cited on websites/press articles and South African Truth and Justice Commission hearings to be connected with all the above events.

Are you saying that Craig Williamson is simply an innocent South African superspy, and that despite the weight of evidence against him any reference to Machel, Palme and Lockerbie should be removed from the Williamson article?Phase4 22:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Defence[edit]

No, I am not saying that Craig Williamson is an innocent super-spy. I do not dispute that Craig Williamson was behind the letter bomb assassinations of Ruth First and Jeanette Schoon or that he infiltrated the Anti Apartheid movement.

I am concentrating on 3 specific actions which the Wikipedia article implies Craig Williamson was involved in; the Palme assassination, the downing of the Machel aircraft and Pan AM 103. I feel that the people who actually put these claims on the Wikipage do not really believe them themselves. Propaganda, after all, is just another form of warfare. Moreover, propagandists on both the left and the right invariably use the same tactics; projection being one of them. “If he is guilty of this, why can’t he guilty of that”? The difference between the allegations surrounding the assassinations of Ruth First and Jeanette Schoon is that these allegations were tested first by a police investigation and eventually ended in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Assassinating heads of State and causing passenger aircraft to crash are major crimes with ramifications throughout the world. Phase4, you are hereby invited to speculate as to why Craig Williamson was investigated for his role in the letter bomb murders of Ruth First and Jeannette Schoon (though awful for the families concerned, small acts in the world context) but was not investigated for other, much bigger crimes attributed to him, viz. the Olaf Palme assassination, the Machel air-crash and Pan Am 103 air-crash. Were the relevant investigative organizations, viz. the Swedish Police (who investigated the Palme murder) the ICAO (consultants to the Margo commission) and US, French and West-German contributors (who investigated the Machel air-crash), the FBI, Scotland Yard, Scottish Police, Interpol (who investigated the PAN AM 103 crash) somehow all complicit in covering up for Craig Williamson and his cronies? If not, were they all duped?

Addendum

I am particularly concerned about the incorrect use of citations. In response to Phase4’s claims (c.f. Blunderbuss approach) I have recently managed to download the entire TRC final report. Craig Williamson is of course mentioned in this report (Section 4, pages 181-264), however, the words “Pan Am Flight 103” make no appearance, neither does Olaf Palme. The Machel air-crash, however, is mentioned in a special TRC report. Could any respondent on this web page please point me in the right direction as to where any information exists where South African agents were investigated by the TRC or any other organization in connection with Lockerbie and Olaf Palme?Dglschapman 19:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look at Samora Machel, Olof Palme and Alternative theories into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 for the information you seek.Phase4 21:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Dglschapman, don't forget that Craig Williamson wasn't investigated for the murders of Ruth First and Jeannette Schoon: he admitted to both murders, in his application for amnesty to the TRC, and also admitted his part in the 1982 bombing of the ANC's London office (when thankfully no-one was killed) claiming that they were political acts for which the TRC could grant amnesty. Had Williamson admitted to any involvement in the Machel aircrash, Palme assassination or Lockerbie bombing, a TRC amnesty could not have prevented Mozambican, Swedish or US/British authorities from bringing a criminal prosecution against him – a point made by Anton Alberts, an international law lecturer at Technikon (South Africa), in the context of the TRC hearing into the bombing of the ANC office in London.Phase4 11:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defence of Critique[edit]

Phase4: The pages Samora Machel, Olof Palme and Alternative theories into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 were the pages that I complained about in the first place, therefore, I am aware of them and all their citations! I specifically asked for evidence of any formal investigation in Craig Williamson’s involvement into the Machel Air-crash, Lockerbie and the Olaf Palme murder. A case could be made, that the Special TRC Hearing into the Machel plane crash was a “formal investigation”, however, there were many other attendees at this hearing and this hearing was never about Craig Williamson. It was about discrediting the Margo Commission. Williamsons name comes up as a possible suspect in the Olaf Palme page, but again, no reference is made to a "formal investigation". Williamson’s name does not come up at all in “Alternative theories into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103” page, yet the "Craig Williamson" page clearly implies he was involved in Lockerbie.

The statement made by Anton Alberts is unrealistic in this world. Investigators do not wait for criminals to confess, they find the evidence then go out and catch them.

My criticisms of this article stand. 1)It is badly written (particularly regarding its citations). 2)It is simply unrealistic. Craig Williamson and his cronies are supposed to have bluffed the combined efforts of the investigators in the Machel air-crash, (the international contributors that is), the Lockerbie air-crash, and the Olaf Palme assassination ..or they all covered up for him. 3)All references to these 3 events should be removed from the Williamson page

P.S. Technikon SA does not have a legal department. Please post this citation in your reply. [1].Dglschapman 07:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of Critique[edit]

Sorry, Dglschapman, you are talking about the Special TRC hearing into the Machel aircrash whereas I am referring to the TRC hearing which granted amnesty to Craig Williamson and eight others for bombing the ANC office in London.[2]

(a) Williamson was the 2nd applicant for amnesty, and so-called state assassin Eugene A De Kock was the 3rd applicant. In 1996, at his trial in Pretoria – unconnected to the amnesty application – De Kock accused Williamson of the murder of Olof Palme. You would have to ask the Swedish police whether they launched a "formal investigation" into Williamson as a result, but that courtroom accusation is sufficient as a primary source for this Wikipedia article. It was in the context of this TRC amnesty hearing that Anton Alberts, international law lecturer at Technikon South Africa, said:

"If you look at the Lockerbie disaster – this is very similar. I think Britain would like to see these guys are prosecuted in England even though they get amnesty here. What the commission could do is recommend – from the moral point of view – that we've given these guys amnesty so don't prosecute them in England. But that would only be a moral request: it will have no legal standing."UK may still charge SA agents for 1982 blast, September 11, 1998

(b) Williamson's links to Lockerbie are more tenuous, but the connection can nonetheless be made. The alternative theories into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 article talks about Pik Botha and a 22-strong South African delegation being booked to travel on Pan Am Flight 103 but cancelling the booking at short notice. We don't know if the booking included Williamson but his boss (General C J Van Tonder, head of South Africa's directorate of military intelligence) was certainly one of the delegation. If the South Africa (Namibia) theory is correct, then Williamson – with his links through the IUEF to Lockerbie's most prominent victim (UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson) – is placed squarely in the frame.

(c) With regard to the 1986 Machel aircrash, Williamson was reported to have been plotting the overthrow of the Mozambique government shortly beforehand. He was one of the South African party (which included Pik Botha) that arrived at the scene of the crash very soon afterwards. In 1996, Williamson volunteered to give his own first-hand account to the special TRC hearing into the crash. When the new inquiry (announced in February 2006) into the crash opens, he will doubtless be summoned to attend.

For all the reasons adduced above, I maintain that references to the events at (a), (b) and (c) should remain on the Craig Williamson page.Phase4 13:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making no headway[edit]

Thanks for the reply Phase4. I have noted the request at the top of this page on civility and etiquette, so I apologize in advance if anything in my reply is construed as being a little personal.

Re: your reply regarding the Swedish Polices lack of interest in Williamson; “..you will have to go and ask them”, does neither your hitherto now well reasoned arguments, nor this discussion page any credit. I am in no position to ask the Swedish Police why they did not investigate Williamson, and I doubt whether you are in any position either. The reason I keep banging on and on about the investigators in this case, is that their lack of interest in Williamson tells a story. That story is; there is no connection. The Swedish police, who were charged with the Palme assassination investigation, know this better than you, me, or the conspiracy theory web-site contrast.org.truth. It also defies logic, that an investigation that has probably cost the Swedish taxpayer tens of millions kroner, involved thousands of interviews (as any assassination investigation would) somehow cannot see the obvious. Nevertheless users of Wikipedia and contrast.org.truth websites, with a minimum of cost and effort are enlightened as to the true culprits.

The same reasoning applies to the Lockerbie and Machel air-crash arguments. Therefore I will not dwell on these points in this reponse. The Williamson-Palme-Lockerbie texts are propaganda and should be dealt with as such.

I have twice attempted to follow your link regarding Anton Alberts comment, only to draw the dreaded “This Page is Not Available” response. However, I am assuming good faith. I am particularly interested in this link as it indicates a TRC discussion of the SA-Lockerbie link. Could you refer me to a physical press or TRC article or put the original web address in your response? Dglschapman 04:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before responding to your "Making no headway" item, I should be grateful if you would sign your posts with the customary four tildes (~ x 4).Phase4 22:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for signing your latest comment. I am pleased to report that neither you nor I needs to ask the Swedish police about investigating Craig Williamson for the Palme murder: they and SA security authorities have already conducted an investigation – see [3]. That is not a www.contrast.org website; nor is this:[4], which confirms that "Craig Williamson was responsible for the assassination of Olof Palme". In an article entitled "Killer of Swedish Premier may be living in Mozambique" datelined September 30, 1996 Williamson was said to have been working in the diamond trade.[5]
The Palme murder accusation did not stop Williamson from appearing at the TRC amnesty hearing in September 1998 about the bombing of the ANC London Office.[6]At this hearing, Williamson bragged about setting up the Southern African News Agency with IUEF funds to recruit and use journalists for apartheid South African counter-intelligence purposes.
An article about the "enigma" Craig Williamson in the SA Sunday Times of September 20, 1998 entitled "The spy who never came in from the cold" concluded with the Williamson dictum:
"I respect a person who's willing to die for his country, but I admire a person who is prepared to kill for his country."[7]
Enough said?Phase4 23:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parroting a parrot[edit]

Thank you for your heavily cited response Phase4. In your response, you clearly indicate that Williamson was investigated with regards the Palme assassination link. Here is what I saw my side:

Citation 4 takes me to a Swedish website that is temporarily shut down

Citation 5 refers to a website that is not contrast.org.truth and mentions Williamsons alleged role in the Palme murder. However, no mention is made of a formal police investigation of Williamson regarding the Palme murder. (I shall return to this at a later stage).

Citation6 refers to the same temporarily shut down Swedish web site as Citation4.

Citation7 is the text of the TRC hearing of Craig Williamson amongst others concerning his penetration of the S. African press. The names Olaf Palme, Lockerbie and Samora Machel , are not mentioned once.

Citation8 is a Sunday Times article concerning his penetration of the student movement. Again Olaf Palme, Lockerbie and Samora Machel are not mentioned once.

To return to citation5, here are the reason it is invalid as a citation.

a) There is nothing original about the Williamson-Palme link. It only cites Col De Kocks allegations in court. Identical names come up in this as in the contrast.org.truth page devoted to Olaf Palme, viz. Anthony White, Bertil Wedin (whole wikipage devoted to him too) and Peter Casselton. There is no citation index, however we can be certain it was merely parroting contrast.org.truth. And to repeat, citation5 also makes no reference to a formal (Swedish police) investigation of Williamson regarding the Olaf Palme murder.

b) Citation5 claims the George Bush snr was behind John Hinckly’s assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan in a premature attempt to seize power,

c) that George Bush snr, is now “Sir George Bush, and is spending his retirement years in service of a power cartel headed by Queen Elizabeth II (Americans aren't allowed aristocratic titles).

d) describes Queen Elizabeth II as having vast political powers, and

e) alludes to Masonic Lodges and a power cartel called the ”Knights of Malta” (we're talking Da Vinci Code stuff here).

I am therefore still in the dark as to if Williamson was ever investigated by the Swedish police, Lockerbie and Machel aircrash investigators if such overwhelming evidence exist against him. Dglschapman 08:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your enlightenment must therefore await the resolution of the server hardware problems for the temporarily unavailable citations 4 and 6.Phase4 11:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

....I don't think so Phase4. I last attempted to get into this web site in 2003 (I kid you not) on an unrelated quest. It gave me the same response then.Dglschapman 16:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words[edit]

This article is in really bad shape. I think some contributors have lots site of the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to include encyclopaedic content and while it should mention theories it should not present them as fact with weasel words like "it is believed that" etc. (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

As for the large sections of Samora Machel and Pan Am 103 I have replaced them with short notes simply mentioning them and linking to those articles instead of repeating almost their entire content here. This should not be the central article for all alleged apartheid atrocities.

If the weasel words aren't changed (by attributing them to someone) and substantiated with references soon, I will have to try and tone them down myself. --Deon Steyn 07:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good intervention, Deon! I've excised all the weasel words I came across, replacing them with referenced sources wherever possible. The article's in pretty good shape now.Phase4 14:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another go at the weasel words and the referencing. Hopefully, the article is now ship-shape and Bristol fashion!Phase4 21:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phase4, it is looking better although some of those sources look slightly dodgy in terms of Wikipedia:Reliable sources that states exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. I am just concerned that this article is taking on a sort of X-Files conspiracy theory tone not supported by evidence or reliable sources instead relying on rumour and innuendo. In light of this I have slightly massaged the small reference to the Machel and Pan Am 103 incidents. --Deon Steyn 06:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schoon murders and amnesty[edit]

I am a family friend of the late Marius, Jeanette (known to me as Jenny), and Katryn Schoon. I make no pretence of feeling neutral about Williamson's murder of my two friends: Jenny, who, in tandem with Marius, helped me greatly with my final secondary school studies, and beautiful little Katryn. Nevertheless, I think the following questions may well be objectively worth asking:

1. Did Williamson have any kind of official state authorization, tacit or explicit, for assassinating the Schoons? What mission, project, programme or operation did it fall under? Might it not be the case that he acted from personal motives, unilaterally and without authorization? This is an important foundation for the following question:

2. Did Williamson's testimony to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission meet the required standard for the award of amnesty? Obviously this risks straying into areas of subjectivity, not to say bias, but I think there are still objective assessments that can be made. Compare the TRC testimony of the comparably transgressive "Suiker" Brits, who unflinchingly revealed, as best as anyone can tell, all the horrors he and his Vlakplaas team had perpetrated. He may well have wanted to disgrace and incriminate his line of command, up to and including his Cabinet bosses. He felt, no doubt correctly, that they had shown cowardice and disloyalty by trying to deny their knowledge and approval of his crimes. My point is this: his testimony has the ring of truth, and the truth is, supposedly, of the essence. Contrast that with Williamson's TRC testimony. Unlike virtually every other amnesty applicant, of any political stripe, Williamson cavilled and equivocated, hedged and denied and stonewalled, giving not the kind of open, comprehensive testimony for which the Commission was designed, with the intent of putting at rest the minds of victims' surviving family and friends, but rather the kind of testimony more suited to a defendant in a criminal prosecution. Williamson sought to avoid every arguably possible incrimination, to admit little and, transparently, to hide a great deal of truth. In a word, evasive. Consider also the fact that the amnesty conditions were purportedly strictly limited to crimes carried out for political ends in political operations, defined as operations authorized or approved by political leaders or by military/police/paramilitary leaders with direct accountability to such political leaders. Amnesty was supposedly not available to unauthorized, unapproved, unilateral, private and "solo" actions. Williamson murdered Jenny and Katryn. Nobody to my knowledge has ever given any account of any kind of official sanctioning or even knowledge of this crime within the apartheid state mechanism.

I hope it can be seen that notwithstanding my obvious personal animus against Williamson, these are serious questions of interest even to those who are not acquainted with any of the people involved. Williamson may well be liable to prosecution in the United Kingdom, Angola, Mozambique and Botswana for crimes he committed there or against their citizens (Katryn was a Botswana citizen); but might it also be the case that his amnesty is invalid under South African law and that he is indeed subject to prosecution at home?

No doubt this contribution needs drastic re-writing for objectivity and tone, but I hope that having raised them, the points I make will not now simply disappear from view.

Two smaller, more factual critiques:

1. The exposure of Williamson as an infiltrator is not adequately covered.

2. The fact that Katryn's infant brother witnessed his mother and sister's murder at close hand, and was so severely traumatised that he never regained mental equilibrium, should be mentioned.

Phil Hudson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.5.38 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Craig Williamson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Craig Williamson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Craig_Williamson&oldid=1206051393"