I bet they do too. It begs the question who was Gaddafi really? A one time enemy become friend or UK/US asset-cum-strawman?

Secrecy is a government's ever-giving toy for abuse of power and illegality.

Quote:Libyan politician to fight UK attempt to keep role in his rendition secretLawyers for Abdel Hakim Belhaj to challenge government's efforts to have his case thrown out or tried in secret

Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian, Sunday 20 October 2013 17.10 BST
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5408[/ATTACH]
Abdel Hakim Belhaj's abduction in 2004 with the help of MI6 came to light when documents came to light in Tripoli after the fall of Muammar Gaddifi. Photograph: François Mori/AP
Lawyers acting for a Libyan politician who accuses MI6 and the CIA of secretly sending him and his pregnant wife to be tortured by Muammar Gaddafi will on Monday fight a UK government attempt to prevent those responsible from being brought to justice.
Abdel Hakim Belhaj and his wife Fatima accuse the government, MI6 and the former foreign secretary Jack Straw of false imprisonment, conspiracy to cause injury, abuse of public office and negligence.
Belhaj's abduction in 2004 with the help of MI6 came to light when documents were found in Tripoli after Gaddafi's fall two years ago. They revealed that MI6's Sir Mark Allen congratulated the Libyan intelligence chief Moussa Koussa on the safe arrival of the "air cargo", and noted that "the intelligence [on Belhaj] was British".
The government is expected to argue that the case should be thrown out because it would damage UK-US relations. It is also expected to argue the case is beyond British courts' jurisdiction given the alleged unlawful acts took place with other states' help, notably the US and Libya.
Government lawyers have indicated that if necessary they will seek to have the case heard in secret courts set up this year by the Justice and Security Act.
Whitehall's use of secret courts to save itself from embarrassment, rather than to protect national security as claimed, has been dramatically exposed by the revelation that the Ministry of Defence tried to prevent the disclosure of the treatment of prisoners captured by UK forces in Afghanistan.
Part of a secret high court judgment which has now been disclosed reveal that an alleged Taliban leader, identified only as Detainee 806, was handed over by the British to a prison in Kabul despite a moratorium banning the transfer of prisoners there because of its reputation for torture.
The judgment, now declassified, states that Dr Amrullah Saleh, the chief of the Afghan National Directorate of Security, persuaded British officials to hand over Detainee 806, after giving his personal assurance that he would be treated humanely and would be allowed weekly visits from the British.
According to a witness statement by a senior Foreign Office official which was also kept secret at the original court hearings in 2010 the decision to comply with Saleh's request was taken by then Labour foreign secretary David Miliband and armed forces Minister Bill Rammell on the grounds that the prisoner could more easily be prosecuted in Kabul.
Evidence in the newly declassified judgment, obtained after a legal challenge by the Mail on Sunday, showed that despite Saleh's promises, Detainee 806 "disappeared" for a month. When he finally met two British army personnel, he told them he had been beaten with steel rods about his legs and feet, punched in the head, torso, arms and testicles, and deprived of sleep for days. On a subsequent visit, he said he had also been whipped with electric cables. Some of his injuries were photographed.
The judgment said the judges could not determine the prisoner's credibility, but it added: "We consider that the only safe way to proceed is on the assumption that the allegations are true."
Nevertheless, the judges said in 2010 that there was no good reason to make his claims public. "The public interest considerations in favour of non-disclosure ought in our view to prevail."
The MoD had asked for the evidence and judgment in the case to stay secret to protect national security and preserve relations with the Afghan government. They also said disclosure might put prisoners at risk of reprisals.
Referring to the Afghan prisoner case, the former shadow home secretary David Davis told the Mail on Sunday: "Far from protecting national security, this was about hiding political embarrassment.
"The fact David Miliband broke our own moratorium and handed over a prisoner to be tortured is a clear matter of public concern, which using a secret court covered up. This is a very bad harbinger for the secret justice procedures which the new Act creates."
Neither Miliband nor Rammell responded to the paper's requests for comment.
Sapna Malik, a partner at the law firm Leigh Day representing Belhaj and his wife, said on Sunday: "[This case is] the latest attempt by the UK government to deploy dubious legal arguments and political scaremongering to defer having to answer the simple allegations at the heart of this case, to stand up in court and admit what the UK's role was in this sordid affair and who authorised it.
"All our clients want to hear is the truth followed by an apology. This would cost much less than the expensive delaying tactics the government is using to fight this case."
Malik added that the British government had paid out more than £2m to the family of the Libyan dissident Sami al-Saadi, who was also rendered back to Gaddafi, but Belhaj and his wife wanted to pursue the case so the full evidence could be heard.
Cori Crider of the law charity and human rights group Reprieve said: "Instead of coming clean and apologising, which is all Mr Belhaj and his wife are looking for, the government is fighting tooth and nail to stop the case coming to trial."
Belhaj was living in China in 2004, after heading a low-level insurgency against the Gaddafi regime during the 1990s as leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
He and his wife decided to seek asylum in the UK but were detained in Malaysia and Bangkok, where they were handed over to US authorities before being rendered to Tripoli.

High court is urged to scrap Libyan's claim that UK spies aided torture

MI5 and MI6 say dissident's legal action could jeopardise intelligence operations

• Richard Norton-Taylor
  
  
• The Guardian, Tuesday 22 October 2013 09.03 AEST
  

Abdel Hakim Belhaj claims British agents were involved in his abduction. Photograph: Francois Mori/AP

A case brought by a leading Libyan dissident who accuses MI6, MI5 and the former foreign secretary, Jack Straw, of complicity in the abduction that led to his torture must be struck out because any unlawful act took place in a foreign country and not in the UK, government lawyers told the high court on Monday.
"The core of the claims relate to alleged acts of foreign states outside this country," Rory Phillips QC said, referring to evidence that Abdul Hakim Belhaj and his Moroccan wife, Fatima Boudchar, were seized in China in 2004, then deported to Malaysia and subsequently flown to Thailand, ostensibly en route to London, where they were to seek asylum.
At Bangkok, they were put on a flight to Tripoli, where they were jailed and tortured.
The abduction of Belhaj and his wife with the help of MI6 came to light when documents were found in Tripoli after Muammar Gaddafi's fall two years ago. They revealed that MI6's Sir Mark Allen congratulated the Libyan intelligence chief Moussa Koussa on the safe arrival of the "air cargo", and noted that "the intelligence [on Belhaj] was British".
Neither of the claimants had any connection with the UK in a chain of events involving officials of "other sovereign countries", Phillips claimed on Monday.
From the witness box, Laurie Bristow, director for national security at the Foreign Office, claimed that if the case went ahead, there was a danger that MI6 operations and those of foreign states would be exposed. Asked by Richard Hermer QC, for Belhaj, whether the Foreign Office ever before had demanded the exclusion of evidence relating to torture, Bristow replied : "I can't answer that question."
Asked about documents, widely available on the internet, spelling out the UK's involvement in the secret rendition of Belhaj and his wife to Libya, Bristow responded: "The issue is about whether we confirm or deny actions of the intelligence services."
The traditional policy of successive British governments is to "neither confirm nor deny" claims made by critics of MI5 and MI6. Bristow said that if Belhaj was allowed to pursue his claim for damages and for an apology, the UK's relations with the US and other countries involved would be damaged.

A typical Blighty government cop out.

They can't take the chance that an independent judge (not that there's that many of this species of "Brethren" left these days) might blurt out the truth...

Quote:UK inquiry on rendition and torture to be handed to ISC

Decision on stalled inquiry follows years of assurances by ministers that inquiry would be headed by senior judge

• Ian Cobain and Richard Norton-Taylor
  
• The Guardian, Wednesday 18 December 2013 11.59 GMT
  

The ISC's inquiry into rendition concluded only that MI5 and MI6 (pictured) had been slow to spot what the CIA had been doing. Photograph: Felix Clay

The stalled official inquiry into the UK's involvement in rendition andtorture in the years after 9/11 is to be handed to the controversial intelligence and security committee (ISC), the government will announce on Thursday.
The decision follows years of assurances by ministers that the inquiry would be headed by a senior judge, with the prime minister having told MPs that no other arrangement would command public confidence. It triggered warnings from human rights groups that the government risked complaints of a cover-up.
The ISC is the oversight body that has been condemned for failing to report on the bulk surveillance operations being conducted by the UK's signals intelligence agency, GCHQ, until after they became public. Itsinquiry into rendition concluded only that MI5 and MI6 had been slow to spot what the CIA had been doing.
Some details about the involvement of the UK's intelligence agencies in the abuse of terrorism suspects may appear in the interim report of the stalled inquiry when it is published on Thursday. The report is being redacted before publication.
It is understood that the head of the inquiry, Sir Peter Gibson, has reached no conclusions and made no criticisms of individuals, but has suggested a series of questions for the UK's intelligence agencies. Many concern process and training, rather than individual prisoners or operations.
One exception is understood to concern co-operation between MI6 and Muammar Gaddafi's intelligence agencies: the ISC is expected to investigate the UK's involvement in the rendition of two Libyan opposition leaders and their families to Tripoli in 2004, and any role Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, played in authorising those operations. Straw was not available for comment on Wednesday. He has denied any wrongdoing, although MI6 is reported to have confronted him with documentary evidence that he personally authorised the agency's involvement in the Libyan rendition operations.
The growing awareness of the extent to which the UK government and its agencies had become complicit in the mistreatment of terrorism suspects by the US authorities and allies in the "war on terror" was the cause of deep discomfort for incoming ministers when the coalition government was formed in 2010. Within weeks of the election David Cameron announced the inquiry to be led by Gibson. He repeatedly rejected suggestions at that time that the ISC should conduct the investigation,telling MPs: "I do not think for a moment that we should believe that the ISC should be doing this piece of work. For public confidence, and for independence from parliament, party and government, it is right to have a judge-led inquiry." He added: "That is what we need to get to the bottom of the case. The fact that it is led by a judge will help ensure that we get it done properly."
Gibson's inquiry came to a halt two years ago when Scotland Yardlaunched a criminal investigation, after evidence of the UK-Libyan rendition operations was discovered in an abandoned Tripoli office building during the revolution that overthrew Gaddafi. There had also been a behind-the-scenes disagreement over the question of whether Gibson, or the heads of MI6 and MI5, would have control of the publication of evidence.
Although Gibson took no oral evidence, he compiled a report based on the documentary evidence that he had been able to examine. After sitting on Cameron's desk for 18 months, part of that report is to be published on Thursday.
When the inquiry was shelved in January last year, Ken Clarke, then the justice secretary, promised MPs: "The government fully intends to hold a judge-led inquiry into these issues once it is possible to do so and all related police investigations have been concluded."
The decision to hand the inquiry not to a judge but to the ISC was widely condemned on Wednesday. The committee has faced years of criticism as evidence of UK involvement in rendition came to light, and following Edward Snowden's disclosure of the bulk surveillance operations of GCHQ and the NSA.
Today, committee members say they have more powers than in the past and a larger staff and budget, that they can compel the agencies to hand over documents, and that there is no need for "the mistakes of the past" to be repeated.
But the human rights charity Reprieve said it feared the ISC could not be trusted to deliver anything other than a whitewash. Clare Algar, the organisation's executive director, said: "If the government takes this course, it will be breaking its promise to hold a genuine, independent inquiry into the UK's involvement in torture. Worse still, it will be handing the task to a committee of MPs hand-picked by the prime minister which has consistently missed major scandals involving the security services.
"The ISC not only lacks independence it has also sadly been proven to be completely hopeless as a watchdog. David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ken Clarke have all personally pledged to hold an independent, judge-led inquiry into torture they must not abandon their promise in favour of a whitewash."
The NGO Freedom from Torture said the government risked complaints of a cover-up. The chief executive, Keith Best, said: "This entire episode both the allegations and the government's mishandling of them has further tarnished the UK's reputation as a country that believes in human rights, justice, fairness and the rule of law. We were expecting more from David Cameron."
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "It's pantomime season and the government joins in. The 'judge-led inquiry' that never was is shut down and investigating kidnap and torture in freedom's name will be left to a watchdog that never barks and which exonerated the spooks six years ago."
The two rendition operations in which the Libyan dissidents and their families were kidnapped and taken to Gaddafi's jails were mounted either side of Tony Blair's first visit Libya, in which he embraced the dictator, declared that they had found common cause in the fight against terrorism, and announced a £550m gas exploration deal for Shell.
The wife of one of the dissidents was heavily pregnant at the time of the abduction; the other dissident was kidnapped along with his wife and four children, the youngest a girl aged six. Both men were leading members of an Islamist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
Among the secret papers about their abduction that were discovered during the Libyan revolution was a signed letter from the then head of counter-terrorism at MI6, Mark Allen, in which he boasted of his agency's role in one of the operations. There were also secret CIA faxes describing the second operation as a joint UK-Libyan venture. One man received a £2.2m payment after suing the British government; government lawyers are trying to keep the claim by the second victim from being heard in the English courts.
The discovery and publication of the Tripoli documents came as a profound shock to MI6. However, there have been allegations of MI6 and MI5 involvement in a series of other operations in Pakistan, Egypt, Morocco and Bangladesh, as well as Guantánamo Bay and Afghanistan, which have resulted in terrorism suspects suffering severe mistreatment.
In some cases the most notorious being that of the British residentBinyam Mohamed the allegations have been found to be true, while in others the government has paid sums totalling several million pounds in order to settle compensation claims out of court.

Others are not pleased about this either.

Quote:

Cameron and Clegg must not u-turn on torture inquiry pledge

Reports in today's Times suggest that the Government will tomorrow reverse its pledge to hold an independent, judge-led inquiry into UK involvement in torture.
In July 2010, David Cameron announced that "[An] independent Inquiry, led by a judge, will be held. It will look at whether Britain was implicated in the improper treatment of detainees." At the last election, the Liberal Democrats' manifesto pledged to "Hold a full judicial inquiry into allegations of British complicity in torture and state kidnapping."
However, according to leaks to the newspaper, Cabinet Office minister Ken Clarke will tomorrow announce that the task is to be handed instead to the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which is made up of MPs and peers appointed by the Prime Minister. Just last year, Mr Clarke had said that "The government fully intends to hold an independent, judge-led inquiry, once all police investigations have concluded."
Despite being tasked with oversight of the intelligence services, the ISC has been criticised for failing to spot a number of recent scandals or controversies. In 2007, three years after the MI6-orchestrated rendition' of Libyan dissidents Abdel hakim Belhadj (pictured), along with his pregnant wife, and Sami al-Saadi, along with his wife and four young children, the ISC produced a report which said there was "no evidence that the UK Agencies were complicit in any Extraordinary Rendition' operations."
Earlier this year, a member of the ISC admitted that it did not examine GCHQ's mass surveillance programme, Prism, until "after the Guardian revelations," suggesting that the committee was unaware of the issue before its appearance in the media. Its recent questioning of the heads of the intelligence agencies was described as a "total pantomime" after it emerged they had been provided with the questions in advance.
None of the Committee's members are judges, although their number does include a former Defence Secretary, a former Home Office Minister, and a former Cabinet Secretary under Tony Blair.
Commenting, Clare Algar, Executive Director of human rights charity Reprieve said: "If the Government takes this course, it will be breaking its promise to hold a genuine, independent inquiry into the UK's involvement in torture. Worse still, it will be handing the task to a committee of MPs hand-picked by the Prime Minister, which has consistently missed major scandals involving the security services. The ISC not only lacks independence it has also sadly been proven to be completely hopeless as a watchdog. David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ken Clarke have all personally pledged to hold an independent, judge-led inquiry into torture they must not abandon their promise in favour of a whitewash."
ENDS
Notes to editors
1. For further information, please contact Donald Campbell in Reprieve's press office: +44 (0) 207 553 8166 / donald.campbell@reprieve.org.uk
2. Today's Times report can be found here: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/polit...952022.ece
3. On 6th July 2010, Prime Minister David Cameron told the House of Commons that "[An] independent Inquiry, led by a judge, will be held. It will look at whether Britain was implicated in the improper treatment of detainees, held by other countries, that may have occurred in the aftermath of 9/11." http://www.detaineeinquiry.org.uk/about/
4. The Lib Dems' 2010 Manifesto pledged to "Hold a full judicial inquiry into allegations of British complicity in torture and state kidnapping as part of a process to restore Britain's reputation for decency and fairness." See p68 http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2...o_2010.pdf
5. In 2007, 3 years after MI6 helped organise the rendition to torture of Libyan dissidents Sami al Saadi, along with his wife and four children aged 12 or under, and Abdelhakim Belhadj, along with his pregnant wife Fatima Boudchar, the ISC produced a report which said there as "no evidence that the UK Agencies were complicit in any "Extraordinary Rendition" operations." see p29 of report here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy...dition.pdf
6. In Parliament last November, George Howarth, a member of the ISC, admitted they hadn't looked into the Prism/GCHQ revelations until it had been reported in the Guardian:
Mr Watson: I am reassured by my right hon. Friend's thoroughness in the investigation. Was July the first time that the Committee had examined Prism, and was that after the Guardian revelations? [Laughter.]
Mr Howarth: It was after the Guardian revelations.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...tm_spnew49
7. The ISC's membership can be found here: http://isc.independent.gov.uk/committee-members
8. On the description of the ISC's questioning of the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ as a "total pantomime," see http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news...341644.ece


Sign up to join our press mailing list.

Libyan told he cannot pursue rendition claim in case it harms UK interests

High court judge says Abdel Hakim Belhaj has well-founded claim, but case would damage British-US relations

• Richard Norton-Taylor
  
  
• theguardian.com, Saturday 21 December 2013 01.23 AEST
  

Abdel Hakim Belhaj said the judge had been horrified by his case but thought 'it might embarrass the Americans'. Photograph: Francois Mori/AP

A prominent Libyan dissident cannot pursue his "well-founded" claim that he was unlawfully abducted in a joint MI6-CIA operation, and later tortured, because to do so would damage Britain's relations with the US, a high court judge ruled on Friday.
The judge ruled that Abdel Hakim Belhaj could not sue MI6 and the former foreign secretary Jack Straw, even though he admitted that parliamentary oversight and police investigations were "not adequate substitutes" for a decision by a court of law.
Though the ruling, by Mr Justice Simon, dismissed Belhaj's case, it directly challenged the British government's argument that the parliamentary intelligence and security committee (ISC) was the proper body to investigate MI6 operations involving the rendition, detention, and alleged abuse of terror suspects.
Simon said he ruled against Belhaj because American, as well as British, officials were involved in the operation the rendition of Belhaj and his pregnant wife to Tripoli in 2004 which Belhaj wanted a British court to declare unlawful.
He concluded that to pursue the case might damage Britain's national interest a reference to the government's claims that it would harm its relations with the US.
Simon said he came to the conclusion "with hesitation". Belhaj's lawyers intend to appeal against the judgment.
Simon said his hesitation arose from concern that "what appears to be a potentially well-founded claim that the UK authorities were directly implicated in the extraordinary rendition of the claimants will not be determined in any domestic court; and that parliamentary oversight and criminal investigations are not adequate substitutes for access to, and a decision by, the court".
He said the potential effect of the principle of "state doctrine", which bound him in this case, was "to preclude the right to a remedy against the potential misuse of executive power and in respect of breaches of fundamental rights".
The judge added that he had to decide that "the conduct of US officials acting outside the US was unlawful, in circumstances where there are no clear and incontrovertible standards for doing so and where there is incontestable evidence that such an inquiry would be damaging to the national interest".
Speaking from Tripoli, Belhaj, who is represented by the law firm Leigh Day and supported by the legal charity Reprieve, said: "The judge was obviously horrified by what happened to my wife and me. But he thought the law stopped him hearing our case because it might embarrass the Americans.
"I believe that the British justice system, which I admire greatly, is better than that. My wife and I will continue to seek the truth."
Sapna Malik, from Leigh Day, said: "If this judgment stands, it will mean that anything our security services do alongside the US government is immune from the British legal system even MI6 officers arranging the rendition of a pregnant woman into the arms of Gaddafi. Our clients will seek to appeal."
Cori Crider of Reprieve said: "As the judge said himself, today's decision shuts out of court a man who was rendered to Gaddafi's torture chambers with his pregnant wife in 2004. The Libya rendition cases are the most ignominious episode of Britain's role in the 'war on terror' to date. The judge is also entirely right that the discredited intelligence and security committee is no substitute for British justice in a court of law."
Friday's decision came a day after the government decided to abandon its promised judge-led inquiry into the role of UK security and intelligence agencies and gave the task to the parliamentary ISC instead.
The government on Thursday released an interim report by the retired appeal court judge Sir Peter Gibson on MI5 and MI6 operations abroad. Gibson said he found "the United Kingdom may have been inappropriately involved in some renditions".
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/de...-interests

Magda Hassan Wrote:A prominent Libyan dissident cannot pursue his "well-founded" claim that he was unlawfully abducted in a joint MI6-CIA operation, and later tortured, because to do so would damage Britain's relations with the US, a high court judge ruled on Friday.

I should be speechless, but sadly I'm not.

This says everything that anyone ever needs to know about the true "compliant" nature of the British legal system.

David Guyatt Wrote:

Magda Hassan Wrote:A prominent Libyan dissident cannot pursue his "well-founded" claim that he was unlawfully abducted in a joint MI6-CIA operation, and later tortured, because to do so would damage Britain's relations with the US, a high court judge ruled on Friday.

I should be speechless, but sadly I'm not.

This says everything that anyone ever needs to know about the true "compliant" nature of the British legal system.

Good doggie UK, wanna treat for that act of 'rolling over'?