Libya : A no lie zone

[Peter Lemkin]

Leaving aside [for the moment] who is whom and who is backed by whom etc....I'm watching the Benghazi 'Rebels' take over Tripoli with amazing speed and with amazingly little resistance from Qaddafi forces, armed civilians and mercenaries. The 32nd Battalion HQ [this was the top of the top elite force in Libya, run by one of Qaddafi's brothers!] fell with fighting, but amazingly fast, when they had a bastion, enough ammunition for a small war and no place to go....but it fell. Something we are not being told is going on....and I can't put my finger on it. Yes, it has been admitted that NATO is giving the Rebels electronic intel and some unknown number of SAS forces are in Tripoli doing 'something'...but still........but I sense something not adding up. Just thinking aloud.... Many are dying in Tripoli...bodies all over the place and most hospitals near the fighting are abandoned by staff....other hospitals are without drugs and supplies; entire city has no water and at times no electricity....

[Magda Hassan]

Did Wikileaks just reveal the US blueprint for Libya?
Submitted by Ali Abunimah on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 23:23
The US administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama were set on developing deep "military to military" ties with the Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi, classified US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks on 24 August reveal.

The United States was keen to integrate Libya as much as possible into "AFRICOM," the American military command for Africa which seeks to establish bases and station military forces permanently on the continent.

"We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi," Senator Joseph Lieberman (Ind.-CT) said during an August 2009 meeting, which also included Senators John McCain and Susan Collins.

The records confirm that McCain, the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, strongly supported US arms sales to Libya and personally pledged to Muammar Gaddafi (also spelled "al-Qadhafi") and his son Muatassim that he would push to get such transfers approved by Congress. McCain also revealed that the United States was training officers in Gaddafi's army.

While the Americans pursued the relationship vigorously, they met with a cautious and sometimes "mercurial" response from the Libyans. In particular, the mistrustful Libyans wanted security guarantees that the Americans appeared reluctant to give.

"We can get [equipment] from Russia or China," Muatassim told the visiting senators, "but we want to get it from you as a symbol of faith from the United States."

In hindsight, given the US support for the NATO war against the Gaddafi regime, it is not difficult to understand why the Libyans wanted these guarantees.

Nevertheless, Gaddafi received high praise for his "counterterrorism" credentials from US officials.

The documents also reveal that the United States was keen to court Gaddafi's sons, flying them to the United States for high level visits.

And, notably, none of the cables regarding high level meetings quoted in this post made any mention of American concerns about "human rights" in Libya. The issue never appeared on the bilateral agenda.

Does the removal of the Gaddafi regime now clear the way for the United States to pursue the plans for integrating Libya into AFRICOM under what the Americans must hope will be a pliable regime?

"Increased defense cooperation"

In January 2008, US Assistant Secretary of State David Welch met with Libyan Foreign Minister Abdulrahman Shalgam. The classified memo recording the meeting notes:

Welch underscored the importance of increased defense cooperation as a signal of normalcy in the bilateral military relationship, particularly when considering Libya's relatively recent rescission from the state sponsors of terrorism in June 2006. A/S Welch added that the Libyan government should invite AFRICOM Commander General Ward to Libya to discuss AFRICOM in greater detail.

The Libyans responded positively but somewhat warily:

Shalgam voiced the Libyan government's interest in discussing AFRICOM and welcomed General Ward's visit. However, he cautioned, the old guard within the MOD [Ministry of Defense] does not favor closer ties with the USG [US government] (reftel). In particular, General Abubaker Younes, the second in command, is firmly against cooperation and will refuse to meet any American official as he views U.S. coalition forces in Iraq as an occupation force. Nonetheless, Shalgam explained that it is important for Ward to visit and dispel misinformation and mistrust of AFRICOM among the Libyan leadership. He reasserted Libya's continued, strong objection to U.S. military forces in Africa.

Shalgam also raised the issue of six C-130 military transport planes that Libya had purchased from the United States in the early 1970s, but which were never delivered due to US sanctions that were imposed later on.

Courting Gaddafi and his sons

After President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, it appears General William Ward, the commander of AFRICOM did get his invitation to visit Libya the following March. Before his visit, Ward received a classified briefing document from the US Embassy in Tripoli setting out US priorities and goals in Libya as well as providing insights into the regime.

The American document notes that after Libya settled various claims to do with terrorism cases including the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie bombing, it:

allowed us to move forward on the Mil-Mil MOU [Military to Military Memorandum of Understanding], which was signed in Washington in January. It also increased the number of high-level visits between the two countries including Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi's two-week trip to the US in November and his brother Muatassim al-Qadhafi's trip to Washington planned for April.

The memo again notes the mistrust on the Libyan side:

Despite the high-level interest in deepening the relationship, several old-guard regime figures remain skeptical about the re-engagement project and some facets of our interaction remain at the mercy of the often mercurial inner circle.

This was a reference to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, whom the Americans note, often appeared cooler than his sons.

Seducing Libya on AFRICOM

Ward's brief, according to the classified cable, was to help overcome Libyan suspicion of US military expansion into Africa. The document advises the general:

Since the former Secretary of State's visit to Tripoli in September, regime officials have slowly come to terms with AFRICOM as we have explained more of your mission. A clear explanation of AFRICOM's mandate and expected activities on the continent, as well as a two-way discussion on areas of military-to-military cooperation will be welcomed by your interlocutors.

Reiterating AFRICOM's support and humanitarian roles while allaying their fears about American troops or bases on the continent is another message they will be keen to receive. While Libya is a strong partner on counterterrorism, the Libyans remain wary of initiatives that put foreign military or intelligence assets too close to their borders. They are unlikely to join the Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Partnership, due as much to unwillingness to appear subservient to US interests as genuine distrust of U.S. intentions from certain old-guard regime elements. Negotiations on the Mil-Mil MOU [Military to Military Memorandum of Understanding] stalled on Libyan insistence that the language include security assurances on par with our NATO obligations. AFRICOM's capacity-building component and support for peacekeeping forces may appease some, but we expect your military interlocutors will use your visit as an opportunity to tie their cooperation to security assurances.

Gaddafi is a "Top partner"

The Ward memo states:

Libya is a top partner in combating transnational terrorism. The regime is genuinely concerned about the rise of Islamic terrorism in the Sahel and Sahara and worries that instability and weak governments to their south could lead to a "belt of terrorism" stretching from Mauritania to SOMALIA. Al-Qadhafi prides himself on his recent initiatives with Tuareg tribes to persuade them to lay down arms and spurn cooperation with al-Qaeda elements in the border region; this is an issue worth exploring with him, while being mindful that he will oppose U.S. military activity in what he views as his backyard.

US arms sales to Libya

Throughout bilateral discussions, the Ward briefing memo notes, "Libyan officials have been keen to purchase US military equipment - both lethal and non-lethal." It adds:

Libyan officials presented "wish lists" in the context of signing the Mil-Mil MOU. Muatassim [Gaddafi] accompanied his father on a high-profile trip to Moscow in October to discuss potential deals, but his father's trips to Belarus and Ukraine were seen as an attempt to bring the price-point down for weapons deals. Their wish-lists comprise both lethal and non-lethal materiel and we have told the GOL that sales will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, particularly since not all senior USG leaders who would have a say on the subject have been appointed by the new administration.

The Americans were clearly open to selling weapons to Gaddafi, but were noncommital, as Ward was advised:

In effect, the Libyans have made military sales a key litmus of US trust and future intentions. In response, you might say that the U.S. looks forward to developing the bilateral security relationship and this process will take time; the C130s are a commercial matter best pursued with Lockheed-Martin.

The memo to General Ward concludes:

We are confident that your visit to Tripoli will open new doors for continued cooperation. Military cooperation is a key metric to determine the extent to which the Libyan government wishes to engage with the US. We hope your visit will assuage the fears of the more conservative elements of the regime while paving the way for AFRICOM's continued success.

Senator McCain pushes for weapons sales

During his August 2009 visit to Tripoli, according to the classified record of the meeting, Senator John McCain was frank about his support for Libya's weapons requests in a meeting with Muammar and Muatassim Gaddafi:

Senator MCCAIN assured Muatassim that the United States wanted to provide Libya with the equipment it needs for its security. He stated that he understood LIBYA's requests regarding the rehabilitation of its eight C-130s (ref D) and pledged to see what he could do to move things forward in Congress. He encouraged Muatassim to keep in mind the long-term perspective of bilateral security engagement and to remember that small obstacles will emerge from time to time that can be overcome. He described the bilateral military relationship as strong and pointed to Libyan officer training at U.S. Command, Staff, and War colleges as some of the best programs for Libyan military participation.

A blueprint for post-Gaddafi Libya?

Nothing in the leaked documents reviewed here suggests that the NATO-backed removal of the Gaddafi regime was premeditated. On the contrary, the documents show that the United States was more enthusiastic about working with Gaddafi than perhaps Gaddafi was with the Americans though clearly both stood to gain.

The Americans sought to expand their military presence in Africa and Gaddafi wanted to secure his regime against external threats.

At no point were human rights concerns ever an obstacle to American engagement for either the George W. Bush or Obama administrations.

The documents support the view that the decision to go to war against Gaddafi in the name of "protecting civilians" was more opportunistic riding on the back of the "Arab Spring."

It is likely that after the toppling of the Tunisian and Egyptian presidents by popular uprisings in January and February respectively, top American and NATO decisionmakers believed that once protests started against it, the Gaddafi regime would be too unstable and unreliable to deal with.

Yet, the regime also fought back against the uprising in Libya with a ferocity that exceeded even the violence of the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes. It appears likely that American and allied leaders calculated that with a little push from their bombs, the balance could quickly be tipped in favor of the rebellion.

This mindset is clear from the claim in February a month before the NATO intervention began by UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, that Gaddafi had already fled to Venezuela.

It was also clear from statements by US military and political leaders, once the bombing began, that the US military role would only last for days.

As it turned out, the war has so far lasted five months, and is not over. The full-extent of atrocities by NATO-backed rebels and Gaddafi loyalists are only now starting to come to light.

But just as the Americans were happy to work with Gaddafi, they will be as keen to work with his successors, who now owe their positions to foreign intervention.

The Americans must hope that the National Transitional Council (NTC) which the US has recognized as the new government will be less mercurial and even more open to "military to military," and other kinds of ties.
http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-a...rint-libya

[Magda Hassan]

It was uploaded yesterday but I don't know exactly when the events filmed refer to. It may be early in the invasion. Nor do I speak Arabic and most of the people I know who do can't watch this as they are blocked from doing so.

I do find it interesting that the Dutch always seem to turn up 'undercover'. I noticed the same thing in Tunisia and posted about it here and I have seen it elsewhere as well.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Um - Yankee satellites see all of desert... Yankee drones go boom boom... Yankees deliver Death from Above, no questions asked....

So how come a fleet of six armoured Mercedes Benz containing 32 members of la famille Gaddafi trekked across the wide open desert sands without encountering a hellfire strike?

I note that neofascist John Bolton spent yesterday frothing hysterically all over breaking news channels, and demanding that the zombie living dead Megrahi be extradited to the US for a public execution.

Me smell rat.

Muammar Gaddafi's family escaped to Algeria in armoured limousines

New details have emerged on the escape route used by Gaddafi's family to escape into neighbouring country

Julian Borger, Martin Chulov in Tripoli and Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 August 2011 18.54 BST

New details have emerged on the escape route used by Muammar Gaddafi's family to evade the grasp of the Libyan government and escape into neighbouring Algeria, triggering a diplomatic row over their fate.

According to officials in the National Transitional Council, Gaddafi's second wife, daughter and two sons slipped out of the country along a road through central Libya not yet under NTC control. The escape was made in a convoy of six armoured Mercedes limousines, once part of an extensive government fleet, which departed from the town of Bani Walid, the stronghold of the Libya's biggest tribe, the Warfallah, where significant remnants of the regime are holding out.

Guma al-Gamaty, the NTC's UK coordinator, said the motorcade was carrying a total of 32 Gaddafi family members, including the ousted leader's second wife, Safia, daughter Aisha and two sons, Hannibal and Mohammed, and reached the Algerian border on Saturday.

"They were kept waiting there for ten to twelve hours while the Algerian government decided what to do. It was the Algerian president himself [Abdelaziz Bouteflika] who authorised their entry," al-Gamaty said. "We will definitely be seeking their return, and we are cooperating with Interpol to secure their return."

On Monday the Algerian foreign ministry confirmed that the Gaddafi entourage had crossed the border that morning, after denying a report to that effect on Sunday. The crossing is said to have taken place at a remote border post at Tinkarine in the far south east of Algeria, from where the family was taken to the town of Djanet. Aisha a firebrand defender of the regime throughout the conflict gave birth to a baby girl in Djanet's hospital. According to one report, the new baby was named Safiah after her grandmother. An Algerian newspaper, El Watan, said Algerian troops were ordered to seal off the southern border immediately after the crossing.

The escape took place while the NTC's forces were focused on taking Sirte, Gaddafi's birthplace and last coastal stronghold. The NTC leader, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, has given loyalist forces there until Saturday to surrender or face a military onslaught.

But the fact that a conspicuous convoy of six armoured limousines could drive unmolested down the length of the country, from Bani Walid to the pro-Gaddafi bastion at Sebha, on the edge of the Sahara desert, and then west to the Algerian border, indicates that there is a wide swathe of the central Libyan hinterland outside the NTC's grasp.

Al-Gamaty said the NTC now thought that Gaddafi was now "probably" in the Bani Walid area, where the situation was reported fluid but where pro-Gaddafi broadcasts were still being made on the local radio on Tuesday.

"He probably thought Bani Walid was a stronger place to be [than Sirte], as it belongs to the Warfallah, the largest tribe in Libya," he said.

The manhunt for Gaddafi and his most powerful sons, Saif al-Islam, Mutassim and Khamis, is moving southwards to the Bani Walid-Sebha desert road. It was being assisted by western intelligence and special forces, including MI6 officers and the SAS. However, they are thin on the ground. Their role is to pick up signals from intercepting equipment not available to the Libyans and identifying their significance with NTC help. Any attempt to detain Gaddafi and his remaining sons would be carried out by Libyans, British sources stressed.

The diplomatic row that has blown up in the wake of the family's escape reflects the tensions caused by the western spread of the Arab spring, as the Algerian government tries to ensure it is not the next domino to fall. It has so far refused to recognise the provisional NTC government in Tripoli. For its part, the NTC is seeking to ensure Algeria does not become a base from which Gaddafi loyalists could mount a counter-revolution.

The NTC's interior minister Ahmed Darrat has reacted angrily to Algeria's decision to grant members of the Gaddafi family asylum.

"From a political point of view this situation is an enemy act," Darrat told the Guardian.

Al-Gamaty said the NTC are particularly anxious to extradite Hannibal and Mohammed Gaddafi for alleged large-scale embezzlement from the shipping and telecommunications industries respectively.

An Algerian newspaper, Echorouk, has reported that the government had promised to hand over Muammar Gaddafi should he try to follow his family into Algeria. It quoted President Bouteflika as telling his cabinet that the deposed leader would be handed over to the International Criminal Court, where he faces charges of crimes against humanity for the brutality with which the first Libyan anti-government protests in February and March were suppressed.

However, Algiers showed no readiness to hand back the family members taking refuge on its soil. The country's ambassador to the United Nations, Mourad Benmehidi, told the BBC that in the desert regions there was a "holy rule of hospitality" by which his government had accepted the family on humanitarian grounds.

Bouteflika was under heavy international pressure to relent and hand back at least some of the Gaddafi clan.

"We would hope that there will be full cooperation from Algeria with any judicial process with regard to members of the Gaddafi family," a European diplomat said.

It has been confirmed that damage caused by retreating regime loyalists to the water lines supplying Tripoli was worse than first thought. The main damage is at a pumping station 160km south of the capital, and fixing it could take at least a week. The news comes as a blow for the NTC's stabilisation plan, with the Islamic festival to mark the end of Ramadan, Eid al-Fitr, starting in Libya on Tuesday night.

However supply lines to Tunisia along the main coastal road were fully open and food and drinking water was entering the capital. Ahead of the Eid festival, many shops opened in the central city for the first time in 10 days, and several shops in the Ben al-Ashura area were this afternoon opening their doors for the first time in six months. "This is what Gaddafi did to me," said one vendor, Mansour, as he swept out his store which had stood abandoned since 20 February.

[Peter Lemkin]

Video and original article, plus additional materials HERE.

Al Jazeera news producer Jamal Elshayyal recently gained access to the Tripoli headquarter of Libya's intelligence agency. Among the documents scattered throughout the demolished building were secret files indicating that influential Americans advised Muammar Gaddafi since the beginning of the Libyan uprising. Here is his account of the discovery:

The destruction by NATO airstrikes of Libya's intelligence headquarters at the heart of Tripoli has transformed the once-feared building into a symbol of how Gaddafi's regime has been all but toppled.

Guarding the compound are dozens of armed rebel fighters, some of them told me their friends and families went missing as a direct result of "intelligence" gathered by those who worked in the building.

It's fair to assume that among the rubble and ransacked offices, are some of the darkest, deepest secrets of Gaddafi's regime. I'm looking for files entitled "Lockerbie" or "IRA", but the place is a mess.

I'm taken to the office of Abdullah Alsinnousi, head of Libya's intelligence service and one of the Gaddafi regime's most notorious and feared strong men.

Scattered on his desk are dozens of documents branded "top secret", but the rebels accompanying me aren't keen on me taking anything away. I find a folder titled "Moussa Al Sadr", who was the founder of the Amal movement, a Shia party in Lebanon, who went missing in Libya over 30 years ago. Within seconds, the folder is taken by my minder who said none of these documents can leave the compound.

In the room adjacent to Sinnousi's office is a bedroom with an ensuite bathroom kitted with a plush jacuzzi, an indication of the lush lifestyle led by the heads of the former regime. Sprawled on the bed a rebel fighter was taking an afternoon nap. The scene is almost surreal. "Gosh, how times change," I whispered.

Communication with US officials

I managed to smuggle away some documents, among them some that indicate the Gaddafi regime, despite its constant anti-American rhetoric maintained direct communications with influential figures in the US.

I found what appeared to be the minutes of a meeting between senior Libyan officials Abubakr Alzleitny and Mohammed Ahmed Ismail and David Welch, former assistant secretary of state under George W Bush. Welch was the man who brokered the deal to restore diplomatic relations between the US and Libya in 2008.
Papers and files were strewn about the offices of Libya's intelligence agency [Evan Hill/Al Jazeera]



Welch now works for Bechtel, a multinational American company with billion-dollar construction deals across the Middle East. The documents record that, on August 2, 2011, David Welch met with Gaddafi's officials at the Four Seasons Hotel in Cairo, just a few blocks from the US embassy.

During that meeting Welch advised Gaddafi's team on how to win the propaganda war, suggesting several "confidence-building measures", according to the documents. The documents appear to indicate that an influential US political personality was advising Gaddafi on how to beat the US and NATO.

Minutes of this meeting record his advice on how to undermine Libya's rebel movement, with the potential assistance of foreign intelligence agencies, including Israel.

The documents read: "Any information related to al-Qaeda or other terrorist extremist organisations should be found and given to the American administration but only via the intelligence agencies of either Israel, Egypt, Morroco, or Jordan… America will listen to them… It's better to receive this information as if it originated from those countries...".

The papers also document Welch advising the Gaddafi's regime to take advantage of the current unrest in Syria. The documents held this passage: "The importance of taking advantage of the Syrian situation particularly regarding the double-standard policy adopted by Washington… the Syrians were never your friends and you would loose nothing from exploiting the situation there in order to embarrass the West."

'Encouragement to Gaddafi'

Despite this apparent encouragement to Gaddafi to pursue a propaganda campaign at the expense of Syria, the documents claim Welch attacked Qatar, describing Doha's actions as "cynical" and an attempt to divert attention from the unrest in Bahrain.

The documents allege that Welch went on to propose the following solution to the crisis which he said many would support in the US administration: "[Gaddafi] should step aside" but "not necessarily relinquish all his powers".

This advice is a clear contradiction of public demands from the White House that Gaddafi must be removed.

According to the document, as the meeting closed, Welch promised: "To convey everything to the American administration, the congress and other influential figures."

In one of the high-ranking officer's offices, several old portraits of Gaddafi sat on the floor [Evan Hill/Al Jazeera]


It appears Welch was not the only prominent American giving help to Gaddafi as NATO and the rebel army were locked in battle with his regime.

On the floor of the intelligence chief's office lay an envelope addressed to Gaddafi's son Saif Al-Islam. Inside, I found what appears to be a summary of a conversation between US congressman Denis Kucinich, who publicly opposed US policy on Libya, and an intermediary for the Libyan leader's son.

It details a request by the congressman for information he needed to lobby US lawmakers to suspend their support for the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) and to put an end to NATO airstrikes.

According to the document, Kucinich wanted evidence of corruption within the NTC and, like Welch, any possible links within rebel ranks to al-Qaeda.

The document also lists specific information needed to defend Saif Al-Islam, who is currently on the International Criminal Court's most-wanted list.

Scattered across the headquarters were smashed frames holding "the brother leader's" pictures, powerful images which depict Gaddafi's sudden fall from grace.

It took six months to topple Gaddafi's regime, but the colonel did rule for over forty years. During his reign thousands of people went missing, planes were blown up, and billion-dollar deals were struck in the most dubious of circumstances.

Finding out the true story behind all this will take a long time, and even then there are some things that will never be known.

A spokesperson for the US state department said that David Welch is "a private citizen" who was on a "private trip" and that he did not carry "any messages from the US government". Welch has not responded to Al Jazeera's requests for comment.

Dennis Kucinich issued a statement to the Atlantic Wire stating: "Al Jazeera found a document written by a Libyan bureaucrat to other Libyan bureaucrats. All it proves is that the Libyans were reading the Washington Post... I can't help what the Libyans put in their files... Any implication I was doing anything other than trying to bring an end to an unauthorised war is fiction."

[Peter Lemkin]

by William Blum
http://www.killinghope.org
Libya and the world we live in

"Why are you attacking us? Why are you killing our children? Why are you destroying our infrastructure?"
Television address by Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi, April 30, 2011

A few hours later NATO hit a target in Tripoli, killing Gaddafi's 29-year-old son Saif al-Arab, three of Gaddafi's grandchildren, all under twelve years of age, and several friends and neighbors.

In his TV address, Gaddafi had appealed to the NATO nations for a cease-fire and negotiations after six weeks of bombings and cruise missile attacks against his country.

Well, let's see if we can derive some understanding of the complex Libyan turmoil.

The Holy Triumvirate The United States, NATO and the European Union recognizes no higher power and believes, literally, that it can do whatever it wants in the world, to whomever it wants, for as long as it wants, and call it whatever it wants, like "humanitarian".

If The Holy Triumvirate decides that it doesn't want to overthrow the government in Syria or in Egypt or Tunisia or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or Yemen or Jordan, no matter how cruel, oppressive, or religiously intolerant those governments are with their people, no matter how much they impoverish and torture their people, no matter how many protesters they shoot dead in their Freedom Square, the Triumvirate will simply not overthrow them.

If the Triumvirate decides that it wants to overthrow the government of Libya, though that government is secular and has used its oil wealth for the benefit of the people of Libya and Africa perhaps more than any government in all of Africa and the Middle East, but keeps insisting over the years on challenging the Triumvirate's imperial ambitions in Africa and raising its demands on the Triumvirate's oil companies, then the Triumvirate will simply overthrow the government of Libya.

If the Triumvirate wants to punish Gaddafi and his sons it will arrange with the Triumvirate's friends at the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for them.

If the Triumvirate doesn't want to punish the leaders of Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Jordan it will simply not ask the ICC to issue arrest warrants for them. Ever since the Court first formed in 1998, the United States has refused to ratify it and has done its best to denigrate it and throw barriers in its way because Washington is concerned that American officials might one day be indicted for their many war crimes and crimes against humanity. Bill Richardson, as US ambassador to the UN, said to the world in 1998 that the United States should be exempt from the court's prosecution because it has "special global responsibilities". But this doesn't stop the United States from using the Court when it suits the purposes of American foreign policy.

If the Triumvirate wants to support a rebel military force to overthrow the government of Libya then it does not matter how fanatically religious, al-Qaeda-related,1 executing-beheading-torturing, monarchist, or factionally split various groups of that rebel force are at times, the Triumvirate will support it, as it did certain forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and hope that after victory the Libyan force will not turn out as jihadist as it did in Afghanistan, or as fratricidal as in Iraq. One potential source of conflict within the rebels, and within the country if ruled by them, is that a constitutional declaration made by the rebel council states that, while guaranteeing democracy and the rights of non-Muslims, "Islam is the religion of the state and the principle source of legislation in Islamic Jurisprudence."2

Adding to the list of the rebels' charming qualities we have the Amnesty International report that the rebels have been conducting mass arrests of black people across the nation, terming all of them "foreign mercenaries" but with growing evidence that a large number were simply migrant workers. Reported Reuters (August 29): "On Saturday, reporters saw the putrefying bodies of 22 men of African origin on a Tripoli beach. Volunteers who had come to bury them said they were mercenaries whom rebels had shot dead." To complete this portrait of the West's newest darlings we have this report from The Independent of London (August 27): "The killings were pitiless. They had taken place at a makeshift hospital, in a tent marked clearly with the symbols of the Islamic crescent. Some of the dead were on stretchers, attached to intravenous drips. Some were on the back of an ambulance that had been shot at. A few were on the ground, seemingly attempting to crawl to safety when the bullets came."

If the Triumvirate's propaganda is clever enough and deceptive enough and paints a graphic picture of Gaddafi-initiated high tragedy in Libya, many American and European progressives will insist that though they never, ever support imperialism they're making an exception this time because ...

The Libyan people are being saved from a "massacre", both actual and potential. This massacre, however, seems to have been grossly exaggerated by the Triumvirate, al Jazeera TV, and that station's owner, the government of Qatar; and nothing approaching reputable evidence of a massacre has been offered, neither a mass grave or anything else; the massacre stories appear to be on a par with the Viagra-rape stories spread by al Jazeera (the Fox News of the Libyan uprising). Qatar, it should be noted, has played an active military role in the civil war on the side of NATO. It should be further noted that the main massacre in Libya has been six months of daily Triumvirate bombing, killing an unknown number of people and ruining much of the infrastructure. Michigan U. Prof. Juan Cole, the quintessential true-believer in the good intentions of American foreign policy who nevertheless manages to have a regular voice in progressive media, recently wrote that "Qaddafi was not a man to compromise ... his military machine would mow down the revolutionaries if it were allowed to." Is that clear, class? We all know of course that Sarkozy, Obama, and Cameron made compromises without end in their devastation of Libya; they didn't, for example, use any nuclear weapons.
The United Nations gave its approval for military intervention; i.e., the leading members of the Triumvirate gave their approval, after Russia and China cowardly abstained instead of exercising their veto power; (perhaps hoping to receive the same courtesy from the US, UK and France when Russia or China is the aggressor nation).
The people of Libya are being "liberated", whatever in the world that means, now or in the future. Gaddafi is a "dictator" they insist. That may indeed be the proper term to use for the man, but it must still be asked: Is he a relatively benevolent dictator or is he the other kind so favored by Washington? It must also be asked: Since the United States has habitually supported dictators for the entire past century, why not this one?

The Triumvirate, and its fawning media, would have the world believe that what's happened in Libya is just another example of the Arab Spring, a popular uprising by non-violent protestors against a dictator for the proverbial freedom and democracy, spreading spontaneously from Tunisia and Egypt, which sandwich Libya. But there are several reasons to question this analysis in favor of seeing the Libyan rebels' uprising as a planned and violent attempt to take power in behalf of their own political movement, however heterogeneous that movement might appear to be in its early stage. For example:

They soon began flying the flag of the monarchy that Gaddafi had overthrown
They were an armed and violent rebellion almost from the beginning; within a few days, we could read of "citizens armed with weapons seized from army bases"3 and of "the policemen who had participated in the clash were caught and hanged by protesters"4
Their revolt took place not in the capital but in the heart of the country's oil region; they then began oil production and declared that foreign countries would be rewarded oil-wise in relation to how much each country aided their cause
They soon set up a Central Bank, a rather bizarre thing for a protest movement
International support came quickly, even beforehand, from Qatar and al Jazeera to the CIA and French intelligence

The notion that a leader does not have the right to put down an armed rebellion against the state is too absurd to discuss.

Not very long ago, Iraq and Libya were the two most modern and secular states in the Mideast/North Africa world with perhaps the highest standards of living in the region. Then the United States of America came along and saw fit to make a basket case of each one. The desire to get rid of Gaddafi had been building for years; the Libyan leader had never been a reliable pawn; then the Arab Spring provided the excellent opportunity and cover. As to Why? Take your pick of the following:

Gaddafi's plans to conduct Libya's trading in Africa in raw materials and oil in a new currency the gold African dinar, a change that could have delivered a serious blow to the US's dominant position in the world economy. (In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars; sanctions and an invasion followed.) For further discussion see here.
A host-country site for Africom, the US Africa Command, one of six regional commands the Pentagon has divided the world into. Many African countries approached to be the host have declined, at times in relatively strong terms. Africom at present is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. According to a State Department official: "We've got a big image problem down there. ... Public opinion is really against getting into bed with the US. They just don't trust the US."5
An American military base to replace the one closed down by Gaddafi after he took power in 1969. There's only one such base in Africa, in Djibouti. Watch for one in Libya sometime after the dust has settled. It'll perhaps be situated close to the American oil wells. Or perhaps the people of Libya will be given a choice an American base or a NATO base.
Another example of NATO desperate to find a raison d'être for its existence since the end of the Cold War and the Warsaw Pact.
Gaddafi's role in creating the African Union. The corporate bosses never like it when their wage slaves set up a union. The Libyan leader has also supported a United States of Africa for he knows that an Africa of 54 independent states will continue to be picked off one by one and abused and exploited by the members of the Triumvirate. Gaddafi has moreover demanded greater power for smaller countries in the United Nations.
The claim by Gaddafi's son, Saif el Islam, that Libya had helped to fund Nicolas Sarkozy's election campaign6 could have humiliated the French president and explain his obsessiveness and haste in wanting to be seen as playing the major role in implementing the "no fly zone" and other measures against Gaddafi. A contributing factor may have been the fact that France has been weakened in its former colonies and neo-colonies in Africa and the Middle East, due in part to Gaddafi's influence.
Gaddafi has been an outstanding supporter of the Palestinian cause and critic of Israeli policies; and on occasion has taken other African and Arab countries, as well as the West, to task for their not matching his policies or rhetoric; one more reason for his lack of popularity amongst world leaders of all stripes.
In January, 2009, Gaddafi made known that he was considering nationalizing the foreign oil companies in Libya.7 He also has another bargaining chip: the prospect of utilizing Russian, Chinese and Indian oil companies. During the current period of hostilities, he invited these countries to make up for lost production. But such scenarios will now not take place. The Triumvirate will instead seek to privatize the National Oil Corporation, transferring Libya's oil wealth into foreign hands.
The American Empire is troubled by any threat to its hegemony. In the present historical period the empire is concerned mainly with Russia and China. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya and elsewhere in Africa. The average American neither knows nor cares about this. The average American imperialist cares greatly, if for no other reason than in this time of rising demands for cuts to the military budget it's vital that powerful "enemies" be named and maintained.
For yet more reasons, see the article "Why Regime Change in Libya?" by Ismael Hossein-zadeh, and the US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks Wikileaks reference 07TRIPOLI967 11-15-07 (includes a complaint about Libyan "resource nationalism")

A word from the man the world's mightiest military powers have been trying to kill

"Recollections of My Life", written by Col. Muammar Gaddafi, April 8, 2011, excerpts:

Now, I am under attack by the biggest force in military history, my little African son, Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery, called "capitalism," but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the countries, run the world, and the people suffer, so, there is no alternative for me, I must make my stand, and if Allah wishes, I shall die by following his path, the path that has made our country rich with farmland, with food and health, and even allowed us to help our African and Arab brothers and sisters to work here with us ... I do not wish to die, but if it comes to that, to save this land, my people, all the thousands who are all my children, then so be it. ... In the West, some have called me "mad", "crazy". They know the truth but continue to lie, they know that our land is independent and free, not in the colonial grip.

Notes

For example, see: The Telegraph (London), August 30, 2011: "Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime." There is a plethora of other reports detailing the ties between the rebels and radical Islamist groups. ↩
1 Washington Post, August 31, 2011
2McClatchy Newspapers, February 20, 2011 ↩
3 Wikipedia, Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war, February 19, 2011 ↩
4 The Guardian (London), June 25, 2007 ↩
5 The Guardian (London), March 16, 2011 ↩
6 Reuters, January 21, 2009 ↩
7 Associated Press, August 11, 2011 ↩
8 Agence France Presse, May 21, 2010↩

[Magda Hassan]

Excellent article by Bill Blum again Peter.

I'm sure the following has nothing to do with the UK involvement, no nothing at all.....

Libya: the minister, the Tory donor and a contract to supply oil
An oil firm whose chief executive has bankrolled the Conservatives won valuable rights to trade with Libyan rebels during the conflict, following secret talks involving the British Government.

By Robert Winnett, and Rowena Mason10:17PM BST 01 Sep 2011
The deal with Vitol was said to have been masterminded by Alan Duncan, the former oil trader turned junior minister, who has close business links to the oil firm and was previously a director of one of its subsidiaries.
Mr Duncan's private office received funding from the head of Vitol before the general election. Ian Taylor, the company's chief executive and a friend of Mr Duncan, has given more than £200,000 to the Conservatives.
Vitol is thought to be the only oil firm to have traded with the rebels during the Libyan conflict. Oil industry sources said that other firms including BP, Shell and Glencore had not been approached over the deal. One well-placed source said this was "very surprising" because other companies would have been keen to be involved.
Last night the Coalition was under pressure to disclose details of Mr Duncan's role in securing the deal, worth about $1billion (£618million). The firm is thought to have supplied fuel and associated products to the rebels and traded oil on their behalf.
The controversial firm has previously been fined for breaching sanctions and paid money to Arkan, the Serbian warlord, allegedly for oil contracts.

Sources at other oil firms described the situation as "highly unusual". Companies are rushing to secure deals with the rebels in Libya, which has some of the largest oil reserves in the world. An Italian oil firm sent a tanker to Benghazi during the conflict but was forced to turn away from the port.
Mr Duncan, a minister in the Department for International Development, is reported to have arranged the setting up of a special "Libyan oil cell" which brought together officials from the Cabinet Office and Foreign Office to stop the Gaddafi regime benefiting from its control of oil reserves. The oil cell is said to have been key in paving the way for deals between Vitol and the rebels.
The Government's exact role was shrouded in secrecy. The rebels did not have access to significant sources of finance, meaning that Vitol agreed to deals without upfront payments and is understood to only now be receiving funds. The Gaddafi regime had assets frozen in London and elsewhere and Vitol may have wanted assurances that this money would be released to the rebels in the future, as is now happening.
Sources close to the deal also said that the Government helped secure insurance for the Vitol shipments. It is thought that details of the Libyan oil cell emerged following briefings from those close to Mr Duncan. The minister is said to have described the cell as "the Duncan plan" to friends.
John Mann, a Labour MP, last night called for an inquiry and demanded to be told whether Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, had cleared the "extraordinary deal". "This is the worst kind of government giving a company that paid Alan Duncan a secret deal," he said. "It is just like the way Arab dictators behave. Or the way some of the American deals were done in Iraq after the war."
Last night, Downing Street officials said there had been no impropriety. They confirmed that Mr Duncan had attended meetings with Vitol as part of attempts to avoid a humanitarian crisis if rebel-held areas ran out of fuel.
"The Government did not lobby on Vitol's behalf," a spokesman said. "The company had an existing commercial relationship with the National Transitional Council. We are confident that the correct procedures were followed."
Vitol declined to comment. However, sources close to the firm said that, although the Government had "clearly been helpful" in facilitating the deal, the American government and others were also involved. "Many companies were asked to get involved, but no one else was prepared to step up," said one source. "There was a payment and safety risk."
In 2008, it emerged that Mr Duncan's private office was being funded by donations from the chairman of Vitol.
In the 1990s, Vitol paid $1 million to Arkan, a war criminal, to act as a fixer on a business deal in Slobodan Milosevic's Serbia that had collapsed. In 2007, the company was fined over the oil-for-food scandal for dealing with the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein. Vitol pleaded guilty to larceny in a New York court and paid $13 million to the Iraqi people in restitution.
Mr Duncan recently gave up a directorship in Arawak Energy, which was part-owned by Vitol and which he had registered with the parliamentary authorities.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...y-oil.html

[Magda Hassan]

Oooops, there is one for France as well.....but I am sure there is no connection at all....

Pétrole : l'accord secret entre le CNT et la France
Dans une lettre que s'est procurée «Libération», les rebelles promettent d'accorder 35% du brut libyen aux Français.

304 commentaires
Par VITTORIO DE FILIPPIS


Mahmoud Jibril, numéro 2 du CNT, reçu le 24 août 2011 à l'Elysée par Nicolas Sarkozy. (© AFP Lionel Bonaventure)
La morale politique n'a rien à faire avec les affaires. C'est, en substance, ce que répète le gouvernement français depuis le 19 mars, jour du lancement de l'opération militaire contre les troupes du colonel Kadhafi. Paris n'a qu'un seul objectif : «Venir en aide à un peuple en danger de mort […] au nom de la conscience universelle qui ne peut tolérer de tels crimes, déclare Nicolas Sarkozy lors d'un discours à l'Elysée, le 19 mars. Nous le faisons pour protéger la population civile de la folie meurtrière d'un régime qui, en assassinant son propre peuple, a perdu toute légitimité.» N'empêche, les entreprises pétrolières françaises pourraient largement profiter de cette campagne militaire. C'est en tout cas ce qui est écrit noir sur blanc dans un document que Libération s'est procuré. Texte signé par le Conseil national de transition (CNT), autorité de transition créée par les rebelles libyens.


http://q.liberation.fr/photo/id/322461
Certes, il était de notoriété publique que les pays les plus engagés auprès des insurgés seraient les mieux considérés par le CNT le jour venu, notamment en nombre de contrats pétroliers sonnants et trébuchants. Mais ce document montre clairement que des engagements chiffrés ont été donnés il y a déjà plusieurs mois.

«Soutien total». Nous sommes le 3 avril. Dix-sept jours se sont écoulés depuis l'adoption de la résolution 1973 au Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, où la France a joué un rôle déterminant pour venir en aide aux insurgés. Ce 3 avril, le CNT signe donc une lettre (reproduite ci-dessus) dans laquelle il est précisé : «[…] S'agissant de l'accord sur le pétrole passé avec la France en échange de la reconnaissance de notre Conseil, lors du sommet de Londres, comme représentant légitime de la Libye, nous avons délégué le frère Mahmoud [Shammam, ministre en charge des médias au CNT, ndlr] pour signer cet accord attribuant 35% du total du pétrole brut aux Français en échange du soutien total et permanent à notre Conseil.» A qui s'adresse cette missive ? Au cabinet de l'émir du Qatar. Et pour cause, ce pays sert depuis le début du soulèvement d'intermédiaire entre la France et le CNT. Avec copie au secrétaire général de la Ligue arabe, Amr Moussa.

«Rétribution». Cette lettre aurait-elle de quoi accréditer la thèse des islamistes, qui n'ont eu de cesse de répéter que cette guerre n'avait d'autre but que de faire main basse sur les ressources pétrolières du pays, dont les réserves frôlent les 44 milliards de barils, les premières du continent africain ? «Absolument pas, s'emporte Mathieu Guidère, professeur des universités et spécialiste du monde arabe. C'est ignorer la culture libyenne. Ce peuple n'est pas pauvre, il ne tend pas la main, car il a conscience de sa richesse. Pour les membres du CNT, cet accord n'est que la juste rétribution, au sens culturel du terme, du soutien offert par la France et confirmé par le large vote des parlementaires français.» Contacté, le Quai d'Orsay a expliqué qu'il n'avait «pas connaissance d'un tel document». Une chose semble évidente : l'application de cet accord dépendra du nouveau bureau du CNT, élu le 8 août…

http://www.liberation.fr/monde/010123573...-la-france

[Ed Jewett]

Rebel Military Chief Says He Was Tortured By CIA

Abdulhakim Belhaj's allegations suggest a close relationship between the US and Gaddafi's regime

By Patrick Cockburn

September 02, 2011 "The Independent" - -The overthrow of Gaddafi has brought together strange allies, but few stranger than Abdulhakim Belhaj, the military commander of all rebel military forces in Tripoli, and Nato. An Islamist whom Gaddafi tried to have the US list as a terrorist, Mr Belhaj says he was tortured by CIA agents after being arrested in the Far East in 2004 and later handed over by them to Colonel Gaddafi for further torture and imprisonment in Libya.

Mr Belhaj, the head of the military council for Tripoli, who led an Islamist guerrilla organisation fighting the Gaddafi regime in the 1990s, told The Independent in an interview that he had been directly "tortured by CIA agents" in Thailand after being first arrested in Malaysia.

If true, his story is evidence of the close co-operation between the CIA and Colonel Gaddafi's security services after the Libyan leader denounced the 9/11 attacks. After his stint in the hands of the CIA, Mr Belhaj was kept in Abu Salim prison in Tripoli. He says: "I was in prison for seven years during which I was subjected to torture as well as solitary confinement. I was even denied a shower for three years." Other Libyan Islamist prisoners have related how they were sometimes taken from Abu Salim to be questioned by US officials in Tripoli.

Released from prison in 2010, Mr Belhaj, who had military experience from fighting in Afghanistan against the Russians in the 1980s, became one of the most effective rebel military commanders. He is said by diplomats to have played a crucial role in the capture of Tripoli at the end of last month, and is highly regarded by the chairman of the Transitional National Council (TNC), Mustafa Abdul Jalil.

Ironically, given his claims of previous mistreatment at US hands, Mr Belhaj has emerged as one of Nato's most important allies during their air campaign in support of the rebels over the last six months. Speaking in his headquarters in the Mitiga military airbase on the eastern outskirts of Tripoli, he forcefully denied that he and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which he helped found in 1995, had ever been allied to al-Qa'ida.

"We never had any link to al-Qa'ida," said Mr Belhaj, a short, soft-spoken, bearded man, who does not use a military title. "We never took part in global jihad. The fact that we were in the same country, Afghanistan, [as al-Qa'ida] does not mean we had the same goal." He stresses that the sole aim of the LIFG was always to overthrow Gaddafi.

Despite his current close co-operation with Nato, Mr Belhaj says he finds it difficult to forgive his treatment by the CIA in the past.

When first detained at an airport in Malaysia in 2004 he says he was with his wife: "She was six months pregnant and she suffered a lot."

After a few days, CIA agents took him to Thailand as part of the notorious rendition process by which the agency transferred prisoners to countries where security forces were known to use torture. He says that in Thailand CIA agents took a direct part in his torture, though he did not give details. He says that "if I ever have the chance I will take legal action" against those responsible.

The disclosure of Libya's intelligence files may reveal embarrassing details of co-operation between the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies with Gaddafi's brutal and ruthless security services in pursuit of Islamist opponents. Mr Belhaj says that in the wake of 9/11, the US administration reacted by pursuing "any organisation with an Islamic agenda".

Mr Belhaj spent seven years in Abu Salim prison which was the site of the Gaddafi regime's most infamous atrocity, the massacre of some 1,200 prisoners in 1999, almost all of them Islamists, who had protested against conditions. The first protests which ushered in the uprising in Benghazi this February was by lawyers representing the families of the dead Abu Salim prisoners.

The Libyan prison was run with great savagery even against those whose offences were minor. Students accused of being excessively religious were stripped naked and attacked by dogs. Prisoners who survived might spend decades without seeing their families. In Abu Salim, Mr Belhaj helped write a 419-page document, published in 2009, which repudiated the Jihadi doctrine of holy war and the use of violence to change regimes. The name of the LIFG was changed to the Libyan Islamic Movement for Change. The ideological change, spurred by the failure of radical Islamic groups fighting on their own to overthrow governments, led to Islamists seeking the co-operation of more secular and liberal groups also opposed to Arab police states. It is these popular front coalitions that have won victories in Tunisia, Egypt and now Libya.

Mr Belhaj is keen to underline that he and other Islamists are not seeking to impose their agenda. He says: "The Libyan people have different views and those views will be respected." He also evidently wants to reassure Nato countries that they have not helped get rid of Gaddafi only to see a fundamentalist Islamic state replace him. He had just returned from a meeting in Doha, the capital of Qatar, which has given him significant support, where "I explained to them our vision of the future." Mustafa Abdul Jalil, chairman of the TNC, specifically says he was taken to a Nato meeting in order to reassure the West that he presented no threat.

Mr Belhaj says the thousands of militiamen from all over Libya, who owe allegiance to his Military Council, will ultimately join a new Libyan army or return to civilian life. Asked about mass round-ups of sub-Saharan Africans, often undocumented workers, accused of being mercenaries, he said he wanted harassment stopped, but many immigrants had no identity card. He added: "Last night 10 immigrants came to this base for protection and we will check their IDs and either look after them or help them leave the country."

On the whereabouts of Gaddafi, he said that the military operation room in charge of locating him had "strong information he is in Bani Walid". Saadi, one of Gaddafi's sons had phoned Mr Belhaj a few days ago "to separate himself from his father's regime" and was told that, if he surrendered himself, his safety would be guaranteed and he would receive a fair trial.

©independent.co.uk

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...e29012.htm

[Jan Klimkowski]

As DPF members know, Gaddafi was "our" dictator:

CIA worked with Libya in terror suspect renditions, documents show

Documents found in the offices of former head of Libyan intelligence also reveal MI6 gave Gaddafi regime information on dissidents

David Batty and agencies guardian.co.uk, Saturday 3 September 2011 16.00 BST

The CIA worked closely with Muammar Gaddafi's intelligence services in the rendition of terrorist suspects including Abdel-Hakim Belhaj, the rebel commander in Tripoli, according to documents found in Tripoli.

The documents, found in the offices of the former head of Libyan intelligence Musa Kusa, also show that MI6 gave Gaddafi's regime information on Libyan dissidents living in the UK.

The files, uncovered by Human Rights Watch, provide details of the close relationship between western intelligence services, including MI6 and the CIA, and the ousted dictator's regime.

Two documents from March 2004 appear to be American correspondence to Libyan officials to arrange the rendition of Belhaj, the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a now-dissolved militant group with links to al-Qaida.

Referring to him by his nom de guerre, Abdullah al-Sadiq, the documents say he will be flown from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Libya, and asks for Libyan government agents to accompany him. They also request US "access to al-Sadiq for debriefing purposes once he is in your custody".

Belhaj has said he was tortured by CIA agents at a secret prison before being returned to Libya.

"Please be advised that we must be assured that al-Sadiq will be treated humanely and that his human rights will be respected," the document states.

Peter Bouckaert, the emergencies director of Human Rights Watch, called the ties between Washington and Gaddafi's regime "a very dark chapter in American intelligence history, and it remains a stain on the record of the American intelligence services that they cooperated with these very abusive intelligence services".

Jennifer Youngblood, a CIA spokeswoman, declined to comment on any specific allegation related to the documents.

She said: "It can't come as a surprise that the Central Intelligence Agency works with foreign governments to help protect our country from terrorism and other deadly threats. That is exactly what we are expected to do."

The documents referring to MI6 contain communications between British and Libyan security services before the former prime minister Tony Blair's desert tent meeting with Gaddafi in 2004. British officials are said to have helped the Libyan dictator with his speechwriting.

The foreign Secretary, William Hague, told Sky News the had no comment to make on intelligence matters.

But he added: "On the subject of these apparent disclosures, first of all they relate to a period under the previous government so I have no knowledge of those, of what was happening behind the scenes at that time."

The documents emerged as the Ministry of Defence (MoD) disclosed that British forces have so far hit more than 900 targets in the Nato campaign to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime.

The latest strikes came during armed reconnaissance patrols around buildings in Bani Walid, where rebels believed Gaddafi may have been hiding.

Among the 910 targets damaged or destroyed since operations began in March were secret police headquarters and command bunkers, the MoD said.