Libyan Authorities Detain Four Icc Staff After Meeting Saif Gaddafi

[News_Editor]

Libyan authorities detain four ICC staff after meeting Saif Gaddafi < br />

2012-06-10 10:53:36 GMT+7 (ICT)

ZINTAN, LIBYA (BNO NEWS) -- Authorities in northwestern Libya have detained four members of the International Criminal Court (ICC) who had traveled there to meet Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of the former Libyan leader, court officials confirmed on Saturday.

ICC President Sang-Hyun Song said the four staff members were detained on Thursday when they traveled to the city of Zintan, where Saif Al-Islam is being held. "We are very concerned about the safety of our staff in the absence of any contact with them," he said. "These four international civil servants have immunity when on an official ICC mission."

Among those detained is believed to be Australian ICC lawyer Melinda Taylor who has been appointed to represent Saif Al-Islam, who was captured in November 2011 following a months-long civil war and has been indicted by the UN-backed court for crimes against humanity. Libyan authorities have so far refused to hand over Saif Al-Islam to face trial in the Netherlands, the seat of the ICC.

Members of the brigade holding Saif Al-Islam accused the ICC staff of attempting to pass on 'dangerous documents' to him, including a letter from a former confidante of his who is now on the run in Egypt, according to the BBC. The broadcaster said it was shown the documents from a distance, but reporters were not allowed to read them.

"I call on the Libyan authorities to immediately take all necessary measures to ensure their safety and security and to liberate them," the ICC president said. He said the court's delegation also included members who wanted to talk with Saif Al-Islam to discuss his option of appointing counsel of his own choosing.

Saif Al-Islam's father, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, was captured on October 20, 2011, by fighters supporting Libya's transitional government as he tried to flee his hometown Sirte. He was eventually shot dead but it remains unclear whether he was executed by his captors or if he was killed during fighting between pro-Gaddafi and anti-Gaddafi forces.

It is believed more than 25,000 people have been killed during last year's civil war.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-06-10

[Bluespunk]

These are the psychos who are meant to be better than ghadafi, who to be fair was fairly psychotic himself, but you'd think NATO would have had a plan in place for a post ghadafi Libya. It's almost as if they'd thought look let's just bomb the crap out of Libya until ghadafi's gone and then let the mad sods left behind tear themselves apart because it's expensive to do things properly……ah, yes, now I see. Foolish of me not to do so earlier, all so clear now…

[GentlemanJim]

I guess this is what you get when NATO and the US team up with terrorists to overthrow a sovereign nation. I do hope they do not harm the ICC people.

[Colin Yai]

It makes one wonder what will happen in Syria once the "dust has settled " !http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18384287 what a bloody mess!

Edited June 11, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Credo]

I guess this is what you get when NATO and the US team up with terrorists to overthrow a sovereign nation. I do hope they do not harm the ICC people.

One would assume from your post that the Arab spring was masterminded by the "Evil Empire" and NATO. It was not. Whether anyone should have gotten involved or not is subject of much debate, but either way, the outcome was not going to be a good one. The same with Egypt. Do you think either NATO, the US or any Western government is better off without him? They aren't. But they had little control over the events.

It makes one wonder what will happen in Syria once the "dust has settled " !http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-18384287 what a bloody mess!

Another situation for which there is no positive outcome. If Assad stays there will be bloodbath and a huge amount of revenge extracted on the civilian population. The outsiders suspected of helping the rebellion will be long gone with little consequences. If Assad goes, there will be a power struggle of epic proportions and none of the Western governments are likely to be pleased with who takes power.

[folium]

I guess this is what you get when NATO and the US team up with terrorists to overthrow a sovereign nation. I do hope they do not harm the ICC people.

One would assume from your post that the Arab spring was masterminded by the "Evil Empire" and NATO. It was not. Whether anyone should have gotten involved or not is subject of much debate, but either way, the outcome was not going to be a good one. The same with Egypt. Do you think either NATO, the US or any Western government is better off without him? They aren't. But they had little control over the events.

It makes one wonder what will happen in Syria once the "dust has settled " !http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-18384287 what a bloody mess!

Another situation for which there is no positive outcome. If Assad stays there will be bloodbath and a huge amount of revenge extracted on the civilian population. The outsiders suspected of helping the rebellion will be long gone with little consequences. If Assad goes, there will be a power struggle of epic proportions and none of the Western governments are likely to be pleased with who takes power.

In essence the Arab Spring is rather like a volcanic eruption. Long suppressed, we have now witnessed the build up of pressure such that it overwhelms the plug in the volcano. The eruption is loud, messy, unpredictable, a variety of hazards generated and which often cause casualties.

Once complete the eruption will have fundamentally reshaped the landscape, and we will have to wait and see what grows back on the new surface.

Each eruption is unique as will be the next stage. The outcome is unlikely to be perfect but hopefully more people will have at least a say in how things progress compared to prior to the eruption.

[Colin Yai]

I guess this is what you get when NATO and the US team up with terrorists to overthrow a sovereign nation. I do hope they do not harm the ICC people.

One would assume from your post that the Arab spring was masterminded by the "Evil Empire" and NATO. It was not. Whether anyone should have gotten involved or not is subject of much debate, but either way, the outcome was not going to be a good one. The same with Egypt. Do you think either NATO, the US or any Western government is better off without him? They aren't. But they had little control over the events.

It makes one wonder what will happen in Syria once the "dust has settled " !http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-18384287 what a bloody mess!

Another situation for which there is no positive outcome. If Assad stays there will be bloodbath and a huge amount of revenge extracted on the civilian population. The outsiders suspected of helping the rebellion will be long gone with little consequences. If Assad goes, there will be a power struggle of epic proportions and none of the Western governments are likely to be pleased with who takes power.

Yeah Credo your summing up is spot on ,as stated previously "what a bloody mess" whatever happens!!.

[GentlemanJim]

I guess this is what you get when NATO and the US team up with terrorists to overthrow a sovereign nation. I do hope they do not harm the ICC people.

One would assume from your post that the Arab spring was masterminded by the "Evil Empire" and NATO. It was not. Whether anyone should have gotten involved or not is subject of much debate, but either way, the outcome was not going to be a good one. The same with Egypt. Do you think either NATO, the US or any Western government is better off without him? They aren't. But they had little control over the events.

It makes one wonder what will happen in Syria once the "dust has settled " !http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-18384287 what a bloody mess!

Another situation for which there is no positive outcome. If Assad stays there will be bloodbath and a huge amount of revenge extracted on the civilian population. The outsiders suspected of helping the rebellion will be long gone with little consequences. If Assad goes, there will be a power struggle of epic proportions and none of the Western governments are likely to be pleased with who takes power.

What a large assumption from such a short sentence,

No, my comments were nothing to do with the 'Arab Spring', as you elude to in your reply to Colin, there was outside help in Syria, and there was a LOT of outside help in Libya. The outside help was nothing more than paid for terrorists, many of whom have now decided to stay put in Libya. If we did not mastermind Libya could you explain why we got involved? We don't seem to have got involved in Syria, or Zimbabwe, or DRC or anywhere else, so the excuse that we suddenly found Gaddafi a bad guy after 3 decades won't wear, so try another explanation.

[Exsexyman]

I guess this is what you get when NATO and the US team up with terrorists to overthrow a sovereign nation. I do hope they do not harm the ICC people.

One would assume from your post that the Arab spring was masterminded by the "Evil Empire" and NATO. It was not. Whether anyone should have gotten involved or not is subject of much debate, but either way, the outcome was not going to be a good one. The same with Egypt. Do you think either NATO, the US or any Western government is better off without him? They aren't. But they had little control over the events.

It makes one wonder what will happen in Syria once the "dust has settled " !http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-18384287 what a bloody mess!

Another situation for which there is no positive outcome. If Assad stays there will be bloodbath and a huge amount of revenge extracted on the civilian population. The outsiders suspected of helping the rebellion will be long gone with little consequences. If Assad goes, there will be a power struggle of epic proportions and none of the Western governments are likely to be pleased with who takes power.

What a large assumption from such a short sentence,

No, my comments were nothing to do with the 'Arab Spring', as you elude to in your reply to Colin, there was outside help in Syria, and there was a LOT of outside help in Libya. The outside help was nothing more than paid for terrorists, many of whom have now decided to stay put in Libya. If we did not mastermind Libya could you explain why we got involved? We don't seem to have got involved in Syria, or Zimbabwe, or DRC or anywhere else, so the excuse that we suddenly found Gaddafi a bad guy after 3 decades won't wear, so try another explanation.

But of course the West is involved in Syria, financing and arming the same Islamic militant terrorists we backed in Libya. The so called rebels have some serious weaponry, they didn't get it out of thin air! Like Libya this is all about regime change, and the Western powers have no qualms at all about using Islamic terrorists, suicide bombers even, as proxies to get the required result. Look at the anarchic chaos in Libya now, every man and his dog is armed to the teeth. Syria won't be as easy though, the Russians won't get fooled again. The West needs a compliant Syria before the next step, ie Iran.

[Credo]

Snipped

If we did not mastermind Libya could you explain why we got involved? We don't seem to have got involved in Syria, or Zimbabwe, or DRC or anywhere else, so the excuse that we suddenly found Gaddafi a bad guy after 3 decades won't wear, so try another explanation.

Surely you jest! 'We', whoever, 'we' are, masterminded Libya. The situation was spiraling out of control. Another bloodbath waiting to happen. Why did we get involved--I would guess for various reasons, some of which are rather selfish and some less so. Without some controls and intervention, how long do you think it would have taken for thousands upon thousands of refugees to end up Europe's shores?

[GentlemanJim]

Snipped

If we did not mastermind Libya could you explain why we got involved? We don't seem to have got involved in Syria, or Zimbabwe, or DRC or anywhere else, so the excuse that we suddenly found Gaddafi a bad guy after 3 decades won't wear, so try another explanation.

Surely you jest! 'We', whoever, 'we' are, masterminded Libya. The situation was spiraling out of control. Another bloodbath waiting to happen. Why did we get involved--I would guess for various reasons, some of which are rather selfish and some less so. Without some controls and intervention, how long do you think it would have taken for thousands upon thousands of refugees to end up Europe's shores?

Ah so it was to stop excessive refugees. Nothing to do with preventing a blood bath then, and nothing to do with oil and Gaddafi changing his oil currency from US$ to Euro's? And nothing to do with the fact the Libya was one of only 5 or 6 countries in the world without a 'central bank'? I am sorry but I do not share your confidence that western Governments intervene at great expense to prevent loss of life. There are lots of refugees from Syria, and if we wanted to save lives at the hands of despotic leaders, the atrocities in Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Kenya, hell, in most of Africa would never have happened would they. Please don't feed in the humanitarian bit, our Governments in general don't give a fig unless wherever they intervene has the correct type and amount of energy resources to make it worth their while. I have sadly been privy to seeing too much at first hand to think any different. But I am happy for you if you are content that our Governments help save people.

[Ulysses G.]

If we did not mastermind Libya could you explain why we got involved?

Gaddafi was a scumbag who was slaughtering his own people and we knew that we could beat him easily and fairly cheaply. We are avoiding getting involved in Syria because it is not a slam dunk like Libya was.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Colin Yai]

Snipped

If we did not mastermind Libya could you explain why we got involved? We don't seem to have got involved in Syria, or Zimbabwe, or DRC or anywhere else, so the excuse that we suddenly found Gaddafi a bad guy after 3 decades won't wear, so try another explanation.

Surely you jest! 'We', whoever, 'we' are, masterminded Libya. The situation was spiraling out of control. Another bloodbath waiting to happen. Why did we get involved--I would guess for various reasons, some of which are rather selfish and some less so. Without some controls and intervention, how long do you think it would have taken for thousands upon thousands of refugees to end up Europe's shores?

Ah so it was to stop excessive refugees. Nothing to do with preventing a blood bath then, and nothing to do with oil and Gaddafi changing his oil currency from US$ to Euro's? And nothing to do with the fact the Libya was one of only 5 or 6 countries in the world without a 'central bank'? I am sorry but I do not share your confidence that western Governments intervene at great expense to prevent loss of life. There are lots of refugees from Syria, and if we wanted to save lives at the hands of despotic leaders, the atrocities in Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Kenya, hell, in most of Africa would never have happened would they. Please don't feed in the humanitarian bit, our Governments in general don't give a fig unless wherever they intervene has the correct type and amount of energy resources to make it worth their while. I have sadly been privy to seeing too much at first hand to think any different. But I am happy for you if you are content that our Governments help save people.

Too many Country's are now being pulled into the equation ,but often when "our " governments come with aid or whatever it is often viewed as "meddling"in other peoples affairs and is often far from welcome ala Afghanistan with Aid workers murdered and in other Countrys UN peacekeepers meeting the same fate ,IMHO there is no easy answer to the problem whichever way you look at it! and as far as Africa goes maybe someone out there should research how many billions China is pouring in to buy their resources ! Edited June 11, 2012 by Colin Yai

[GentlemanJim]

If we did not mastermind Libya could you explain why we got involved?

Gaddafi was a scumbag who was slaughtering his own people and we knew that we could beat him easily and fairly cheaply. We are avoiding getting involved in Syria because it is not a slam dunk like Libya was.

Well, as previously stated, there are many despotic leaders all over the world who have killed millions of their people. Do not tell me Gaddafi was a scumbag slaughtering his own people when we let the likes of Mugabe go unchallenged, when we allowed 4 MILLION to be slaughtered in Rwanda. You think Libya was a slam dunk! The infrastructure has already crumbled, there is no law and order, and the terrorists who were employed to 'assist' the coalition are (un) - surprisingly no longer behaving like good democratic citizens are they. Not following orders, taking ICC staff hostage! The reason we have not gone into Syria is nothing to do with it not being a 'slam dunk' as you put it, it is for far more serious matters such as Syria has no oil worth speaking of, and Russia and Iran both sit on the substitution bench.

[Colin Yai]

http://www.bloomberg...-bank-says.html just an addition to my post #13 .,and of course all these billions pouring in will benefit all the population and not just the leaders and their crony's of these various African Governments Edited June 11, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Ulysses G.]

If we did not mastermind Libya could you explain why we got involved?

Gaddafi was a scumbag who was slaughtering his own people and we knew that we could beat him easily and fairly cheaply. We are avoiding getting involved in Syria because it is not a slam dunk like Libya was.

Well, as previously stated, there are many despotic leaders all over the world who have killed millions of their people.has no oil worth speaking of, and Russia and Iran both sit on the substitution bench.

I said that Gaddafi was a scumbag who was slaughtering his own people that we could take out easily. Syria has too many downsides between Russia and Iran and a much stronger army than Libya.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Credo]

My comments, GJ, were directed at your accusation that we 'masterminded' anything in Libya. I think not. There was going to be a bloodbath either way.

Gaddafi was a long way from being a threat to any banking system. Who was going to buy his gold-backed currency? No security in the country. He could do away with the linkage anytime he wanted to.

I think your tinfoil hat needs adjusting.

[Exsexyman]

If we did not mastermind Libya could you explain why we got involved?

Gaddafi was a scumbag who was slaughtering his own people and we knew that we could beat him easily and fairly cheaply. We are avoiding getting involved in Syria because it is not a slam dunk like Libya was.

The idea that NATO got involved in Libya for altruistic reasons, ie to save innocents is risible. America and NATO don,t give a toss about innocents being slaughtered, after all they have done enough of it over the past fifty years. They got rid of Ghaddafi because he was going to set up a gold dinar as a currency for oil, bypassing the dollar. And to set up a Western central bank. Sarkozy was the main cheerleader for the Libyan adventure, interesting now that his immunity from prosecution for various financial scandals is revoked because he is no longer President he will have to explain why he accepted millions of dollars from Ghaddafi to fund his election campaign. Dead men tell no tales, and his son will never be allowed give evidence at the Hague. My money is on him being killed while attempting to escape from prison in Libya! The so called opposition in Syria have been living in the West for years, where they have been financed and supported ready for this moment. The West's motto when it comes to their geo political interests in the Middle East is,'The ends justify the means'.

[Ulysses G.]

They got rid of Ghaddafi because he was going to set up a gold dinar as a currency for oil, bypassing the dollar.

At least you have a good sense of humor.

[Credo]

They got rid of Ghaddafi because he was going to set up a gold dinar as a currency for oil, bypassing the dollar.

At least you have a good sense of humor.

Given the stability of the Ghaddafi regime and the fact that there was no guarantee that he would not de-link such a currency on a whim, I can just seeing some of the foolish people flocking to buy that dinar.

The Iraqi Dinar was highly valued at one time too. It was held by a lot of people in the Middle East. Saddam just wiped out one of the notes. He decided a 500 Dinar note would no longer be honored.

[Steely Dan]

But of course the West is involved in Syria, financing and arming the same Islamic militant terrorists we backed in Libya. The so called rebels have some serious weaponry, they didn't get it out of thin air! Like Libya this is all about regime change, and the Western powers have no qualms at all about using Islamic terrorists, suicide bombers even, as proxies to get the required result. Look at the anarchic chaos in Libya now, every man and his dog is armed to the teeth. Syria won't be as easy though, the Russians won't get fooled again. The West needs a compliant Syria before the next step, ie Iran.

Correct in every respect, except one, the west themselves are proxies for the Wahabi oil cartel.

[Exsexyman]

They got rid of Ghaddafi because he was going to set up a gold dinar as a currency for oil, bypassing the dollar.

At least you have a good sense of humor.

Given the stability of the Ghaddafi regime and the fact that there was no guarantee that he would not de-link such a currency on a whim, I can just seeing some of the foolish people flocking to buy that dinar.

The Iraqi Dinar was highly valued at one time too. It was held by a lot of people in the Middle East. Saddam just wiped out one of the notes. He decided a 500 Dinar note would no longer be honored.

The Libyan plan was oil for GOLD, not paper. Libya had an awful lot of gold, but i expect its been 'Liberated'. I wonder where it is now!

[GentlemanJim]

My comments, GJ, were directed at your accusation that we 'masterminded' anything in Libya. I think not. There was going to be a bloodbath either way. Gaddafi was a long way from being a threat to any banking system. Who was going to buy his gold-backed currency? No security in the country. He could do away with the linkage anytime he wanted to. I think your tinfoil hat needs adjusting.

Well, just when I was thinking at least I can have debate with you, you fell back to the age old TV retard default of 'your tin foil hat blah blah blah'. It is the call of the uneducated, unsophisticated and undeserving of further engagement. So please, no more!

They got rid of Ghaddafi because he was going to set up a gold dinar as a currency for oil, bypassing the dollar.

At least you have a good sense of humor.

Given the stability of the Ghaddafi regime and the fact that there was no guarantee that he would not de-link such a currency on a whim, I can just seeing some of the foolish people flocking to buy that dinar. The Iraqi Dinar was highly valued at one time too. It was held by a lot of people in the Middle East. Saddam just wiped out one of the notes. He decided a 500 Dinar note would no longer be honored.

A completely laughable post displaying an overwhelming lack of understanding as to what it means to change oil currency from US$ to something else. You appear to think people would be off in to Thomas Cooke to change a few pounds into Gold Dinar holiday money

[Ulysses G.]

Well, just when I was thinking at least I can have debate with you, you fell back to the age old TV retard default of 'your tin foil hat blah blah blah'.

When the premise is that the Libya conflict was actually caused by Gaddafi abandoning the dollar for gold - rather than murdering his own people wholesale - perhaps the shoe fits.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[GentlemanJim]

Well, just when I was thinking at least I can have debate with you, you fell back to the age old TV retard default of 'your tin foil hat blah blah blah'.

When the premise is that the Libya conflict was actually caused by Gaddafi abandoning the dollar for gold - rather than murdering his own people wholesale - perhaps the shoe fits.

But Assad is murdering his people wholesale, Mugabe murdered his people wholesale, there was wholesale slaughter in Rwanda on a par with the holocaust. You will be telling me next we went in to Iraq because Saddam killed some of his own people.

[Ulysses G.]

Didn't we ready discuss this a few times on this thread? Try to pay attention.

I said that Gaddafi was a scumbag who was slaughtering his own people that we could take out easily. Syria has too many downsides between Russia and Iran and a much stronger army than Libya.

[GentlemanJim]

When the premise is that the Libya conflict was actually caused by Gaddafi abandoning the dollar for gold - rather than murdering his own people wholesale - perhaps the shoe fits.

But Assad is murdering his people wholesale, Mugabe murdered his people wholesale, there was wholesale slaughter in Rwanda on a par with the holocaust. You will be telling me next we went in to Iraq because Saddam killed some of his own people.

Didn't we ready discuss this a few times on this thread? Try to pay attention.

I said that Gaddafi was a scumbag who was slaughtering his own people that we could take out easily. Syria has too many downsides between Russia and Iran and a much stronger army than Libya.

Try addressing the argument instead of being rude UlyseesG. If you have no answer then its ok to say' you know you got me there, I just don't know'. So what of Mugabe and Rwanda to name but a few. Why did we not go in there like the Knight in shining armour. It would have been easy, in comparison they had little weaponry and the main perpetrators could have been taken out very easily. Think of all the people we could have saved, it went on for years. Why did we not apply the sense of humanitarianism you believe we were applying in Libya?

[Ulysses G.]

I'm pointing out that I already DID answer the question. As far as us settling every single conflict in the world, It is not always so easy as Libya and we don't have the money to interfere every couple of months.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

Well, just when I was thinking at least I can have debate with you, you fell back to the age old TV retard default of 'your tin foil hat blah blah blah'. It is the call of the uneducated, unsophisticated and undeserving of further engagement. So please, no more!

A completely laughable post displaying an overwhelming lack of understanding as to what it means to change oil currency from US$ to something else. You appear to think people would be off in to Thomas Cooke to change a few pounds into Gold Dinar holiday money

Just a note to posters. Remarks such as these will earn you some time off from Thaivisa. If you do not want to debate with posters, you do not have to. You are under no obligation to respond. You will, however, refrain from inflammatory and baiting remarks about other posters.

[folium]

But Assad is murdering his people wholesale, Mugabe murdered his people wholesale, there was wholesale slaughter in Rwanda on a par with the holocaust. You will be telling me next we went in to Iraq because Saddam killed some of his own people.

Just to be boring can I throw in a few more precise details...

Rwanda's slaughter of Tutsis Apr-Jul 1994 probably killed 0.5-1.0million people (an horrendous 20% of the population). It's the DRC that has seen 4-5 million deaths and still continuing. Genocide yes, comparable to the Holocaust.....?

Mugabe's worst crime was the Gukurahundi in Matabeleland in 1983-84 when the 5th Brigade killed around 20,000 Ndebele. I am no fan of Mugabe's to put it mildly and his worst crime has been to destroy the economy and healthcare systems of his country which has dramatically increased mortality rates but wholesale slaughter is a bit of a stretch. Being cynical you could argue that Mugabe is more notorious than what has happened in the DRC because there are no white farmers/settlers in the latter.

The old canard about the west only intervening in countries with energy resources is oft repeated but not totally accurate. For instance in the last 30 years:

Sierra Leone (UK), Ivory Coast (France), Bosnia (NATO), Kosovo (NATO), Grenada (USA), Panama (USA), Haiti (USA), Lebanon (USA, France, UK), Afghanistan (NATO) [cue it's all about pipelines...], Somalia (USA) etc etc

What do they all share in common? A serious lack of commercially viable energy resources. (OK, there is coal in Afghan).

The motivations behind intervention are wide-ranging and while it's easy to be cynical and Madsen about it all, it doesn't really stack up with reality. Is it all about humanitarianism...obviously not. Is it all about oil etc....apparently not. People have always profited from conflict, nothing new or controversial there.