UK top court says ex-Libyan rebel commander can sue former minister

By Michael Holden

REUTERS

 

FILE PHOTO - Abdul Hakeem Belhadj, leader of the Al-Watan party, speaks during an interview with Reuters in Tripoli March 4, 2015. REUTERS/Ismail Zitouny/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - A former Libyan Islamist commander, who says he suffered years of torture by Muammar Gaddafi's henchmen after British and U.S. spies handed him over to Libya, was given permission on Tuesday to sue the British government and its former foreign secretary.

 

Abdel Hakim Belhadj, a rebel leader who helped topple Gaddafi in 2011 and is now a politician, says he and his pregnant wife Fatima were abducted by U.S. CIA agents in Thailand in 2004 and then illegally transferred to Tripoli with the help of British spies.

 

Britain's Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal by the government to stop him taking legal action, paving the way for Belhadj and his wife to seek damages against former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, the domestic and foreign spy agencies MI5 and MI6, a senior former intelligence chief and relevant government departments.

 

However, Belhadj has said he would drop the case if he was given a token payment of 1 pound ($1.21) and an apology from all the parties involved.

 

"We hope that the defendants in this action now see fit to apologise to our clients and acknowledge the wrongs done, so that they may turn the page on this wretched chapter of their lives and move on," said lawyer Sapna Malik from Leigh Day, the London law firm representing Belhadj.

 

Belhadj says he was originally detained in China, before being transferred to Malaysia and then moved to a CIA "black site" in Thailand.

 

He was handed over to CIA agents, acting on a tip-off from MI6, and flown via the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to Tripoli, because at the time Britain and the United States were keen to build relations with Gaddafi.

 

As a long-standing enemy of the former Libyan leader, he was imprisoned and tortured until his release in 2010 while his wife was also mistreated during her four-month incarceration. Leigh Day said documents found after Gaddafi's fall showed British complicity in his case.

 

Straw, who was foreign secretary at the time in the government of Tony Blair, said he had always acted in line with British and international law.

 

"I was never in any way complicit in the unlawful rendition or detention of anyone by other states," he said in a statement.

 

(Editing by Stephen Addison)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-01-19

Why calling him a rebel commander if everybody knows that he's an AQ franchise product...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

7 hours ago, Thorgal said:

Why calling him a rebel commander if everybody knows that he's an AQ franchise product...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Actually that is not the case. If it were AQ member or a "franchise" as you put it, he would have been incarcerated in Guantanamo.

 

Instead, a dirty deal was done with that funder and promoter of terrorism, Ghaddafi, as UK and USA wanted him on their side at the time.

 

If he were an AQ franchise, do you think that a) the Supreme Court in the UK would have upheld his case and why do you think that the UK is fighting this all the way to the supreme court - they clearly have something to hide

"CIA Black site" - just up the road from me.... Everyone round here knows it's not what it's meant to be....

The old CIA would have just killed him to began with and have been done with the matter.

The headline is wrong and written that way as pure yellow journalism to incite negative reaction.

 

He was not "abducted in Thailand " by CIA agents. He claims to have been held at a CIA site in Thailand after being detained in China and first being sent to Malaysia. 

Mods should change the thread title so it reflects the actual contents of the report.

 

TH

 

Belhadj says he was originally detained in China, before being transferred to Malaysia and then moved to a CIA "black site" in Thailand.

 

 

Actually that is not the case. If it were AQ member or a "franchise" as you put it, he would have been incarcerated in Guantanamo.

 

Instead, a dirty deal was done with that funder and promoter of terrorism, Ghaddafi, as UK and USA wanted him on their side at the time.

 

If he were an AQ franchise, do you think that a) the Supreme Court in the UK would have upheld his case and why do you think that the UK is fighting this all the way to the supreme court - they clearly have something to hide

To prove my point :

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/3/frank-gaffney-jr-us-backed-rebel-reportedly-leads-/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14786753

And many more.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

22 hours ago, Thorgal said:

To prove my point :

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/3/frank-gaffney-jr-us-backed-rebel-reportedly-leads-/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14786753

And many more.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

It only mentions that a warrant alleged that he had "close relationships" at one stage with certain AQ figures. (Even former President Bush Senior had close relationships with such people in Afghanistan!) 

 

The information in many such warrants was often found to be based on very dodgy information and from sources who had an agenda. If any of it had any legs, he would have been tried or sent to Gitmo. Not to even have enough "evidence" to send someone to Gitmo is saying something.

 

Even if any of it were true, the question still arises - why did the UK and USA conspire to send a suspect (untried in any court) to Libya to be tortured?

On 1/19/2017 at 10:03 AM, humqdpf said:

Actually that is not the case. If it were AQ member or a "franchise" as you put it, he would have been incarcerated in Guantanamo.

 

Instead, a dirty deal was done with that funder and promoter of terrorism, Ghaddafi, as UK and USA wanted him on their side at the time.

 

If he were an AQ franchise, do you think that a) the Supreme Court in the UK would have upheld his case and why do you think that the UK is fighting this all the way to the supreme court - they clearly have something to hide

 

Indeed. Especially as Straw was a member of Blair's Labor government and not part of the current Tories. 

 

Something needs to be hidden. 

 

What a difference in a country that has an independent judiciary that aren't subservient to politicians.