MI6 Knew I Was Tortured, Says Libyan Rebel Leader

Abdul Hakim Belhaj says MI6 helped CIA arrest him and send him to Libya for torture.

Rebels surround a building in Tripoli, Libya. Documents alleging UK links to renditions to Libya have been unearthed by rebels as they take control of the country.

A Libyan rebel leader who was rendered to Tripoli with the assistance of MI6 said on Monday that he had told British intelligence officers he was being tortured but they did nothing to help him.

In a claim that will increase the pressure for further disclosure about the UK’s role in torture and rendition since 9/11, Abdul Hakim Belhaj said a team of British interrogators used hand signals to indicate they understood what he was telling them.

“I couldn’t believe they could let this go on,” he said. “What has happened deserves a full inquiry.”

Belhaj was detained by the CIA in Thailand in 2004 following an MI6 tipoff, allegedly tortured, then flown to Tripoli, where he says he suffered years of abuse in one of Muammar Gaddafi’s prisons.

It emerged on Monday that MI6 had been able to tell the CIA of his whereabouts after his associates informed British diplomats in Malaysia that he wished to claim asylum in the UK. Belhaj was then allowed to board a flight for London and abducted when the plane called at Bangkok.

There were signs that the discovery of a cache of secret MI6 and CIA documents at an abandoned government office building in Tripoli was triggering panic in some parts of Whitehall.

The papers detail the UK’s role not only in the rendition of Belhaj, but in that of a second man, known as Abu Munthir. This operation appears to have been planned by British and Libyan intelligence officers without any CIA involvement.

David Cameron said the disclosures would be investigated by the Gibson inquiry, set up last year to examine the UK’s role in torture and rendition.

It was unclear whether MI6 or MI5 had disclosed anything to the inquiry before the new documents came to light. Inquiry staff first indicated they knew nothing about the Libyan operations, and were seeking information from the government “as soon as possible”. Later they said they had “received material relating to these issues”, but declined to be more specific.

Similarly, the Conservative MP Richard Ottaway, a former member of the intelligence and security committee, a Westminster body supposed to provide oversight of MI5 and MI6, indicated the committee knew nothing about the UK-Libya operations before giving the agencies a clean bill of health in a 2007 report on rendition; he then said he could say nothing about the matter.

Belhaj on Monday revealed more details of the lead-up to his rendition on 6 March 2004, which he says came amid his attempts to reach the UK, of which the government had become aware.

He said he had first tried to travel to London from Kuala Lumpur via Beijing in late February that year. However, he was refused permission to board in Beijing, despite carrying a French passport, which does not require a pre-issued UK visa.

He was returned to Kuala Lumpur where he was detained by Malaysian immigration officials. It is understood that an associate of Belhaj then visited the British embassy in Kuala Lumpur advising officials there of his intention to seek political asylum in the UK.

Shortly afterwards he was freed from the detention centre and allowed to buy a ticket to London via Bangkok. By then he had disposed of his French passport, issued to a Jamal Kaderi, and was travelling on a Moroccan passport, issued in the name of Abdul al-Nabi. Holders of Moroccan passports require a pre-issued visa to enter the UK, but Belhaj said he did not apply for a visa and was allowed to board without one – a highly unusual practice.

The revelation raises fresh questions about the extent of the government’s role in Belhaj’s rendition. Documents discovered last Friday reveal that a senior MI6 officer, Mark Allen, had written to Libyan spy chief Moussa Koussa congratulating him on receiving Belhaj and acknowledging that “the intelligence was British”.

“I would not board until they assured me that I could travel to the UK,” Belhaj said. “They did that and I got on the plane.”

Belhaj was captured by CIA officers, in co-operation with Thai authorities, inside Bangkok airport. He says he was tortured at a site in the airport grounds and then sent to Libya, where Gaddafi had long seen him as one of the biggest threats to his tyrannical four-decade rule.

“The British were the second team to visit me,” he said. “They came about a month after I was returned to Libya and they were very well briefed about LIFG [Libyan Islamic Fighting Group] members in the UK. They knew everything, even their code names. They wanted to know more details about the LIFG and also about the general environment elsewhere, al-Qaida, that sort of thing. There was a woman who was leading the team, a big man and a third person who was translating. They only came one time.”

Belhaj said intelligence officers from other European countries, including France, Germany and Italy, also travelled to Tripoli to speak to him inside the infamous Abu Selim prison in the south of the capital.

Before each visit he was told by Libyan officers – and sometimes by Koussa – to “tell the British and others that the people they are asking about are al-Qaida”.

“The Libyans told me that if I told them that I would be treated better.”

He said Koussa, who fled the Gaddafi regime in March with MI6 help, would often taunt him in prison, with threats that he would die there. On one occasion Koussa ordered guards to put a shade over half of Belhaj’s cell window, to reduce what little sunlight he was getting.

Files seen by the Guardian on Sunday inside the now ransacked offices of the external security service reveal that Libyan spies remained in close co-operation with the CIA and MI6 as late as November last year. The files reveal the Americans, in particular, were regularly requesting information about the identities of Libyan cellphone users. One document showed that the CIA had responded to a Libyan request about the user of a satellite phone by giving GPS references for every call made.

Read Full Post »

Why Cameron Must Stop Running Scared Of These Abortion Zealots

Many who gaze across the Atlantic have long been amazed at the way in which the toxic issue of abortion fundamentally distorts the U.S. political agenda.

With a certain amount of smugness, the British have told themselves that things are very different in the UK.

Here, such issues are settled not by divisive decisions of the courts, as in the U.S., but through the democratic and unifying route of Parliamentary debate and votes.

Yet now it appears that abortion hysteria is beginning to distort British politics, too.

Amendment: Frank Field and Nadine Dorries have been pushed the law changed, yet it looks as though their proposals will be lost after a screeching u-turn.

Just one week ago, an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill drafted by Tory MP Nadine Dorries and Labour MP Frank Field looked set to sail through the Commons on a wave of general approval.

Their amendment — to be debated in the Commons this week — aims to break the stranglehold of abortion clinics which are the sole state-funded providers of counselling to pregnant women who are contemplating abortion.

The measure would open up to independent counsellors this optional process of advice and guidance to avoid any possible conflict of interest by abortion providers.

According to opinion polls, no fewer than 92 per cent of MPs, along with around three-quarters of the public, said they supported the amendment. For its part, the Government let it be known that it was already developing proposals to introduce independent abortion counselling for women.

Nevertheless, the amendment now seems likely to be lost because the Government has performed a screeching U-turn and urged MPs to vote against it.

In an unprecedented letter to Tory MPs, Health Minister Anne Milton said that ministers would themselves vote to block it. This has been interpreted by some Tory MPs at least as a covert attempt to whip them all into the ‘no’ lobby.

Yet abortion has always been decided by free votes rather than the imposition of party lines. So why has the Government suddenly decided to wreck both the amendment and this sacred constitutional protection for issues of conscience?

Unprecedented: Anne Milton sent a letter to Tory MPs saying that minister would vote to block the proposals.

It has been suggested that this was yet another example of Nick Clegg forcing David Cameron to adopt a Left-wing position. Well, maybe.

What seems more plausible, however, is that with the Prime Minister’s antennae so finely tuned to the Guardian/BBC agenda, he simply took fright at the vitriol being hurled from the Left.

If so, this demonstrates once again the power of the campaigns of instantaneous demonisation and denunciation now employed to silence those who uphold a socially conservative position by tarring and feathering them as swivel-eyed bigots. It is particularly instructive that the amendment’s co-sponsor, Frank Field, has not been subjected to the abuse being hurled at Nadine Dorries.

For Field is a decent and principled man of the Left. But those seeking to characterise the measure as an import from what they portray as the knuckle-dragging, U.S. Right-wing Christian fundamentalist agenda cannot acknowledge Field’s involvement.

For this would destroy the demonisation strategy by suggesting the amendment is motivated by sound and decent principles. So, tellingly, Field has been all but airbrushed out of this venomous campaign. It is Dorries, the Tory bogeywoman, who receives the hate mail and death threats.

The impetus behind the amendment is a change in British attitudes. While only a minority would want abortion made illegal once again, thus returning to the evils of back-street butchery, there is now widespread revulsion over two aspects in particular of the current situation.

The first is the unmistakeable humanity of the foetuses subjected to late abortion. The second is the enormous abortion rate, which last year amounted to more than 200,000 terminations in England and Wales.

According to Dorries, up to half of those women who have independent counselling change their minds and decide not to abort. However, when women are referred straight to an abortion clinic for counselling, that number can be as low as 8 per cent.

It does not follow from these figures that the two abortion clinics providing most of the available counselling, Marie Stopes International and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, are subjecting vulnerable pregnant women to pro-abortion propaganda.

Maybe they do exude a more subtle ethos of pro-abortion sympathies — but that would hardly be surprising, since they are, after all, abortion clinics.

The reason for the different rates might merely be that women who seek out independent counselling have a more open mind in the first place and so are more likely to decide to have the baby.

Counselling service: Statistics appear to show Marie Stopes and other clinics to be be pro-abortion and therefore offer advice that way – but it is not surprising given that abortion is the very reason they exist.

Whatever the explanation, surely only a zealot would be complacent about the huge number of abortions — a number which was never envisaged when the procedure was legalised.

Dorries has been pilloried for declaring that she wants to bring the number down. Yet how can any decent person not want to bring down the huge rate of what should only be a procedure of last resort?

Some of the objections used in the past week — that if tens of thousands more children were born as a result this would put pressure on social services — have been spine-chillingly callous.

They are sobering evidence of the brutalisation of attitudes that abortion virtually on demand has brought in its wake.

So if independent counselling would reduce this toll, who could possibly object? Only the pro-abortion zealots, whose visceral hostility to faith-based counselling is based on the fact that this changes some women’s minds.

This is no more than opposition to thinking independently. To put it another way, to the pro-abortion lobby, if a woman decides against having an abortion after counselling, she has been brainwashed, but if she decides to go ahead with it she has reached her own decision.

Now we can see the vacuity of the pro-abortion slogan: ‘A woman’s right to choose.’ From the reaction to the Dorries-Field amendment, a woman only has the right to choose counselling that is pro-abortion.

Compromise: Louise Mensch has put forward proposals suggesting women should be able to receive support from faith based charities and abortion clinics.

Having said that, it does seem unnecessarily divisive to prevent abortion clinics from themselves offering counselling. Surely women should be able to access counselling from both faith-based charities and abortion clinics, as another compromise amendment by the Tory MP Louise Mensch is suggesting.

This would seem to allow various folk to climb down from their respective trees. After all, Downing Street said the Prime Minister supported providing women with more counselling about their pregnancies, but didn’t want to shut down what was provided by Marie Stopes and the BPAS.

Nevertheless, the Government has refused to back even the Mensch compromise. By way of explanation, the Department of Health came up with a prize bit of obfuscatory waffle about there being no need to define independent counselling.

This makes little sense. The real reason is surely that this Conservative Prime Minister is running so scared of the ‘nasty party’ tag that no compromise with the Left is possible.

But what is nice about thinking there is nothing wrong with 200,000 abortions a year? What is nice about wanting to prevent pregnant women from accessing different types of counselling? What is nice about demonising people in order to shut down debate?

Surely this is what is really nasty. The country is crying out for leadership to stand up to this kind of bullying and intimidation. The Prime Minister should get up off his knees and support women’s genuine right to choose.

Read Full Post »

Cameron ‘Will Allow TV Cameras Inside Courts’

The Prime Minister is expected to announce that television cameras will be allowed to film some elements of court proceedings, according to Sky sources.

At present cameras are banned from courts, apart from the Supreme Court.

The breakthrough comes after the Head of Sky News, who has spearheaded a campaign to televise court cases, wrote an open letter to the Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke urging him to take action.

John Ryley told him the public would have better understood controversial sentences passed on those involved in recent rioting and looting if judges’ remarks had been televised.

Broadcasters have been pressing for some years for cameras to be allowed into courts, but at present cameras – including video cameras – are banned from courts in England and Wales by section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925.

The one exception is the Supreme Court where, for the past two years, cameras have been allowed to film proceedings.

Sky’s home affairs correspondent Mark White said the changes, set to be announced by Mr Cameron on Tuesday, were a “significant development”.

He said that the move would probably see broadcasters allowed to air the sentencing remarks of judges rather than entire trials.

Mr Ryley’s proposal, put together with senior management at the BBC and ITN, was for limited coverage of court proceedings, which would not show vulnerable witnesses.

He said: “Sky News welcomes the decision and looks forward to working with the judiciary to bring about more transparency in our justice system.”

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said he was surprised that the Government was moving to change the guidelines so soon after the renewed pressure.

“You will see someone convicted, you will see someone being sentenced, but the witnesses who might otherwise be discouraged from giving evidence won’t be shown under what we understand the Government’s plan to be,” he said.

He said the law will have to be changed in Parliament – meaning it might be up to a year before the first television pictures are aired from criminal courts.

I find it quite difficult to think of any arguments against doing it.

John Whittingdale MP

Conservative MP John Whittingdale, the chair of the Culture, Media and Sport committee, told Sky News the changes were “long overdue”.

He said he would be “surprised” if any MPs or peers objected to the proposal.

“I find it quite difficult to think of any arguments against doing it.

“It seems to me fairly evident we want to encourage people to… respect the law more, this has to be the right thing to do.”

However, not everyone is in favour of the changes.

Baroness Helena Kennedy, speaking earlier on Sky News, warned that such a move “undermines justice” – and that the only cases that would be given real coverage would be “salacious” ones.

In January 2010, Mr Ryley announced a campaign to get TV cameras into other courts, which he said would include legal challenges to the current ban on cameras in court.

Read Full Post »

Clegg Calls For ‘Probing Questions’ On NHS Bill

Clegg’s demands over NHS may spark Lords amendments – as Lib Dem grassroots say bill will hurt patients and party.

A demonstrator protests at Tory-Lib Dem moves to reform the NHS.

The Tories and Liberal Democrats are facing a fresh clash over the government’s NHS reforms after Nick Clegg encouraged his MPs to put “probing questions” to ministers when the bill returns to the Commons on Tuesday.

In a two-hour meeting with his parliamentary party on Monday night, the deputy prime minister held out the possibility that he will accept amendments to the heath and social care bill when it moves to the House of Lords later this month.

Clegg’s move means that Lady Williams could be backed by Liberal Democrat ministers if she attempts to amend the bill to guarantee that the health secretary has a legal duty to deliver a comprehensive health service free at the point of need.

But a source at the Department of Health indicated last night that Andrew Lansley, the health secretary – who has already amended the bill after the government’s “listening exercise” – would not accept fresh amendments on this point.

The source said: “Our view is that the legislation is watertight on the secretary of state’s obligation to ensure there is an NHS available to all. That was always our view. But we amended the legislation to reassure those who were not sure.”

Clegg said earlier in the day that he accepted the view that there was no need for fresh amendments on this issue.

In a speech on schools in south-west London, he said: “Let me be absolutely clear. There is nothing, nothing, nothing in any of the government’s plans which in anyway threaten the basic founding principles of the NHS…There is no question, legally or politically, of the secretary of state under these new arrangements being somehow able to wash his or her hands of the NHS.”

But at Monday night’s meeting of the Lib Dem parliamentary party, Clegg admitted that ministers still had to work hard to clarify the bill for MPs and peers with concerns.

Paul Burstow, the Lib Dem health minister, is to offer further briefings to MPs and peers who will also be invited to meet officials at the department of health.

All sides accept that it is too late to table further amendments on the NHS reforms when the bill is debated by MPs at report stage on Tuesday and Wednesday and at third reading on Wednesday . But Lib Dem MPs have been encouraged to put “probing questions” to ministers for possible amendments that will be tabled in the House of Lords.

One Lib Dem source said: “We hope that we will not need to amend the bill further. But we may have to.” Another Lib Dem source said: “There will be robust interventions in the debate.”

Lib Dem whips believe that the overwhelming number of MPs will support the amended bill. But Andrew George, the Lib Dem MP for St Ives, said he would rebel.

The battle within the Lib Dem ranks was exposed last night in leaked emails, in which grassroots members of the party vented their anger at the leadership.

Jeremy Sanders of Huddersfield Liberal Democrats wrote in an email to John Pugh this week, the Lib Dem backbench health committee chairman, that “yes, we can try to get improvements to the details, but none of these changes are going to alter the basic fact that the legislation is based on the assumption that what the NHS needs is a system based on private sector involvement, free market competition and internal markets.

“Quite honestly, if our MPs are willing to go along with this, what exactly won’t they be willing to support?”

In the same batch of emails obtained by the Guardian, Robert Hutchison, a Lib Dem councillor in Winchester, tells Pugh that “in my view is that if Lib Dem MPs vote for the bill this week — without further major amendments — it will damage the NHS and damage the party”.

Charles West, one of the key party activists on the NHS, has written to party members to back an appeal against the the Lb Dem’s conference committee decision not to debate the health bill at the forthcoming party conference. “I have therefore written a letter of appeal to the Federal Conference Committee against their narrow decision not to take the motion that I and over 100 conference reps submitted in June, and in case that appeal fails we are submitting an emergency motion which will achieve the same ends”.

Last month Andrew George, the Lib Dem rebel on the health bill, emailed Lib Dem activists with a blunt message: “of course I’ll try to influence colleagues but some are still basking in the synthetic afterglow of the post-pause Bill revision, perhaps having duped themselves that it’s ‘job done’! People need to wake up to the fact that we can say what we like at Conference, but the MPs main chance to influence would already have passed!”

Labour twisted the knife into the Lib Dems with the party’s health spokesman John Healey arguing that Nick Clegg’s claim that he had met 11 out of the 13 changes demanded by his party’s spring conference resolution was “wrojng”. “He’s failed on seven and sallen short on six”. Baroness Thornton, the party’s spokesperson in the Lords, warned that the lack of scrutiny in the Commons — where 1,000 amenments mean just 40s of parliamentary to consider each one — could see the bill be put into a specialist committee to examine whether there is enough time to debate the bill.

Writing in the Guardian, Tory MP Sarah Wollaston, a former GP who had criticised the health bill, says now is the time to back the coalition’s plans as “the structural changes to the NHS have passed the point of no return”.

She argues instead that the bill needs to be amended to ensure that the choice of who is appointed to sit on and run the new NHS National Commissioning Board, a quango with £60bn to spend, is fairly and openly discussed.

Read Full Post »

Tory MSP Defiant Over Breakaway Bid

A Tory politician who announced plans for a breakaway party in Scotland without consulting Prime Minister David Cameron insists he has the political and financial support for a “new dawn” despite being rejected by the party’s biggest Scottish donor.

Murdo Fraser launched his bid to lead the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party (SCUP) in Scotland on Monday with a pledge to disband it and create a new centre-right party north of the border.

The Mid-Scotland and Fife MSP has been accused of “dividing the party” and sparking a “civil war” by opponents within and outside the Conservative Party.

Mr Fraser said he has not discussed his plans with Mr Cameron as it would be “inappropriate” for the leader of the UK Conservative Party to take a position in a Scottish leadership election.

He also dismissed claims by his main leadership rival, West of Scotland MSP Jackson Carlaw, that a rejection by the party’s biggest Scottish donor was “a fatal blow” to his leadership campaign.

Sir Jack Harvie, the transport tycoon and philanthropist, said Focus on Scotland, the vehicle which currently provides the majority funding for the SCUP, would not extend its funding arrangement to Mr Fraser’s party

Speaking at the launch, Mr Fraser expressed disappointment with Mr Harvie’s comments but said he has received support from others in the business community.

He said: “I can tell you that among existing donors to the party there is a deep sense of disillusionment, that the money that they have given to the party in recent years has not been well spent.

“They have been paying for successive campaigns with absolutely no political progress and there is a great deal of appetite for a new centre-right force in Scotland amongst people in the business community.”

Mr Fraser has already gained the support of airport car park magnate John McGlynn, engineering tycoon Jim McColl and property developer Robert Kilgour for his plans.

Read Full Post »

Darling: EU Must Get A Grip On Greece

The European Union must “get a grip” of Greece’s economic woes before the contagion spreads, ex-chancellor Alistair Darling has said.

In a gloomy assessment of Europe’s economic prospects, Mr Darling told Sky News the EU had to find a solution to the problems in Greece.

He warned a failure to tackle the problem would have a “damaging impact” on European banks and governments.

“That’s why the EU has got to be realistic and at long last do something that actually fixes the problem and not this series of short-term fixes that keep failing, that keep coming back,” he told Jeff Randall Live.

“This is what they’ve been doing now for the last 18 months and it doesn’t work.”

Mr Darling offered the pessimistic analysis of EU economies in an interview also critical of former prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Economic troubles provoked clashes on the streets of Greece.

He was speaking in advance of the publication of Back From The Brink, a memoir of his time as chancellor during the financial crisis.

The former chancellor said he had to elaborate on his fraught relationships within the government in order to tell the story of the turmoil that engulfed the markets in 2008.

He said Mr Blair and Mr Brown had been allowed to assume too much control.

“In the 1990s, we were happy in some ways to let Tony and Gordon run the show – it wasn’t quite a dictatorship – they made the changes Labour was desperately needing to make but hadn’t done so.

“The problem was the decision-making became increasingly centralised,” he said, adding policies on tuition fees and the economy would have benefited from wider debate.

“Collective discussion, the benefit of getting a combined wisdom, is I think something we didn’t pay enough attention to,” he added.

The ex-chancellor explained his criticism of Gordon Brown.

Asked if Ed Balls was among those who unleashed the “forces of hell” in negative briefings about him during the financial crisis, Mr Darling refused to attack his Labour colleague.

He said he backed the whole Labour front-bench, including the shadow chancellor.

Mr Darling said he acknowledged Labour did not always get it right in government and expressed regret more had not been done to fully implement welfare reform.

He cited the minimum wage as one of his party’s greatest achievements.

An MP since 1987, Mr Darling was chancellor between 2007-2010 and also served as secretary of state for work and pensions, transport and trade and industry.

His outspoken remarks since leaving office are considered to be a contrast to the more low-key style he adopted in government.

Read Full Post »

Miliband Goes For His Clause 4 Moment

Ed Miliband is set to try to implement the first major change to Labour’s founding principles for 17 years at this year’s party conference.

In a move with strong echoes of Tony Blair’s Clause Four campaign, when he scrapped the party’s commitment to nationalising industry, Mr Miliband will insert a clause that brands Labour “a force for social justice”.

Early reports of the document suggest there will also be a subtle but potentially important change in the party’s organisational structure – Clause One.

Instead of aiming “to organise and maintain in parliament and in the country a political Labour party”, the party will “bring together members and supporters who share its values to develop policies, make communities stronger through collective action and support, and promote the election of Labour representatives at all levels of the democratic process”.

While the change sounds bureaucratic, it could herald wide-ranging alteration to the way the party operates. Mr Miliband hopes to introduce new categories of members, salvage Labour’s economic prospects and encourage community organising.

The idea, originally proposed by Peter Hain, chair of the national policy forum, could see a registered supporters network bring in people who are non-partymembers who are willing to work on single-issue campaigns, such as local service cuts.

It could also ensure MPs demonstrate engagement with constituents via their candidate contract and trigger a wave of community campaign training.

Members of the public could also register as supporters, rather than members, and have a say in choosing party leaders. Such a move would replicate David Cameron’s moves towards local primaries, by giving non-party supporters a say in which candidates are selected.

The proposals are particularly interesting, given that David Miliband had planned to reword Clause One if he became party leader.

They could anger union supporters, however, given they are already wary of the new Labour leader after he mooted plans to reduce their voting influence at party conferences.

Read Full Post »