An official with knowledge of the talks said of the Travellers Club meeting: "That was where the real negotiations were made."

Teflon Tony: How nothing sticks to the ex-PM

Iraq

Tony Blair was forced from office in part because of the Iraq war, yet so far he has not had to face an independent, public inquiry into his handling of the invasion and its aftermath. He refused an independent inquiry while in office, saying the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Hutton and Butler inquiries had been sufficient – yet critics say these failed to get to the heart of the failures of the war. Later this year Sir John Chilcot will begin his inquiry; Blair is not expected to give evidence before next year – perhaps not until after the election.

---------------------

see toon at top... Apparently Gaddafi bough a container of nuclear waste on the black market and passed it as "his" weapons of mass destruction development, to make the "deal" with Tony...

Megrahi's lawyers had delved deeply into his case – which rested on the word of a Maltese tailor who had already seen a picture of Megrahi (unrevealed to us at the time) so he could identify him in court – and uncovered some remarkable evidence from the German police.

Given the viciousness of their Third Reich predecessors, I've never had a lot of time for German cops, but on this occasion they went a long way towards establishing that a Lebanese who had been killed in the Lockerbie bombing was steered to Frankfurt airport by known Lebanese militants and the bag that contained the bomb was actually put on to the baggage carousel for checking in by this passenger's Lebanese handler, who had taken him to the airport, and had looked after him in Germany before the flight.

I have read all the interviews which the German police conducted with their suspects. They are devastating. There clearly was a Lebanese connection. And there probably was a Palestinian connection. How can I forget a press conference in Beirut held by the head of the pro-Syrian "Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine" (they were known, then, as the "Lockerbie boys") in which their leader, Ahmed Jibril, suddenly blurted out: "I'm not responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. They are trying to get me with a kangaroo court."

Yet there was no court at the time. Only journalists – with MI6 and the CIA contacts – had pointed the finger at Jibril's rogues. It was Iran's revenge, they said, for the shooting down of a perfectly innocent Iranian passenger jet by the captain of the American warship Vincennes a few months earlier. I still happen to believe this is close to the truth.

But the moment Syria sent its tanks to defend Saudi Arabia after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, all the MI6 truth-telling turned into a claptrap of nonsense about Col Gaddafi. And Gaddafi, let's face it, was in deep trouble. Libya almost certainly was responsible for the earlier bombing of French UTA flight 772 over Chad in 1989. Why not frame him with Lockerbie too?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-for-the-truth-look-to-tehran-and-damascus-ndash-not-tripoli-1775813.html

-------------------------------------------------------

Geoffrey Robertson: Megrahi should never have been freed
The result is a triumph for state terrorism and a world-wide boost for the death penalty

The man who made the decision to release the Lockerbie Bomber claims it was an act of compassion, required by "due process". On the contrary, it was an act of foolishness that undermined due process. The readily foreseeable consequences have included a triumph for state terrorism, more suffering for the victims and a wide-world boost for the death penalty.


The bombing of PanAm 103 was a crime against humanity, a particularly heinous offence which every state as a matter of international law has a duty to prosecute and punish and has no power to pardon. For perpetrators of such crimes there can be no forgiveness: there is no time bar on their prosecution and no provision for their early release. We show mercy to the merciless by abjuring torture and the death penalty and by affording them expert medical treatment and family visits when terminally ill. It is part of their punishment that they shall die in some form of custody, because this is the most humane alternative to demands that they die on the scaffold or at the hands of vigilantes.

...

 The decision will seriously damage the world-wide campaign to abolish the death penalty for international crimes. This relies upon the validity of assurances (such as that given by Robin Cook to Madeleine Albright) that genocidaires and torturers and terrorists will never be released. Now, such assurances cannot credibly be given by democratic governments, because Mr MacAskill's action illustrates the risk that within a few years, politicians will contrive to breach them.

The claim that the decision accorded with "due process" is unsustainable. When Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year, he made an application for bail (not for release to Libya) on compassionate grounds. He asked to live, under custodial conditions of virtual house arrest, in Scotland while his appeal was pending. As recently as last November, the Appeal Court decided that his cancer was "very unpredictable", his NHS treatment was excellent and "his life expectancy may be in years". It ruled that "compassion" did not justify granting him bail, but said in terms that it would "entertain a renewed application" if his condition worsened.


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/geoffrey-robertson-megrahi-should-never-have-been-freed-1780245.html

----------------------------------------

Megrahi's lawyers to reveal 'evidence of innocence'
By Jane Merrick

Sunday, 13 September 2009

Lawyers for the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi are to release within days vital evidence they claim will clear him of involvement in the atrocity.
The development came as Megrahi's brother and doctors revealed the Libyan's health had worsened, leaving him unable to speak from his hospital bed in Tripoli.

Megrahi, who is terminally ill with prostate cancer, deteriorated as frantic efforts by campaigners were stepped up to examine evidence to shed new light on the 1988 bombing before he dies. His brother, Abdenasser al-Megrahi, said: "His condition has deteriorated rapidly. He is unable to speak to anyone. His situation is worrying. His temperature is at 39.5C. "

Megrahi's Glasgow-based lawyer, Tony Kelly, who was in Tripoli last week, is to publish a detailed account of what had been planned to be used as part of the Libyan's appeal. The appeal was abandoned days before his release from a Scottish jail on compassionate grounds last month.

It is believed there is no single document which would provide an alibi for Megrahi, but a mass of evidence that supports his case. Megrahi has insisted that he can prove he is innocent of the Pan Am bombing, and wants the evidence to be published. The Libyan government is also pressing for the documents to be made public.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/megrahis-lawyers-to-reveal-evidence-of-innocence-1786604.html

---------------------------------

I guess we'll never know the truth, yet I believe we should support the Scottish court that allowed the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, whether there were shenanigans of sorts for commercial gain behind the scenes. It is a shame that the great Lawyer from the Hypotheticals (Geoffrey Robertson) has served us on this occasion with an inflexible diatribe that gives no leeway to Western justice's due process. Mind you, had Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi been a westerner tried for a crime in Tripoli he would have been sentenced to death and shot forthwith, responsible for the crime or not...

We can do better.

Further more the shooting down of an Iranian airliner should have also been properly dealt with. But as we were told, proper engagement "procedures" were followed, thus the shooting down was unfortunate but  "justified" and then rewarded by the US navy. Er... If a US ship cannot make the difference between a commercial airliner and a military aircraft, there is something very wrong with the procedures or with observations. Yet, that the US Navy would shoot down an Iranian military aircraft in Iranian airspace would not be on either. Medals for the Vincennes captain? Out of order.

But like in western style business accidents, one can wrestle with one's conscience forever as long as no responsibility is ever accepted.

wrong call.

Revenge? Not on ether.

In mid 1988, I flew Pan Am from New York to Heathrow. It is likely it was on the Clipper Maid of the seas, the plane doing the rounds from Los Angeles to Europe. I had flown from Los Angeles on American Airlines though (so I could spend a couple of days in NY), after visiting a friend dying of AIDS in Hollywood. The AA plane captain on landing was applauded as a hero by the passengers. I thought it was his job to land the plane safely and there had been no drama to warrant such display — but it was a bit as if the No Smoking signs had been replaced momentarily by APPLAUSE signs used in live audiences TV studios... .

The Pan Am flight was packed and there were many Jews on board — most on their way to Israel for a conference or a religious event. Many wore black robes, black caps and black hats. Nothing wrong here but I remember thinking then if a plane was going to be a terrorist target this was it. The worst part of the journey was the food. It was gristle stew with watery potatoes, all helped down with a serve of antacid and headache tablets on the side-plate and a tumbler of lukewarm fake pissy coffee. I had flow on DC3s in Africa where comfort was far superior to that..

Thus when I heard of Lockerbie....
.....

A question also arises: how many Israelis are in Palestinian prisons?... Zilch? Nada? According to the internet: none (one?). But many Palestinians are in Israeli prisons, some for more than 20 years. They are branded as terrorists possibly rightly so but the state of Israel that commits far bigger atrocities on the Palestinians  — than a bomb here and there, or an often failed rocket attack, from a desperate people — only reaps the glory of state sponsored official terrorism under the guise of defence...

Another question comes to mind: how do we form enlightened opinions about something like the doomed Pan Am flight when we know that our own institution can lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? And get away with it? Even fictional shows like NCIS will pit against other US agencies, like the FBI or the CIA... Is it fiction or do these imagined conflicts of interest exist as some agencies will do a bit of fudge and cover up in order to control the game while the other agencies will uphold moral grounds?

We all should remember the Rainbow Warrior affair... This was the tip of an iceberg from a French secret service in decline and trying to regain some prestige in their secret circle... It bombed.

It is highly probable that the West needed a scapegoat and Megrahi became it... Who knows. The evidence against him in his trial were more than flimsy — unless we have not been told the whole of the evidence. In both alternative we've been duped.

see toon at top.

US officials have ordered workers to stop the construction of a tent for Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi near New York, a local attorney says.

The erection of the tent "violated several codes and laws of the town of Bedford", attorney Joel Sachs says.

It also emerged the Bedouin-style tent was being set up on property rented from real estate mogul Donald Trump.

Col Gaddafi had reportedly planned to use the tent for entertaining during the UN General Assembly in New York.

Libyan officials have so far not publicly commented on the issue.

Col Gaddafi - who arrived in New York on Tuesday - traditionally shuns official residences during his trips abroad.

-----------------------

Too funny for words.... Why don't they call it a "Marquee" as they do in Sydney where the elite or the sports people or the fair populace's grand BBQs are often protected from the riff-raff, the rain, the sun and the dust by a... tent. Some of these even have grand flaps looking like aciendas. It would be a piece of cake to make these look like Gadaffiolas...

Britain offered to pay Colonel Muammar Gaddafi £14m in return for Libya ending its military support for the IRA, secret papers seen by The Independent have revealed.

The deal, worth £500m today, was part of a package of compensation measures to appease the Libyan leader and help open up trade with the North African state during the late 1970s.

Discovery of the secret offer, detailed in a letter sent by the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, raises fresh questions about whether Britain has ever paid Gaddafi compensation.

By JOHN F. BURNS

LONDON — The oil giant BP faced a new furor on Thursday as it confirmed that it had lobbied the British government to conclude a prisoner-transfer agreement that the Libyan government wanted to secure the release of the only person ever convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie airliner bombing over Scotland, which killed 270 people, 190 of them Americans.

The acknowledgment came after American legislators, grappling with the controversy over the company’s disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill, called for an investigation into BP’s actions in the case of the freed man, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi.

After an initial demand for an investigation on Wednesday by four senators from New York and New Jersey, further calls for an inquiry by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee were made on Thursday by Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats of California.

Mr. Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence agent, was released and allowed to return to Libya last August after doctors advised the Scottish government that he was likely to die within three months of advanced prostate cancer. But nearly a year later, he remains alive and free, though kept out of sight, in the Libyan capital, Tripoli.

BP’s statement on Thursday repeated earlier acknowledgments that it had promoted the transfer agreement to protect a $900 million offshore oil-and-gas exploration deal off Libya’s Mediterranean coast. The British justice minister at the time, Jack Straw, admitted shortly after Mr. Megrahi was repatriated and freed that the BP deal was a consideration in the government’s review of his case.

In the end, Mr. Megrahi was not released under the prisoner transfer agreement. Instead, to the consternation of the Obama administration, and of many of the victims’ families, the Scottish government released him under provisions in Scottish law that allow for a prisoner’s sentence to be commuted on humanitarian grounds, because of Mr. Megrahi’s cancer. That freed him from serving any further prison time in Libya, as he would have had to do under the transfer pact.

--------------

see toon at top...

The controversy surrounding the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing reignited yesterday after Britain's ambassador to the US said the government regretted the Scottish decision to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and considered it a "mistake".

Sir Nigel Sheinwald's remarks come amid claims by a group of Democrat senators that BP lobbied the British government to release Megrahi to help it secure an oil deal with Libya.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, is to look into the allegations, while the powerful Senate foreign relations committee will question BP executives at a special session later this month. The prisoner transfer agreement with Libya was signed in 2007 – the same year BP sealed a $900m (£584m) exploration agreement with Tripoli.

Gordon Brown insisted at the time that not he but the Scottish government had taken the decision to release Megrahi, and he "respected" the Scottish ministers right to do so, a phrase that was taken as an endorsement of Megrahi's release.

Last night, Sheinwald issued a statement that made it clear that the coalition government takes a different view.

From the First Post

There is a growing feeling that the four US senators who demanded an inquiry into the early release by the Scottish Justice Secretary of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi may have opened a can of worms that could embarrass the United States as well as Britain.

The four senators reacted in the first instance to the news earlier this month that one of the cancer doctors who examined Megrahi on July 28 last year and gave him three months to live had admitted that he found it "embarrassing" that the convicted bomber was still alive nearly a year later.

But the senators then lighted on another aspect of the convicted bomber's grant of freedom - the suspicion that BP may have lobbied for Megrahi's release to facilitate a $900m oil exploration deal with the Libyans.

Although BP has adamantly denied this - a denial backed up by the new British government - the senators' demand has served to focus attention on a controversial prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) that was at the heart of trade talks between Britain and the Libyans post-2003.

Whether Megrahi's name came up during the famous "deal in the desert" of May 2007, when Tony Blair flew to Tripoli to open negotiations for a trade and diplomacy pact with Col Gadaffi and then watched BP's newly-installed CEO Tony Hayward sign his $900m oil deal with Libya's National Oil Corporation, is not known for sure.

There is no question there was a plot. The question is whether the plot worked, or whether it got what it wanted by a remarkable coincidence

...

Let's start in the deserts of Iraq – because the Lockerbie deal might just reveal what really happened there. Many people were perplexed by Tony Blair's decision to back George W Bush's invasion, which has led to the deaths of 1.2 million people. Blair said he was motivated by opposition to two things – terrorism and tyranny. First off, he said Saddam Hussein might give weapons of mass destruction to jihadis. When it was proven in the rubble after the invasion that Saddam had no WMD and no links to jihadis – as many critics of the war had said all along – Blair declared he would do it all again anyway, because Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, and all tyrants should be opposed.

Most critics of the war said the real reason was a desire for Western access to Iraq's vast supplies of oil. This debate has gone on for years. Now it has emerged that Tony Blair plotted to hand a convicted terrorist – the worst in modern British history – to a vicious tyrant in exchange for access to oil for British corporations. It seems to settle the argument about his priorities in the darkest possible way.

----------------

How many CEOs and Prime Ministers does it take to form a conspiracy...

The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland has made an outspoken attack on the United States over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien said the Scottish government was right to free Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi last year on compassionate grounds.

US lawmakers want Scottish politicians to explain to a Senate committee their decision to release Megrahi.

But the cardinal said ministers should not go crawling to the US like lapdogs.

Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish government's justice secretary, released Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, after being told that three months was a "reasonable estimate" of his life expectancy.

Vengeance

However, he is still alive after almost a year and the decision continues to provoke anger in the United States, which was home to 189 of the Lockerbie victims.

Cardinal O'Brien said Americans were too fixed on retribution.

 A small stockpile of spent nuclear fuel destined for disposal in Russia remained behind in a lightly guarded research center, apparently because of a fit of pique by Libya’s mercurial leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. In a frantic cable back to Washington, American officials in Tripoli warned of dire consequences unless the carefully brokered deal to remove the 5.2 kilograms (11.4 pounds) of highly enriched uranium stored in seven five-ton casks was quickly resurrected.

If the enriched uranium “is not removed from the casks within three months, its rising temperature could cause the casks to crack and to release radioactive nuclear material,” the American Embassy in Tripoli reported, according to cables made public by WikiLeaks. “Security concerns alone dictate that we must employ all of our resources to find a timely solution to this problem, and to keep any mention of it out of the press.”

The seeds of what appeared to be the demise of the secret deal were planted weeks earlier in New York, when Colonel Qaddafi expressed unhappiness that he was not permitted to set up his tent in Manhattan or to visit ground zero during a United Nations session.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/world/africa/04libya.html?_r=1&hp=&pag...      

Gus: if my memory is correct, Gadaffi bought the "radio-active" material AFTER having made the deal so that surrendering something made him look good and genuinely eager...

see toon at top...

The latest BBC interview with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, situated in a fancy restaurant on the Mediterranean, was painful to watch. Clearly delusional and blaming drug-addled youth and al-Qaeda for the ongoing revolution in his country (which he claimed he didn’t lead, the “masses” were in charge), the Western media have labelled him “mad” and “dangerous to know”.

This is not a defence of Gaddafi or the countless crimes against his own people or outsiders. He should be held to account for all violations of international law. The crimes are multiple and must be punished.

Events in Libya are moving fast and I won’t try to cover all the latest developments here. Al-Jazeera English’s daily Libya blog is one of the best places to read all the news.

But it’s remarkable to watch how quickly Western leaders and commentators, many of whom have celebrated the increasing ties between them and Gaddafi, are suddenly calling for his departure.

It was seemingly only yesterday that a newfound, supposedly reliable ally in the “war on terror” had come in from the cold, rejected terrorism, ditched a nuclear program, given information about Pakistan’s covert nuclear program under AQ Khan and perhaps most importantly opened up Libya for Western businesses. The EU was only recently so keen to sell arms to Tripoli.

In the last years the West embraced Gaddafi and his children because he was the kind of dictator we could deal with. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has visited Libya a number of times as an employee of J.P. Morgan, who pays him millions of pounds annually, to push for banking opportunities.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44618.html

---------------------------

Gus: at this stage, decent people know that Tony Blair should be in prison, with George W Bush and our own J W Howard — for their lying stint about Saddam's WMDs. But that peacock-brain Blair disguised as a politician paraded with the worst of the worst dictators as long as there was money in it... Unfortunately, most people are either brain dead or as corrupt as Blair, walking in step with his hypocrisy. See toon at top and stories below it...

From Robert Fisk...

So we are going to take "all necessary measures" to protect the civilians of Libya, are we? Pity we didn't think of that 42 years ago. Or 41 years ago. Or... well, you know the rest. And let's not be fooled by what the UN resolution really means. Yet again, it's going to be regime-change. And just as in Iraq – to use one of Tom Friedman's only memorable phrases of the time – when the latest dictator goes, who knows what kind of bats will come flying out of the box?

And after Tunisia, after Egypt, it's got to be Libya, hasn't it? The Arabs of North Africa are demanding freedom, democracy, liberation from oppression. Yes, that's what they have in common. But what these nations also have in common is that it was us, the West, that nurtured their dictatorships decade after decade after decade. The French cuddled up to Ben Ali, the Americans stroked Mubarak, while the Italians groomed Gaddafi until our own glorious leader went to resurrect him from the political dead.

Could this be, I wonder, why we have not heard from Lord Blair of Isfahan recently? Surely he should be up there, clapping his hands with glee at another humanitarian intervention. Perhaps he is just resting between parts. Or maybe, like the dragons in Spenser's Faerie Queen, he is quietly vomiting forth Catholic tracts with all the enthusiasm of a Gaddafi in full flow.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-first-it-was-saddam-then-gaddafi-now-theres-a-vacancy-for-the-wests-favourite-crackpot-tyrant-2246415.html

The Duke of York's days as the UK's special trade emissary, which has brought him into contact with leaders of some of the world's least democratic regimes, are coming to a close.

Buckingham Palace confirmed yesterday evening that the Duke is to step down from the role, though he will continue to support Britain's interests aboard during official overseas trips as a member of the Royal Family. A spokeswoman said: "The role as Special Representative will no longer exist as the Duke of York has decided to relinquish it after 10 years." The 51-year-old Duke, the Queen's second son, has done a lot of travelling and met a lot of people since he took over as Special Representative for Trade and International Investment in 2001, after 22 years as a Royal Navy helicopter pilot. He was never paid a salary for his role as trade representative, but the treasury paid his travel expenses, which – according to the published accounts of the royal household – came to more than £350,000 for five trips that he made during 2010-11.

He has met Saif Gaddafi, son of the Libyan dictator, several times since 2007, and met Colonel Gaddafi himself during a visit to Tunisia in 2008 – though as his defenders point out, it was Government policy to deal with the Libyan regime at the time.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scandalhit-prince-andrew-to-step-down-as-uk-trade-envoy-emissary-2318489.html

see toon at top...

Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi is comatose, near death and likely to take secrets of the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 to his grave.

CNN found al-Megrahi under the care of his family in his palatial Tripoli villa Sunday, surviving on oxygen and an intravenous drip. The cancer-stricken former Libyan intelligence officer may be the last man alive who knows precisely who in the Libya government authorized the bombing, which killed 270 people.

"We just give him oxygen. Nobody gives us any advice," his son, Khaled al-Megrahi, told CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/28/libya.lockerbie.bomber/index.html?eref=edition

Britain is pursuing Egypt for debts of up to £100m that funded the purchase of arms under the regime of General Hosni Mubarak.

Critics say the move contravenes the Government's pledge to audit all outstanding global debt, while writing off any past lending "recklessly given to dictators" or not used for the specific purpose of development.

The money lent to Egypt is part of a larger portfolio of more than £150m of Treasury lending that critics say has funded some of the world's most illiberal regimes in countries such as Iraq and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Campaigners yesterday demanded an investigation, and called for a scaling back of the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD), the government agency that underwrites international lending.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-demands-egypt-repay-millions-lent-for-arms-deals-2377926.html

Britain is sending officials to Libya to help the government to investigate the scale of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's secret chemical weapons stockpile, retained by the Libyan dictator in breach of promises made to the international community.

The size of the stockpile – including mustard gas – suggests Gaddafi totally misled Tony Blair when he promised to destroy weapons of mass destruction in return for being brought back in from the diplomatic cold in 2004.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons reported a week ago that the National Transitional Council had informed it further stocks of what are believed to be chemical weapons had been found.

Foreign Office sources suggested the weapons stockpile was much larger than had been thought, and covered more than one site.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/14/british-officials-help-libya-chemical-weapons

see toon at top...

The London School of Economics has been heavily criticised for a "chapter of failures" in its links with the Gaddafi regime in Libya.

A report by former Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf says mistakes and errors of judgement damaged the LSE's reputation.

The school's director, Sir Howard Davies, resigned in March over a £1.5m gift from a foundation led by Colonel Gaddafi's son Saif, a former student.

The LSE says it accepts all Lord Woolf's recommendations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15966132

-------------------------

The gaddafi-gadaffi or whatever youspellit regime was so economically "inept" that Libya was basically the only country in the world with NO DEBT to speak of... Now after the little revolution with a bit of help from the West, Libya is behind the eighth ball again as it it should... Yep, the old fox Gaddafi did not trust the sneaky credit lines on offer... everything had to be paid cash... The cad... See toon at top.. (of course Blair would be glorified for accepting Gaddafi as his own bosom buddy).

The UK government approved the 2004 rendition of a terror suspect to the Gaddafi regime, the BBC can reveal.

A letter from an MI6 officer refers to Abdel Hakim Belhaj's rendition to Libya. It congratulates the Libyans on the "safe arrival" of the "air cargo".

Mr Belhaj says he was tortured in jail. Successive UK governments have denied complicity in rendition or torture.

But BBC correspondent Peter Taylor says he understands Mr Belhaj's rendition was given ministerial approval.

However it is not clear at what level of government the decision was authorised.

The letter from the senior MI6 officer, Sir Mark Allen, to Col Gaddafi's intelligence chief, Musa Kusa, was found last year in the rubble of Musa Kusa's headquarters, which were bombed by Nato.

As well as congratulating the Libyans on the arrival of the "cargo", it points out that "the intelligence was British".

The letter was sent in 2004 when Mr Belhaj was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17651797

see toon at top...

Muammar Gaddafi warned Tony Blair in two fraught phone conversations in 2011 that his removal from the Libyan leadership would open a space for al-Qaida to seize control of the country and even launch an invasion of Europe.

The transcripts of the conversations have been published with Blair’s agreement by the UK foreign affairs select committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the western air campaign that led to the ousting and killing of Gaddafi in October 2011.

In the two calls the former British prime minister pleaded with Gaddafi to stand aside or end the violence. The transcripts reveal the gulf in understanding between Gaddafi and the west over what was occurring in his country and the nature of the threat he was facing.

In the first call, at 11.15am on 25 February 2011, Gaddafi gave a warning in part borne out by future events: “They [jihadis] want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe.”

In the second call, at 3.25pm the same day, the Libyan leader said: “We are not fighting them, they are attacking us. I want to tell you the truth. It is not a difficult situation at all. The story is simply this: an organisation has laid down sleeping cells in north Africa. Called the al-Qaida organisation in north Africa … The sleeping cells in Libya are similar to dormant cells in America before 9/11.”

read more: http://www.mintpressnews.com/gaddafi-warned-blair-his-ousting-would-open-door-to-jihadis/212592/

See toon and story at top...