Paul and Rachel Chandler, who were held hostage in Somalia, say UK authorities offered only ‘tea and sympathy’ to their family The British couple kidnapped from their yacht and held hostage for 13 months in Somalia have said the Foreign Office provided nothing but “tea and sympathy” to their family. Paul and Rachel Chandler, seized after leaving the Seychelles bound for Tanzania in October 2009, told a committee of MPs that the Foreign Office did not have the “expertise” to deal with kidnappings. Paul Chandler, 61, said it had only contacted their family “four days after the news was in the public domain”. By that time relatives were “bewildered, uncertain, and unadvised”, while being hounded by the media for information. The Foreign Office should have advised the family “at the earliest possible moment” about the general situation regarding hostages and kidnappings in Somalia. It should have advised them not to speak to the media “because it was well known that by far the best thing for a hostage is a press blackout”. If their family had known that “it would perhaps have had significant beneficial consequences,” he said. It should also have told the family “we can’t help you – but here’s a man who can”. Because of lack of political influence in Somalia, and British government policy not to pay ransoms, Chandler said the family should have been told: “If you need help, the private sector can help. Perhaps you should contact these people.” It was more appropriate for police to take the lead in such situations, he said, as they had expertise in criminal kidnappings. “We were just the hostages, but our families were the victim of extortion.” The couple were giving evidence at the foreign affairs committee inquiry into piracy off Somalia. Most of their evidence was given in private for the sake of Judith Tebbutt, who is still being held. The couple, originally from Tunbridge Wells, Kent, but now living in Dartmouth, Devon, were released last November for an unconfirmed ransom of up to £620,000. Rachel Chandler, 57, said: “What the Foreign Office did provide was essentially tea and sympathy. And in doing so, I think, it rubbed our family up the wrong way.” The couple’s suspected captors are being tried in Kenya over the hijacking of a French vessel. The Chandlers said they understood the British and Kenyan authorities are discussing whether they will also face trial over their case. The Metropolitan police is said to have handed a file to the Crown Prosecution Service. “I’d like to see them prosecuted by the UK. Not necessarily physically in the UK,” said Paul Chandler, “and yes, we would be happy to give evidence.” The couple said there had been no warnings, from the Foreign Office, their insurers or the authorities in the Seychelles that their route to Tanzania would put them at high risk from piracy. Rachel Chandler added they would continue sailing: “Cruising is our chosen lifestyle and we want to continue cruising for as long as we are able. We’re certainly not defeated by what happened to us”. Piracy at sea Somalia Africa Foreign policy Caroline Davies guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Paul and Rachel Chandler, who were held hostage in Somalia, say UK authorities offered only ‘tea and sympathy’ to their family The British couple kidnapped from their yacht and held hostage for 13 months in Somalia have said the Foreign Office provided nothing but “tea and sympathy” to their family. Paul and Rachel Chandler, seized after leaving the Seychelles bound for Tanzania in October 2009, told a committee of MPs that the Foreign Office did not have the “expertise” to deal with kidnappings. Paul Chandler, 61, said it had only contacted their family “four days after the news was in the public domain”. By that time relatives were “bewildered, uncertain, and unadvised”, while being hounded by the media for information. The Foreign Office should have advised the family “at the earliest possible moment” about the general situation regarding hostages and kidnappings in Somalia. It should have advised them not to speak to the media “because it was well known that by far the best thing for a hostage is a press blackout”. If their family had known that “it would perhaps have had significant beneficial consequences,” he said. It should also have told the family “we can’t help you – but here’s a man who can”. Because of lack of political influence in Somalia, and British government policy not to pay ransoms, Chandler said the family should have been told: “If you need help, the private sector can help. Perhaps you should contact these people.” It was more appropriate for police to take the lead in such situations, he said, as they had expertise in criminal kidnappings. “We were just the hostages, but our families were the victim of extortion.” The couple were giving evidence at the foreign affairs committee inquiry into piracy off Somalia. Most of their evidence was given in private for the sake of Judith Tebbutt, who is still being held. The couple, originally from Tunbridge Wells, Kent, but now living in Dartmouth, Devon, were released last November for an unconfirmed ransom of up to £620,000. Rachel Chandler, 57, said: “What the Foreign Office did provide was essentially tea and sympathy. And in doing so, I think, it rubbed our family up the wrong way.” The couple’s suspected captors are being tried in Kenya over the hijacking of a French vessel. The Chandlers said they understood the British and Kenyan authorities are discussing whether they will also face trial over their case. The Metropolitan police is said to have handed a file to the Crown Prosecution Service. “I’d like to see them prosecuted by the UK. Not necessarily physically in the UK,” said Paul Chandler, “and yes, we would be happy to give evidence.” The couple said there had been no warnings, from the Foreign Office, their insurers or the authorities in the Seychelles that their route to Tanzania would put them at high risk from piracy. Rachel Chandler added they would continue sailing: “Cruising is our chosen lifestyle and we want to continue cruising for as long as we are able. We’re certainly not defeated by what happened to us”. Piracy at sea Somalia Africa Foreign policy Caroline Davies guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Surprise find at British Library is the script of ‘Umbrellas’, part of a 1960 revue performed only once at the Nottingham Playhouse It was part of a 1960 revue at the Nottingham Playhouse called You, Me and the Gatepost, performed for one night only, and then promptly forgotten. But the sketch, written by a 29-year-old Harold Pinter and lost for more than half a century, has re-emerged as a result of some diligent detective work and is published by the Guardian for the first time and in full. The sketch, set on the sunbathed terrace of a large hotel and called Umbrellas, is very Pinter, and if there was any doubt who the author was, then the 12 designated pauses are something of a giveaway. Pinter’s widow, Lady Antonia Fraser, said she had been “completely unaware” of the existence of Umbrellas. “It’s fun. We’ve all been quarrelling over acting it in the family. I want to act B, which is the better part, but so far I’ve only managed to act A, so we’re waiting for some really good actors to do it.” The sketch was discovered by Ian Greaves, who works on the archive of the absurdist playwright NF Simpson. Simpson contributed to You, Me and the Gatepost. Jamie Andrews, head of English and drama at the British Library, said once it was known the revue had been staged, the scripts had to be somewhere in the collections because every script was submitted to censors at the lord chamberlain’s office – and the library holds them all. The scripts were duly found and, to the amazement of everyone involved, there was Umbrellas, among 25 sketches performed that night. Greaves recalls feeling “astonishment. And wanting to get home and check every book I had on Pinter to try to get to the bottom of it. It is extraordinary that things like this can crop up.” While archivists do not think there are many more Pinter surprises in the British Library, they are fairly sure more may emerge about other writers from the archive of something like 56,000 20th-century scripts submitted to the lord chamberlain’s office, which finally lost its vetting role in 1968. The sketch was performed in a good year for the young Pinter, with A Night Out getting a huge ITV audience in the Armchair Theatre slot while The Caretaker was taking the West End by storm. Quite why the revue in Nottingham got hardly any coverage is another question – although the London-centrism of national newspaper critics is as good a reason as any. “It seems peculiar and incredible that a work by the West End’s ‘triumph’ Harold Pinter was just passed by,” said Greaves. The scripts come with a short “reader’s report” by someone called CD Heriot which recommends that the revue is allowed to go ahead without cuts. The report calls it “an excellent revue containing the best of all the fashionable ‘off-beat’ writers” – people such as Pinter, John Mortimer, Ann Jellicoe and Shelagh Delaney. The sketch’s existence was revealed as the theatre with which Pinter was most closely associated, the 130-year-old Comedy theatre, was officially renamed the Harold Pinter theatre. Fraser said she burst into tears when she heard of the plan at the end of the recent run of Pinter’s Betrayal. “It is an extremely moving day for me. Harold would have been completely thrilled, there’s no question at all about that.” Fittingly, the first play to be staged in the newly renamed theatre is Ariel Dorfman’s Death and the Maiden, starring Thandie Newton, which had its first night on Monday night. Dorfman said Pinter was the play’s mentor, using his influence to get it performed at the Royal Court after seeing a read-through at the ICA in 1990. “For me, it’s magical,” said Dorfman. “That the first play in the Pinter theatre should not be a Pinter play, but a play that is possible because he existed is the most enduring testimony to his legacy.” “It is as if the gods of theatre and the arts are conspiring to make this a very significant event. I’m sentimental about these things but I do believe in these magical coincidences. Dorfman, a good friend of Pinter and Fraser, has also read Umbrellas. “I loved it,” he said. “It is so much Harold. I love these two old gents in the sun speaking about umbrellas. It somehow is absurd, but everyday absurd; the sort of thing you could overhear.” Critic’s view We tend to forget that, between the failure of The Birthday Party in 1958 and the success of The Caretaker in 1960, Harold Pinter wrote many revue-sketches. While this latest example to come to light may be a squib, it’s certainly not a damp one: try reading it aloud with someone and you’ll see how it works. For a start it depends heavily for comic effect on the pauses between the lines: a skill which Pinter told me he’d acquired from seeing Jack Benny at the London Palladium in the late 1940s. As in all Pinter’s sketches, you also get a hint of themes he was to explore in his plays. This one clearly is about power: character A smugly rejoices in the fact that he has it, while character B is left in a state of impotent envy. I wouldn’t place this sketch on the same level of Pinter’s miniature masterpiece, Last To Go, in which a coffee-stall owner and a newspaper seller fend off fear of loneliness and death through desultory chat. But it’s wonderful to have a bit of newly-discovered Pinter. It also reminds us that, along with Peter Cook, Pinter was a prolific revue-sketch writer who used a popular form to explore the oddities of human behaviour. Michael Billington Umbrellas, by Harold Pinter Two gentlemen in deckchairs on the terrace of a large hotel. Wearing shorts and sunglasses. Sunbathing. They do not move throughout the exchange A: The weather’s too much for me today. PAUSE B: Well, you’re damn lucky you’ve got your umbrella. A: I’m never without it, old boy. PAUSE B: I think I’d do well to follow your example. A: Yes, you would. Means the world to me. I never find myself at a loss. You understand what I mean? B : You’re a shrewd fellow, I’ll say that for you. PAUSE A : My house is full of umbrellas. B : You can’t have too many. A : You’ve never said a truer word, old boy. PAUSE B : I haven’t got one to bless myself with. PAUSE A : Well, I can forsee [sic] a time you’ll regret it. B : I think the time’s come, old boy. A : You can’t be too careful, old boy. PAUSE B : Well, you’ve got your feet firmly planted on the earth, there’s no doubt about that. PAUSE A : I certainly feel secure, old boy. B : Yes, you know where you stand, all right. You can’t take that away from you. PAUSE A : You’ll find they’re a true friend to you, umbrellas. PAUSE B : Maybe I’ll buy one. PAUSE A : Don’t come to me. It would be like tearing my heart out, to part with any of mine. PAUSE B : You find them handy, eh? PAUSE A : Yes … Oh, yes. When it’s raining, particularly. Blackout © The estate of Harold Pinter 2011 All rights reserved Harold Pinter Theatre British Library Mark Brown guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Surprise find at British Library is the script of ‘Umbrellas’, part of a 1960 revue performed only once at the Nottingham Playhouse It was part of a 1960 revue at the Nottingham Playhouse called You, Me and the Gatepost, performed for one night only, and then promptly forgotten. But the sketch, written by a 29-year-old Harold Pinter and lost for more than half a century, has re-emerged as a result of some diligent detective work and is published by the Guardian for the first time and in full. The sketch, set on the sunbathed terrace of a large hotel and called Umbrellas, is very Pinter, and if there was any doubt who the author was, then the 12 designated pauses are something of a giveaway. Pinter’s widow, Lady Antonia Fraser, said she had been “completely unaware” of the existence of Umbrellas. “It’s fun. We’ve all been quarrelling over acting it in the family. I want to act B, which is the better part, but so far I’ve only managed to act A, so we’re waiting for some really good actors to do it.” The sketch was discovered by Ian Greaves, who works on the archive of the absurdist playwright NF Simpson. Simpson contributed to You, Me and the Gatepost. Jamie Andrews, head of English and drama at the British Library, said once it was known the revue had been staged, the scripts had to be somewhere in the collections because every script was submitted to censors at the lord chamberlain’s office – and the library holds them all. The scripts were duly found and, to the amazement of everyone involved, there was Umbrellas, among 25 sketches performed that night. Greaves recalls feeling “astonishment. And wanting to get home and check every book I had on Pinter to try to get to the bottom of it. It is extraordinary that things like this can crop up.” While archivists do not think there are many more Pinter surprises in the British Library, they are fairly sure more may emerge about other writers from the archive of something like 56,000 20th-century scripts submitted to the lord chamberlain’s office, which finally lost its vetting role in 1968. The sketch was performed in a good year for the young Pinter, with A Night Out getting a huge ITV audience in the Armchair Theatre slot while The Caretaker was taking the West End by storm. Quite why the revue in Nottingham got hardly any coverage is another question – although the London-centrism of national newspaper critics is as good a reason as any. “It seems peculiar and incredible that a work by the West End’s ‘triumph’ Harold Pinter was just passed by,” said Greaves. The scripts come with a short “reader’s report” by someone called CD Heriot which recommends that the revue is allowed to go ahead without cuts. The report calls it “an excellent revue containing the best of all the fashionable ‘off-beat’ writers” – people such as Pinter, John Mortimer, Ann Jellicoe and Shelagh Delaney. The sketch’s existence was revealed as the theatre with which Pinter was most closely associated, the 130-year-old Comedy theatre, was officially renamed the Harold Pinter theatre. Fraser said she burst into tears when she heard of the plan at the end of the recent run of Pinter’s Betrayal. “It is an extremely moving day for me. Harold would have been completely thrilled, there’s no question at all about that.” Fittingly, the first play to be staged in the newly renamed theatre is Ariel Dorfman’s Death and the Maiden, starring Thandie Newton, which had its first night on Monday night. Dorfman said Pinter was the play’s mentor, using his influence to get it performed at the Royal Court after seeing a read-through at the ICA in 1990. “For me, it’s magical,” said Dorfman. “That the first play in the Pinter theatre should not be a Pinter play, but a play that is possible because he existed is the most enduring testimony to his legacy.” “It is as if the gods of theatre and the arts are conspiring to make this a very significant event. I’m sentimental about these things but I do believe in these magical coincidences. Dorfman, a good friend of Pinter and Fraser, has also read Umbrellas. “I loved it,” he said. “It is so much Harold. I love these two old gents in the sun speaking about umbrellas. It somehow is absurd, but everyday absurd; the sort of thing you could overhear.” Critic’s view We tend to forget that, between the failure of The Birthday Party in 1958 and the success of The Caretaker in 1960, Harold Pinter wrote many revue-sketches. While this latest example to come to light may be a squib, it’s certainly not a damp one: try reading it aloud with someone and you’ll see how it works. For a start it depends heavily for comic effect on the pauses between the lines: a skill which Pinter told me he’d acquired from seeing Jack Benny at the London Palladium in the late 1940s. As in all Pinter’s sketches, you also get a hint of themes he was to explore in his plays. This one clearly is about power: character A smugly rejoices in the fact that he has it, while character B is left in a state of impotent envy. I wouldn’t place this sketch on the same level of Pinter’s miniature masterpiece, Last To Go, in which a coffee-stall owner and a newspaper seller fend off fear of loneliness and death through desultory chat. But it’s wonderful to have a bit of newly-discovered Pinter. It also reminds us that, along with Peter Cook, Pinter was a prolific revue-sketch writer who used a popular form to explore the oddities of human behaviour. Michael Billington Umbrellas, by Harold Pinter Two gentlemen in deckchairs on the terrace of a large hotel. Wearing shorts and sunglasses. Sunbathing. They do not move throughout the exchange A: The weather’s too much for me today. PAUSE B: Well, you’re damn lucky you’ve got your umbrella. A: I’m never without it, old boy. PAUSE B: I think I’d do well to follow your example. A: Yes, you would. Means the world to me. I never find myself at a loss. You understand what I mean? B : You’re a shrewd fellow, I’ll say that for you. PAUSE A : My house is full of umbrellas. B : You can’t have too many. A : You’ve never said a truer word, old boy. PAUSE B : I haven’t got one to bless myself with. PAUSE A : Well, I can forsee [sic] a time you’ll regret it. B : I think the time’s come, old boy. A : You can’t be too careful, old boy. PAUSE B : Well, you’ve got your feet firmly planted on the earth, there’s no doubt about that. PAUSE A : I certainly feel secure, old boy. B : Yes, you know where you stand, all right. You can’t take that away from you. PAUSE A : You’ll find they’re a true friend to you, umbrellas. PAUSE B : Maybe I’ll buy one. PAUSE A : Don’t come to me. It would be like tearing my heart out, to part with any of mine. PAUSE B : You find them handy, eh? PAUSE A : Yes … Oh, yes. When it’s raining, particularly. Blackout © The estate of Harold Pinter 2011 All rights reserved Harold Pinter Theatre British Library Mark Brown guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Ryanair crew members used tape to fix a pilot’s window before takeoff—only to turn around when the tape came loose 20 minutes into the flight, the Sun reports. “We were kept in the dark, and were terrified. I could see guys taping in the windscreen with what looked like…
Continue reading …Good Morning America has obtained a new surveillance video of a “mystery man” leaving a wooded area near the home of missing baby Lisa Irwin around 2:30am the day she disappeared. The video may support two witness reports of a man seen carrying a baby in the early morning…
Continue reading …
Wife and children of Sami al-Saadi launch legal case against British government over role played in their detention The daughter of a Libyan dissident who was imprisoned by Muammar Gaddafi following a rendition operation mounted with the help of MI6 has told how her family was flown across the world and held for months while her father was being tortured nearby. The wife and children of Sami al-Saadi have launched legal proceedings against the British government and its intelligence agencies, and say they are also planning to lodge a complaint with Scotland Yard over the role that the British authorities played in their abduction and detention. Saadi’s entire family were bundled aboard an aircraft in Hong Kong and flown to Tripoli in March 2004. His wife Karima al-Saadi and her four children, aged between six and 12, were held for months at one of Gaddafi’s prisons. The eldest child, Khadija, now 19, spoke the horror of being separated from her parents and forced on to the plane before being told that they were all being taken to Libya, where she knew her father would be tortured, and where she feared they would all be killed. “The British government speak of human rights and justice – why were they involved with Gaddafi?” she asked. “The British knew too well that we would be mistreated and could be killed. The people who put us through this should be held accountable. I want an apology: they stole my childhood.” The Guardian also reveals the secret documents that show British intelligence officials believe the capture and rendition of Saadi and his associate, Abdul Hakim Belhaj, the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), boosted al-Qaida and undermined Britain’s mission in Iraq. Saadi, who is also known as Abu Munthir al-Saadi, learned last month of the key role that MI6 played in his family’s rendition when Human Rights Watch, the New York-based NGO, discovered a batch of documents in the abandoned office of Gaddafi’s former intelligence chief, Moussa Koussa. Among the papers is a fax that the CIA sent to Koussa in March 2004 , which shows that the agency was eager to join in the Saadi rendition operation after learning that MI6 and Gaddafi’s government were about to embark upon it. Other papers show that an MI6 tipoff led to Belhaj being rendered to Tripoli the same month, along with his pregnant wife. Two days before Saadi and his family were flown to Tripoli, Tony Blair arrived in the country for his first meeting with Gaddafi, embracing the dictator and announcing a new era of counter-terrorism co-operation. Saadi embarked on his own legal action earlier this month , and like his family is suing MI6, MI5, the Foreign Office and the Home Office. His case and that of his family join the list of 30 cases that Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, said last week were being brought by people alleging British complicity in their torture or rendition . Clarke has unveiled plans for legislation that will establish secret court hearings when the UK’s intelligence agencies are sued , a proposal that has been welcomed by MI5 and MI6, but criticised by civil rights groups. The courtroom secrecy would prevent claimants and the general public from learning more about the degree of ministerial approval for the UK/Libyan rendition operations. Last month Blair and Jack Straw, who was foreign secretary at the time, sought to distance themselves from the matter. Shortly afterwards Sir Richard Dearlove, who was head of MI6, said ministers had authorised the UK’s links with Gaddafi. Blair and Straw have both declined to say whether they knew which ministers were being referred to by Dearlove. The Foreign Office said the government had not received notification of intended proceedings, and added: “The government stands firmly against torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. We do not condone it, nor do we ask others to do it on our behalf.” The Saadi family had been living in exile in China, and travelled to Hong Kong after approaching MI5 via an intermediary to ask whether they would be allowed to return to London, where they lived for a number of years in the 1990s. They were under the impression they were to be interviewed by British diplomats in Hong Kong. Instead they were detained by border guards, held for several days, and then forced aboard an Egyptian airliner. Khadija al-Saadi told how she and her two younger brothers, Mostapha and Anes, then aged 11 and nine, and six-year-old sister Arowa, were separated from their parents before being put on board the aircraft, which was empty but for a number of Libyan intelligence officers. “I wasn’t allowed to talk to my brothers or sister, and my brothers weren’t allowed to play games, because they thought they might be using sign language,” she said. “After a while I was allowed to go into the next compartment and see my mother. She was crying. She told me they were taking us to Libya. Initially, I didn’t believe it. Then I realised it was true, and I was very scared. I thought that my mother and father were going to be tortured and that we would all be killed. Then I was told to go and say goodbye to my father. He was handcuffed to a seat in another compartment and had a drip in his arm. One of the Libyan intelligence officers was laughing at me. I fainted.” Khadija came to shortly after the aircraft landed in Tripoli. Her mother and father were taken off, hooded and their legs bound with wire. Mostapha and Anes were blindfolded. The entire family was then driven in a convoy of vehicles to a prison at Tajoura, east of Tripoli. “We were separated from my father, but he was later brought back to see us by Moussa Koussa before being taken away again. My mother was also taken away and interrogated for a whole day.” Khadija says she knew her father was being tortured. Every few days he was brought to see his family for a few minutes before being taken away again. “I think they were doing it to increase the pressure on my father.” At one point, when they had not seen their father for some time, the children decided to mount a hunger strike: “But they didn’t care whether we ate anything or not.” Saadi’s wife and children were released after two and a half months and cared for by relatives. The children were eventually allowed to enrol in school, Khadija going on to win a number of Libya-wide children’s poetry contests. Their father remained imprisoned for six years. After the revolution that led to Gaddafi being killed, he described how he was beaten and subjected to electric shocks, interrogated about Libyans living in the UK and, on one occasion he alleges, interrogated by British intelligence officers , who he alleges took no steps to try to help him after he told them he was being tortured. Moussa Koussa, he says, had boasted to him that MI6 and the CIA were helping him to round up Gaddafi’s opponents around the world. The family’s solicitor, Richard Stein, of the London law firm Leigh Day, said on Monday: “At a time when Cameron was invoking Gaddafi’s victims it is important to remember the Al-Saadi family. They were only victims of Gaddafi because of the complicity of the Blair government. At this time it is particularly important that the British government deals with it own role in these events and apologises immediately and unreservedly to Khadija and the rest of her family.” Cori Crider, of the legal charity Reprieve, which is also advising the family, added: “The bitter irony is that the very week Libya threw off dictatorship and the yoke of the secret police, Ken Clarke proposed to shroud British justice in secrecy. How would he explain to Khadija that her fate should be discussed behind closed doors? The UK must not mimic this toxic US practice.” Libya Middle East Africa Muammar Gaddafi Ian Cobain guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Wife and children of Sami al-Saadi launch legal case against British government over role played in their detention The daughter of a Libyan dissident who was imprisoned by Muammar Gaddafi following a rendition operation mounted with the help of MI6 has told how her family was flown across the world and held for months while her father was being tortured nearby. The wife and children of Sami al-Saadi have launched legal proceedings against the British government and its intelligence agencies, and say they are also planning to lodge a complaint with Scotland Yard over the role that the British authorities played in their abduction and detention. Saadi’s entire family were bundled aboard an aircraft in Hong Kong and flown to Tripoli in March 2004. His wife Karima al-Saadi and her four children, aged between six and 12, were held for months at one of Gaddafi’s prisons. The eldest child, Khadija, now 19, spoke the horror of being separated from her parents and forced on to the plane before being told that they were all being taken to Libya, where she knew her father would be tortured, and where she feared they would all be killed. “The British government speak of human rights and justice – why were they involved with Gaddafi?” she asked. “The British knew too well that we would be mistreated and could be killed. The people who put us through this should be held accountable. I want an apology: they stole my childhood.” The Guardian also reveals the secret documents that show British intelligence officials believe the capture and rendition of Saadi and his associate, Abdul Hakim Belhaj, the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), boosted al-Qaida and undermined Britain’s mission in Iraq. Saadi, who is also known as Abu Munthir al-Saadi, learned last month of the key role that MI6 played in his family’s rendition when Human Rights Watch, the New York-based NGO, discovered a batch of documents in the abandoned office of Gaddafi’s former intelligence chief, Moussa Koussa. Among the papers is a fax that the CIA sent to Koussa in March 2004 , which shows that the agency was eager to join in the Saadi rendition operation after learning that MI6 and Gaddafi’s government were about to embark upon it. Other papers show that an MI6 tipoff led to Belhaj being rendered to Tripoli the same month, along with his pregnant wife. Two days before Saadi and his family were flown to Tripoli, Tony Blair arrived in the country for his first meeting with Gaddafi, embracing the dictator and announcing a new era of counter-terrorism co-operation. Saadi embarked on his own legal action earlier this month , and like his family is suing MI6, MI5, the Foreign Office and the Home Office. His case and that of his family join the list of 30 cases that Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, said last week were being brought by people alleging British complicity in their torture or rendition . Clarke has unveiled plans for legislation that will establish secret court hearings when the UK’s intelligence agencies are sued , a proposal that has been welcomed by MI5 and MI6, but criticised by civil rights groups. The courtroom secrecy would prevent claimants and the general public from learning more about the degree of ministerial approval for the UK/Libyan rendition operations. Last month Blair and Jack Straw, who was foreign secretary at the time, sought to distance themselves from the matter. Shortly afterwards Sir Richard Dearlove, who was head of MI6, said ministers had authorised the UK’s links with Gaddafi. Blair and Straw have both declined to say whether they knew which ministers were being referred to by Dearlove. The Foreign Office said the government had not received notification of intended proceedings, and added: “The government stands firmly against torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. We do not condone it, nor do we ask others to do it on our behalf.” The Saadi family had been living in exile in China, and travelled to Hong Kong after approaching MI5 via an intermediary to ask whether they would be allowed to return to London, where they lived for a number of years in the 1990s. They were under the impression they were to be interviewed by British diplomats in Hong Kong. Instead they were detained by border guards, held for several days, and then forced aboard an Egyptian airliner. Khadija al-Saadi told how she and her two younger brothers, Mostapha and Anes, then aged 11 and nine, and six-year-old sister Arowa, were separated from their parents before being put on board the aircraft, which was empty but for a number of Libyan intelligence officers. “I wasn’t allowed to talk to my brothers or sister, and my brothers weren’t allowed to play games, because they thought they might be using sign language,” she said. “After a while I was allowed to go into the next compartment and see my mother. She was crying. She told me they were taking us to Libya. Initially, I didn’t believe it. Then I realised it was true, and I was very scared. I thought that my mother and father were going to be tortured and that we would all be killed. Then I was told to go and say goodbye to my father. He was handcuffed to a seat in another compartment and had a drip in his arm. One of the Libyan intelligence officers was laughing at me. I fainted.” Khadija came to shortly after the aircraft landed in Tripoli. Her mother and father were taken off, hooded and their legs bound with wire. Mostapha and Anes were blindfolded. The entire family was then driven in a convoy of vehicles to a prison at Tajoura, east of Tripoli. “We were separated from my father, but he was later brought back to see us by Moussa Koussa before being taken away again. My mother was also taken away and interrogated for a whole day.” Khadija says she knew her father was being tortured. Every few days he was brought to see his family for a few minutes before being taken away again. “I think they were doing it to increase the pressure on my father.” At one point, when they had not seen their father for some time, the children decided to mount a hunger strike: “But they didn’t care whether we ate anything or not.” Saadi’s wife and children were released after two and a half months and cared for by relatives. The children were eventually allowed to enrol in school, Khadija going on to win a number of Libya-wide children’s poetry contests. Their father remained imprisoned for six years. After the revolution that led to Gaddafi being killed, he described how he was beaten and subjected to electric shocks, interrogated about Libyans living in the UK and, on one occasion he alleges, interrogated by British intelligence officers , who he alleges took no steps to try to help him after he told them he was being tortured. Moussa Koussa, he says, had boasted to him that MI6 and the CIA were helping him to round up Gaddafi’s opponents around the world. The family’s solicitor, Richard Stein, of the London law firm Leigh Day, said on Monday: “At a time when Cameron was invoking Gaddafi’s victims it is important to remember the Al-Saadi family. They were only victims of Gaddafi because of the complicity of the Blair government. At this time it is particularly important that the British government deals with it own role in these events and apologises immediately and unreservedly to Khadija and the rest of her family.” Cori Crider, of the legal charity Reprieve, which is also advising the family, added: “The bitter irony is that the very week Libya threw off dictatorship and the yoke of the secret police, Ken Clarke proposed to shroud British justice in secrecy. How would he explain to Khadija that her fate should be discussed behind closed doors? The UK must not mimic this toxic US practice.” Libya Middle East Africa Muammar Gaddafi Ian Cobain guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The surprise resignation of Adam Holloway, aide to the Europe minister, was a personal blow to the prime minister David Cameron faced a major rebellion on Europe as Conservative MPs dismissed an attempt by the prime minister to cast himself in the mould of Margaret Thatcher by signalling that the Tories would fight the next election with a pledge to repatriate powers from Brussels. With a new opinion poll showing overwhelming support for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, Downing Street was rocked by the surprise resignation of an aide to the Europe minister hours before a group of Tory MPs rebelled against the government. In a personal blow to the prime minister, who met MPs throughout the day to try and persuade them to vote against a motion calling for such a referendum, Adam Holloway told MPs the only “honest course of action” for him was to resign as parliamentary private secretary to David Lidington. With a theatrical flourish, the former television journalist rose in the Commons to say: “I’m not now prepared to go back on my words to my constituents and I’m really staggered that loyal people like me have actually been put in this position. If Britain’s future as an independent country is not a proper matter for a referendum, then I have absolutely no idea what is.” Holloway, who was quickly followed by Stewart Jackson, PPS to the Northern Ireland secretary Owen Paterson, emboldened wavering Tory MPs. It is understood that Bob Stewart, a former colonel who was elected MP for Beckenham last year, rebuffed an offer to meet the prime minister. Jackson told MPs: “The House of Commons should be allowed a free vote and an unfettered debate on this issue. The government have no mandate to whip the vote, as they have done this evening, because no one has a mandate since all parties effectively reneged on the Lisbon treaty prior to the last general election. “As a former whip I believe this has been a catastrophic mismanagement in terms of my party. We should have been able to show we are mature … Instead we have the heavy-handed whipping we have seen tonight.” MPs pressed ahead with their rebellion despite warnings from the whips that they would harm their careers if they defied a three-line whip. “Whether they like it or not this will hinder things for them,” one government source said of the rebels. Cameron adopted a more diplomatic approach as he made clear to Tory MPs that he was determined to press ahead with repatriating social and employment laws from Brussels. The Tories were forced to abandon their election pledge on this under pressure from the Liberal Democrats in the coalition negotiations. The prime minister said: “I remain firmly committed to … bringing back more powers from Brussels.” It is understood that Downing Street is planning to include a commitment to repatriate these powers in the Conservative manifesto for the next election. Tory ministers who say the Lib Dems would not support such a move believe that such an opportunity is unlikely to arise in this parliament, because the Foreign Office does not expect a major new EU treaty in the foreseeable future. No 10 says Britain will now push its interests in negotiations over two stages: a limited EU treaty change over the next year and a possible full-scale renegotiation at an unspecified point. The limited change is likely to take place over the next year to bring into EU law tougher rules overseeing greater fiscal co-ordination among the 17 members of the eurozone. Germany is insisting on a treaty change in this area. The prime minister said Britain would be prepared to wield its veto in these negotiations. “Fundamental questions are being asked about the future of the Eurozone and therefore the shape of the EU itself,” he said. “Opportunities to advance our national interest are clearly becoming apparent. “We should focus on how to make the most of this, not pursue a parliamentary process for a multiple choice referendum … every country can wield a veto until its needs are met.” In these negotiations Britain will demand safeguards to protect Britain’s position in the single market and guarantees to ensure that the position of the City of London is not jeopardised in a beefed up eurozone. Britain will also want assurances that the 17 eurozone members will not “caucus” – agreeing a policy and then bouncing other members of the EU to sign up. A fuller EU treaty negotiation, in the style of the Lisbon treaty or the Maastricht treaty, may take place later. But Downing Street sees no sign of this in the foreseeable future. At this stage the Tories would demand the repatriation of social and employment powers. Cameron attempted to underline his Eurosceptic credentials by casting himself in the mould of Thatcher. Praising José Manuel Barroso, the European commission’s president for making a strong presentation on jobs at Sunday’s EU summit, the prime minister said: “If we want to get Europe’s economies moving, to succeed in a competitive world, then these are the steps that are absolutely necessary. “These are arguments which Margaret Thatcher made to drive through the single market in the first place; and which every prime minister since has tried to push. I am no exception.” But the prime minister did not pull his punches as he said that Eurosceptics had chosen the wrong time to demand a referendum. “It’s not the right time, at this moment of economic crisis, to launch legislation that includes an in-out referendum. When your neighbour’s house is on fire, your first impulse should be to help him put out the flames not least to stop the flames reaching your own house.”This is not the time to argue about walking away. Not just for their sakes, but for ours. Legislating now for a referendum, including on whether Britain should leave the EU, could cause great uncertainty and could actually damage our prospects of growth.” The rebellion came as a Guardian/ICM poll showed some 70% of voters want a vote on Britain’s EU membership. Forty-nine per cent of voters said they would use the referendum to leave the EU, as against just 40% who prefer to stay in. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, said: “You know the prime minister was in Brussels but his mind was elsewhere. The Tory party on Europe suffering another nervous breakdown. A prime minister making frantic calls home, PPSs threatening to resign and it’s not just the Stone Roses on a comeback tour because [senior Tory eurosceptic John Redwood] is back on the circuit touring the television studios.” David Cameron Conservatives Foreign policy House of Commons European Union Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The surprise resignation of Adam Holloway, aide to the Europe minister, was a personal blow to the prime minister David Cameron faced a major rebellion on Europe as Conservative MPs dismissed an attempt by the prime minister to cast himself in the mould of Margaret Thatcher by signalling that the Tories would fight the next election with a pledge to repatriate powers from Brussels. With a new opinion poll showing overwhelming support for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, Downing Street was rocked by the surprise resignation of an aide to the Europe minister hours before a group of Tory MPs rebelled against the government. In a personal blow to the prime minister, who met MPs throughout the day to try and persuade them to vote against a motion calling for such a referendum, Adam Holloway told MPs the only “honest course of action” for him was to resign as parliamentary private secretary to David Lidington. With a theatrical flourish, the former television journalist rose in the Commons to say: “I’m not now prepared to go back on my words to my constituents and I’m really staggered that loyal people like me have actually been put in this position. If Britain’s future as an independent country is not a proper matter for a referendum, then I have absolutely no idea what is.” Holloway, who was quickly followed by Stewart Jackson, PPS to the Northern Ireland secretary Owen Paterson, emboldened wavering Tory MPs. It is understood that Bob Stewart, a former colonel who was elected MP for Beckenham last year, rebuffed an offer to meet the prime minister. Jackson told MPs: “The House of Commons should be allowed a free vote and an unfettered debate on this issue. The government have no mandate to whip the vote, as they have done this evening, because no one has a mandate since all parties effectively reneged on the Lisbon treaty prior to the last general election. “As a former whip I believe this has been a catastrophic mismanagement in terms of my party. We should have been able to show we are mature … Instead we have the heavy-handed whipping we have seen tonight.” MPs pressed ahead with their rebellion despite warnings from the whips that they would harm their careers if they defied a three-line whip. “Whether they like it or not this will hinder things for them,” one government source said of the rebels. Cameron adopted a more diplomatic approach as he made clear to Tory MPs that he was determined to press ahead with repatriating social and employment laws from Brussels. The Tories were forced to abandon their election pledge on this under pressure from the Liberal Democrats in the coalition negotiations. The prime minister said: “I remain firmly committed to … bringing back more powers from Brussels.” It is understood that Downing Street is planning to include a commitment to repatriate these powers in the Conservative manifesto for the next election. Tory ministers who say the Lib Dems would not support such a move believe that such an opportunity is unlikely to arise in this parliament, because the Foreign Office does not expect a major new EU treaty in the foreseeable future. No 10 says Britain will now push its interests in negotiations over two stages: a limited EU treaty change over the next year and a possible full-scale renegotiation at an unspecified point. The limited change is likely to take place over the next year to bring into EU law tougher rules overseeing greater fiscal co-ordination among the 17 members of the eurozone. Germany is insisting on a treaty change in this area. The prime minister said Britain would be prepared to wield its veto in these negotiations. “Fundamental questions are being asked about the future of the Eurozone and therefore the shape of the EU itself,” he said. “Opportunities to advance our national interest are clearly becoming apparent. “We should focus on how to make the most of this, not pursue a parliamentary process for a multiple choice referendum … every country can wield a veto until its needs are met.” In these negotiations Britain will demand safeguards to protect Britain’s position in the single market and guarantees to ensure that the position of the City of London is not jeopardised in a beefed up eurozone. Britain will also want assurances that the 17 eurozone members will not “caucus” – agreeing a policy and then bouncing other members of the EU to sign up. A fuller EU treaty negotiation, in the style of the Lisbon treaty or the Maastricht treaty, may take place later. But Downing Street sees no sign of this in the foreseeable future. At this stage the Tories would demand the repatriation of social and employment powers. Cameron attempted to underline his Eurosceptic credentials by casting himself in the mould of Thatcher. Praising José Manuel Barroso, the European commission’s president for making a strong presentation on jobs at Sunday’s EU summit, the prime minister said: “If we want to get Europe’s economies moving, to succeed in a competitive world, then these are the steps that are absolutely necessary. “These are arguments which Margaret Thatcher made to drive through the single market in the first place; and which every prime minister since has tried to push. I am no exception.” But the prime minister did not pull his punches as he said that Eurosceptics had chosen the wrong time to demand a referendum. “It’s not the right time, at this moment of economic crisis, to launch legislation that includes an in-out referendum. When your neighbour’s house is on fire, your first impulse should be to help him put out the flames not least to stop the flames reaching your own house.”This is not the time to argue about walking away. Not just for their sakes, but for ours. Legislating now for a referendum, including on whether Britain should leave the EU, could cause great uncertainty and could actually damage our prospects of growth.” The rebellion came as a Guardian/ICM poll showed some 70% of voters want a vote on Britain’s EU membership. Forty-nine per cent of voters said they would use the referendum to leave the EU, as against just 40% who prefer to stay in. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, said: “You know the prime minister was in Brussels but his mind was elsewhere. The Tory party on Europe suffering another nervous breakdown. A prime minister making frantic calls home, PPSs threatening to resign and it’s not just the Stone Roses on a comeback tour because [senior Tory eurosceptic John Redwood] is back on the circuit touring the television studios.” David Cameron Conservatives Foreign policy House of Commons European Union Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …