UK Taxpayers are charged 2.2 million pounds to be kept in the dark

[Garbarsardar]

British taxpayers have earned the right to be kept uninformed for the actions of their own government by paying 2.2 million pounds to a Libyan man.

Apparently, back in 2004, Tony the Blair, as part of the Qaddafi deal, offered British assistance to the kidnapping and extraordinary renditions of Libyan dissidents. Wives and children included. Unfortunately a couple of them survived.

British government has not accepted any liability for these actions.

Having sought for years to avoid the agents of the Libyan dictator, Sami al-Saadi was forced on board a plane in Hong Kong with his wife and four young children in a joint UK-US-Libyan operation. They were then flown to Libya, where all of them were initially imprisoned. Saadi was held and tortured for years.

The Saadi family had accepted a settlement of £2.23m, the high court heard on Thursday. The government paid the sum by way of compensation and without admitting any liability.

Evidence of the UK's role in the operation – believed to be the only case where an entire family was subjected to "extraordinary rendition" – came to light after Gaddafi's fall in 2011.

CIA correspondence with Libyan intelligence, found in the spy chief Moussa Koussa's office in Tripoli by Human Rights Watch, states: "We are … aware that your service had been co-operating with the British to effect [Saadi's] removal to Tripoli … the Hong Kong government may be able to co-ordinate with you to render [Saadi] and his family into your custody."

The operation was arranged in 2004 at the time of Tony Blair's "deal in the desert" with Gaddafi, after which UK intelligence services helped track down and hand over his opponents.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/de...ided-rendition

[removeduser_487563287433]

What's this got to do with being kept uninformed? This is public knowledge.

[Garbarsardar]

What's this got to do with being kept uninformed? This is public knowledge.

Really? Has Her Majesty's Government admitted these actions, accepted responsibility and released the relevant data?

Or perhaps you mean "public knowledge" as in "yeah mate, I heard about this one..."?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Really? Has Her Majesty's Government admitted these actions, accepted responsibility and released the relevant data?

Whether or not the UK Government accepts liability to what happened to this individual does not seem to me to be linked at all to whether or not the UK population is informed about this. I would go as far as to say that it is an absurd suggestion, especially when you actually used a British broadsheet as your source, telling everybody all about it (and indeed it's been a subject of coverage over the entire last year).

[Stavroforos]

So, the British offered assistance in silencing the dissidents of the regime it bombed because of dissidents...?

[sabaku_no_gaara]

So, the British offered assistance in silencing the dissidents of the regime it bombed because of dissidents...?

What else would you expect of the British?

[NotYetRegistered]

What else would you expect of the British?

Oh, generalisations. Classy.

[Comrade_Rory]

Oh, generalisations. Classy.

Oh you should hear some of the crap he thinks about the British. Like... the British were the most evil because they used propaganda in the first world war

[sabaku_no_gaara]

Oh you should hear some of the crap he thinks about the British. Like... the British were the most evil because they used propaganda in the first world war

No you are evil because you murder 17.000 dutch speaking boer children in the first concentration camps during the boer wars, and then later dragging the Americans into your war against the German Empire with propaganda and lies, acusing the Germans of cutting babies out of womans wombs and raping nuns etc... when you are no better.

Heck you guys enjoy beating little children up in Iraq, you get off on it

[Garbarsardar]

So, the British offered assistance in silencing the dissidents of the regime it bombed because of dissidents...?

They were terrorists back then. It was public knowledge.

British Government has a spotless record on human rights, that is why they so often lecture other countries on the topic.

Whether or not the UK Government accepts liability to what happened to this individual does not seem to me to be linked at all to whether or not the UK population is informed about this. I would go as far as to say that it is an absurd suggestion, especially when you actually used a British broadsheet as your source, telling everybody all about it (and indeed it's been a subject of coverage over the entire last year).

We obviously labour under different definitions of what is public knowledge. When the Government spends your hard earned cash, you don't expect them to explain to you why? I understand if you have given up on them, I would.

[removeduser_487563287433]

They were terrorists back then. It was public knowledge.

British Government has a spotless record on human rights, that is why they so often lecture other countries on the topic.

You are now just drifting into anglophobia. Why exactly do you think the British population is uninformed about this, despite you yourself sourcing British media coverage?

I mean, it is the BBC's headline article right now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20715507

Here's the BBC's Legal Editor's Q&A:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16533867

Here's an archive interview from over a year ago:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14923508

We obviously labour under different definitions of what is public knowledge. When the Government spends your hard earned cash, you don't expect them to explain to you why? I understand if you have given up on them, I would.

You seem totally confused. Is your issue that you believe British people are unaware of this, or will be kept unaware of this, or is your issue that the UK Government has not accepted liability? They are two very different things.

[magpie]

I think this all comes under the heading of Black Op,s Garb.
Deniability is all when it comes to the more seamy side of Government Policies.
Politicians like to express a wish but do not want the details which may lead to awkward questions.
A similar sort of situation is coming to light with past events in the North of Ireland and a series of murder,s.

[Garbarsardar]

You are now just drifting into anglophobia. Why exactly do you think the British population is uninformed about this, despite you yourself sourcing British media coverage?

I mean, it is the BBC's headline article right now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20715507

Here's the BBC's Legal Editor's Q&A:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16533867

Here's an archive interview from over a year ago:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14923508

Anglophobia? That's excellent.

So, let me understand: if someone criticizes the UK Government he is anglophobic. Unpatriotic, perhaps? Terrorist maybe? Do you try to protect me from extraordinary rendition, or you really believe that?

You are still equating the emergence of information on independent news sources with admission of responsibility. No, the British public has not been informed from his Government about the actions of his Government.

I think this all comes under the heading of Black Op,s Garb.
Deniability is all when it comes to the more seamy side of Government Policies.
Politicians like to express a wish but do not want the details which may lead to awkward questions.
A similar sort of situation is coming to light with past events in the North of Ireland and a series of murder,s.

Indeed.

[removeduser_487563287433]

So, let me understand: if someone criticizes the UK Government he is anglophobic.

No. But I think that to take a British broadsheet, reporting the matter critically, and then see extensive BBC coverage over the course of over a year, and then infer that the British or the British Government claims to be some perfect harbinger of human rights seems deranged.

No, the British public has not been informed from his Government about the actions of his Government.

Really? So... when the British Government has made statements on this matter to the press... what exactly is that, for you?

"In a statement, a spokesman for the Foreign Office said: "We can confirm that the government and the other defendants have reached a settlement with the claimants. There has been no admission of liability and no finding by any court of liability.""

You're implying some sort of secrecy... that doesn't exist.

[justicar5]

Really? So... when the British Government has made statements on this matter to the press... what exactly is that, for you?

"In a statement, a spokesman for the Foreign Office said: "We can confirm that the government and the other defendants have reached a settlement with the claimants. There has been no admission of liability and no finding by any court of liability.""

You're implying some sort of secrecy... that doesn't exist.

names, dates, times and prosecutions would be a start...

[Garbarsardar]

No. But I think that to take a British broadsheet, reporting the matter critically, and then see extensive BBC coverage over the course of over a year, and then infer that the British or the British Government claims to be some perfect harbinger of human rights seems deranged.

I seem to have tickled a nationalistic nerve reflex, I understand that you are upset. Let me now explain to you what exactly is "deranged".

It is deranged to claim that government admits liability and accepts responsibility by disclosing its mistakes, because what the government did is uncovered by the non-government press. Except if the British public elects newspapers and broadcast corporations, the fact that the press is stating that something did happen does not equate to the public being informed by the government. If the UK government was the sole source of news the public would have been kept in the dark. That is the title of the thread and that is the wish of the UK government.

Really? So... when the British Government has made statements on this matter to the press... what exactly is that, for you?

"In a statement, a spokesman for the Foreign Office said: "We can confirm that the government and the other defendants have reached a settlement with the claimants. There has been no admission of liability and no finding by any court of liability.""

You're implying some sort of secrecy... that doesn't exist.

Indeed. The UK government paid 2.2 million pounds from your money to a man because the UK government was not liable for anything that happened to him. Must have been charity then.

At least he was not sodomised, I presume. Not that I infer that the UK secret service is engaged at the exact same practices with the much maligned CIA. Clearly, not sodomising makes the UK version of extraordinary rendition much more politically correct.

Or as you correctly stated:

Do you think britain would have a secret service to protect us under those circumstances?

So let's make it simple. Do you agree that the actions of the British Government were in accordance with their mandate to protect you and that their non-admission of liability falls under the same mandate?

[removeduser_487563287433]

I seem to have tickled a nationalistic nerve reflex

Do you really want to go there? I mean, that is a stupid and self-destructive route, and I'm not sure you would claim to have had enough recent practice.

It is deranged to claim that government admits liability and accepts responsibility by disclosing its mistakes, because what the government did is uncovered by the non-government press.

Well, yes, it is deranged to claim that the Government admits liability, because it is incorrect, and I have tried my best to force sources on you showing that.

There is no Government press in the UK. The Government has made public statements throughout - this matter was not exposed. You don't appear to be aware of the basic facts of this beyond what I have rapidly taught you.

Except if the British public elects newspapers and broadcast corporations, the fact that the press is stating that something did happen does not equate to the public being informed by the government. If the UK government was the sole source of news the public would have been kept in the dark. That is the title of the thread and that is the wish of the UK government.

Again, I have quoted Government statements on this matter for you. You appear to be ignoring this, which is strange, because it contradicts you utterly that the UK Government is trying to keep people "in the dark".

Indeed. The UK government paid 2.2 million pounds from your money to a man because the UK government was not liable for anything that happened to him. Must have been charity then.

I can't change how law works. It's a legal settlement paid to get the plaintiff to cease legal action. That is quite separate from accepting liability.

Furthermore, you appear to be seeking an emotional response by repeating phrases along the lines of "taxpayers' money" or "your money". You won't get one. It's money well spent.

At least he was not sodomised, I presume. Not that I infer that the UK secret service is engaged at the exact same practices with the much maligned CIA. Clearly, not sodomising makes the UK version of extraordinary rendition much more politically correct.

And now you are going off-topic in order to associate unrelated events to this, in order to again, presumably, illicit an emotional rather than a rational response.

So let's make it simple. Do you agree that the actions of the British Government were in accordance with their mandate to protect you

I don't know. For obvious reasons Governments, and that is all Governments on Earth, don't discuss intelligence matters. So I don't know why this was done. I think we can safe to say it wasn't without motivation, and we can only speculate on what the British and US Governments got in return.

and that their non-admission of liability falls under the same mandate?

I don't know. Neither do you. That at least is abundantly clear.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I'm not sure how names would be important, as this is an action against the UK Government not individuals. Dates are known, I think. As for prosecutions, this settlement concludes the dissident's legal action, but another is still seeking legal action, so that could still happen.

Honestly... did anybody think to do remedial research about this?

[justicar5]

I'm not sure how names would be important, as this is an action against the UK Government not individuals. Dates are known, I think. As for prosecutions, this settlement concludes the dissident's legal action, but another is still seeking legal action, so that could still happen.

Honestly... did anybody think to do remedial research about this?

It would be at the very least 'nice' to know who was actively involved in the torture of dissidents (not names of agents, but those who gave the orders).

[removeduser_487563287433]

Right. So not only have you not bothered to read anything about this, you're assuming the allegation is that British agents tortured somebody?