US & UK Intelligence Agencies Cosied up to Gaddaffi

[Architect]

Ah well, so now it seems (note the caution there) that our own intelligence agencies might have been a bit too paly with ol' murdered Gaddaffi:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14774533

One wonders what Robert Menéndez, Frank Lautenberg, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand will make of this.

It is not often - ever - that I ever quote that eejit Georgeous George but I almost feel drawn to some of the toad's finer moments when he was before the US Senate hearing.

Still, nice to see that rendition means that one of the key players for control of Libya is likely to be more than a little upset with us all. Nothing like the risk of another bunch of mad fundies with a grudge against the West...

 

[Caustic Logic]

What are we supposed to be getting from this? That working with the nation of Libya in any way was bad? It was to be a blank spot on the map for years and years? Libya was the first world government to put out an arrest warrant for Osama bin Laden, in 1998. They've been serious about al Qaeda since, even though one of their own towns (Dernah) sent more fighters, per capita, to aQ in Iraq than any other city anywhere. So it's a little confusing, but that was in the Gaddafi-hating part of Libya (east of Benghazi), and the top aQ operatives from there joined the rebeliion and got US/NATO air support.

But they seem(ed) a natural and useful ally in that one regard anyway.

 

[Architect]

There are two things that we can take away from this.

Firstly, the very vocal indignation which some quarters of the US establishment has expressed regarding the UK getting a bit cosy with Gaddaffi does not appear to have been shared across the board. In short, there appeaers to be a whiff of hypocricy. Perhaps Mssrs Menéndez, Lautenberg, Schumer and Gillibrand might wish to put their own house in order before hurling around ill-informed and prejudged accusations about others.

Secondly, it's an example of the US enganging in rendition - which I think we would all agree is of (at best) doubtful legality - with ultimately problematical results, inasmuch as a chap who apepars to be one of the incoming PTB in the Libyian regime will in all likelihood have a bit of a chip on his shoulder. Whilst this is speculation, I note that the fundies generally don't like the West to begin with and this is just going to help soooo much.

 

[WildCat]

So now that the Monday morning quarterbacking is over, what about next Sunday's game?

Are we supposed to engage Iran, or are we supposed to isolate them and have nothing to do with them until they become a liberal western democracy? What about China?

Or is this just about whining about the past with no implications at all for the future?

 

[Rolfe]

Nobody at all interested in discussing the hypocrisy of the people Architect mentioned? That was kind of the point of the OP.

Rolfe.

 

[WildCat]

Nobody at all interested in discussing the hypocrisy of the people Architect mentioned? That was kind of the point of the OP.

Rolfe.

So what lessons do we draw from this when dealing with Iran and China?

Are we hypocrites for not boycotting Iranian oil? For not sanctioning China for its many human rights abuses?

Or is this just about complaining about the past with no implications at all for present and future dealings?

 

[Rolfe]

WildCat, there have been countless accusations that the Scottish government acted to further Gadaffi's interests. Accusations which are completely without foundation. Some of us on this board have been repeatedly accused of being "whores for Gadaffi" because we dare to point out that a Scottish court came to an irrational and perverse verdict.

Foremost among the accusers in the former instance have been the senators Architect named. Frankly, we as a nation have been subjected to the most scurrilous abuse, simply for following our own internal procedures as regards release of prisoners on licence.

All the while, CIA personnel were writing letters starting, "Dear Musa...."

Getting all haughty about "implications for present and future dealings" is nothing but misdirection. I want to know what all those Americans who were monstering Scotland for allowing a dying prisoner to return home, think about their own government's dealings with Gadaffi.

Rolfe.

 

[WildCat]

WildCat, there have been countless accusations that the Scottish government acted to further Gadaffi's interests. Accusations which are completely without foundation. Some of us on this board have been repeatedly accused of being "whores for Gadaffi" because we dare to point out that a Scottish court came to an irrational and perverse verdict.

Foremost among the accusers in the former instance have been the senators Architect named. Frankly, we as a nation have been subjected to the most scurrilous abuse, simply for following our own internal procedures as regards release of prisoners on licence.

All the while, CIA personnel were writing letters starting,"Dear Musa...."

Getting all haughty about "implications for present and future dealings" is nothing but misdirection. I want to know what all those Americans who were monstering Scotland for allowing a dying prisoner to return home, think about their own government's dealings with Gadaffi.

Rolfe.

It's one thing to deal with monsters to gain allies against an even more monstrous common foe, and quite another to deal with monsters in order to get favorable business contracts.

 

[Rolfe]

And Scotland did not "deal with monsters in order to gain favourable business contacts". There have been several inquiries into this, and it simply did not happen.

You're suddenly OK about dealing with monsters if it's yor own government doing it, I see.

Rolfe.

 

[WildCat]

And Scotland did not "deal with monsters in order to gain favourable business contacts". There have been several inquiries into this, and it simply did not happen.

Oh, it's all just a happy coincidence. (wink wink)

You're suddenly OK about dealing with monsters if it's yor own government doing it, I see.

Where did I say that?

So what about next Sunday's game? Do we engage Iran, or do we break off all contact with them? After all, this thread is just intellectual masturbation if there's no future policy implications, yes?

 

[Architect]

Let's break this down, Wildcat.

Do you agree with the stance taken by Menendez & co. regarding the release of the Lockerbie "bomber" and in particualr their complaint that this was part of a wider deal being done with the Libyan government of the time?

 

[Architect]

Oh, it's all just a happy coincidence. (wink wink)

With respect, that statement is illogical and without substantiation. The Scottish Government is led my an SNP administration which is diametrically opposed to the Unionist Westminster agenda(s). It has nothing to gain by a "Deal in the Desert".

This thread is not, however, about your limited grasp of UK politics. It is specifically to address the hypocrisy that senior members of the US government have objected to the perception that the UK did deals with the Libyan regime when it now appears that the US intelligence services were - if the current paperwork is to be believed - rather closer to them than might have been inspected. The word "chummy" springs to mind, nothwitstanding US accusations that the chap was a gun-totting mass-murdering Grade A nutter.

 

[WildCat]

Let's break this down, Wildcat.

Do you agree with the stance taken by Menendez & co. regarding the release of the Lockerbie "bomber" and in particualr their complaint that this was part of a wider deal being done with the Libyan government of the time?

I'm really not ionterested in specific cases so much as the broader policy implications.

If it's bad to engage dictators and oppressive governments, why are we engaging Iran and China?

The OP paints it as all black or all white, with no shades of grey. Now that Moammar is on the way out it's easy to say we shouldn't have done this or that or the other thing. But it's not so obvious in the present tense, is it? Is it proper to engage Iran and China? If the OP is to set the tone, we should not engage Iran and China, we should be shunning them because they are brutal oppressive serial human rights abusers, yes?

 

[Architect]

I think that OP is perfectly clear, if a little bad for typos.

1. Menendex & Co. take VERY public swipes at Scotland for releasing Megrahi, claiming UK doing deals with Libya.

2. It now turns out the the US intelligence forces were happily working away with the Libyan security services including the rendition of subjects.

3. Menendez & co. now strangely silent.

4. Well knock me down with a feather, Gorgeous George was right when he got laid into their hypocrisy.

 

[Policenaut]

Regarding the rendition aspect of this...yes it's wrong. But is it worse than our policy now which is to bomb al qaeda targets with drones? No prisoners clears up the problem with what you are going to do with them if you capture them. Of course, you are also possibly losing out on intelligence and not to forget you are KILLING them. Death or torture...hmm.

 

[Rolfe]

3. Menendez & co. now strangely silent.

Let's hope this happy state of affairs continues.

4. Well knock me down with a feather, Gorgeous George was right when he got laid into their hypocrisy.

Gorgeous George has been right somewhat more often than a stopped clock in this area. Not that he's not completely barking himself, but just sayin'.

Rolfe.

 

[Architect]

But this isn't about the rights or wrongs of illegal rendition. This is about whether Menendez et al are hypocrites given the US tried to give us a very vocal battering for allegedly "doing deals" with Libya whilst the USG appear to have cosied up to them.

Pots and kettles spring to mind.

 

[Rolfe]

Just expanding somewhat on the hypocrisy part, my all-time favourite was the attitude of the Brown regime at the time of Megrahi's release. It was blazingly obvious that these guys wanted Megrahi on the next plane to Tripoli, as they didn't really care what legislation this happened under. They'd been trying to make it happen under the PTA, but the Scottish government had told them where to stick it.

This was dragged up by Menendez and his fellow-travellers, and recently, whining that they had proof that the Brown regime (in 2007) put pressure on the Salmond government to release Megrahi. That's true of course. What they don't add is that Kenny MacAskill told them to get stuffed. And specifically, because he knew that the US Lockerbie relatives had been promised that Megrahi would serve his sentence in Scotland. (The Brown/Straw attitude to this was so what, we're not bound by what a previous administration promised.)

So when the compassionate release came up (two years later), what did Brown do? He said NOTHING AT ALL. It was obvious he was holding his breath, terrified to say anything that might dissuade the Scottish government from granting compassionate release. Then the minute the plane took off, he started foaming at the mouth with faux outrage.

Menendez, Lautenberg at al, are hypocrites, for sure. Brown and Straw and the Westminster government, far more so.

Rolfe.

 

[Architect]

Gorgeous George has been right somewhat more often than a stopped clock in this area.

I've just reread some of his material on the Iraqi oil inquiry and whilst I trust the oily (cough) little toad as far as I can see him, it seems to be that his accusations of hypocrisy by the USG are certainly aimed in the right direction.

That is, however, a different issue. How soon do you think it will be before Menendez & Co. demand a Senate inquiry on their own intelligence services' dealings? After all, they were more than happy to propose a resolution which:

call(ed) on the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council to call for a Special Session to address current events in Libya, as well as systemic human rights abuses by the Libyan government under the leadership of Muammar Gadhafi;

Would said abuses included, for example, the rendition and incarceration of Islamic militants apparently effected with the assistance of the US and UK intelligence services? Is the Session going to pursue those invovled wherever required, including right up the steps of the Capitol or the gates of no. 10?

Or can we expect a suddent attack of amnesia from Senator Menendez and the USG's US-based chums?

 

[WildCat]

I think that OP is perfectly clear, if a little bad for typos.

1. Menendex & Co. take VERY public swipes at Scotland for releasing Megrahi, claiming UK doing deals with Libya.

I had no idea this was specifically about the Megrahi case from the OP>

2. It now turns out the the US intelligence forces were happily working away with the Libyan security services including the rendition of subjects.

3. Menendez & co. now strangely silent.

4. Well knock me down with a feather, Gorgeous George was right when he got laid into their hypocrisy.

Yeah, that Galloway is a strong opponent of hypocrisy!

Nobody should be surprised that deals are made with despots/dictators/assorted bad guys for economic and political reasons. After all, western democracies are quite happy to make deals with Iran and China and Saudi Arabia. You shouldn't need George Galloway to tell you this.

But what sets this case apart is the impression that Scotland was trading justice for 270 murder victims in exchange for an oil contract, which crosses the line of acceptability for many people. It's one thing to trade money or goods, quite another to trade justice.