UK court rules Gaddafi opponent cannot sue MI6 as it would harm 'national interests'

A Libyan revolutionary who claims he was unlawfully abducted in a joint MI6-CIA 2004 operation cannot sue the UK government in an English court for fear the case could damage Britain’s relations with the US, a London judge has ruled.
  Although the High Court judge has concluded that the former
  leader of an Islamist group which fought the Gaddafi regime,
  Abdul-Hakim Belhaj, had a "well-founded claim" against
  intelligence officers, the case appeared to fall beyond the
  jurisdiction of the English court.
  
  Peregrine Simon said he dismissed the case because the US and the
  UK officials were involved in the rendition of Belhaj and his
  pregnant wife to Libya in 2004, therefore the case could
  "jeopardize this country’s international relations and
  national security interests."
  The legal firm representing Belhaj has also stated that the
  ruling was made not to "damage relations with the US."
  
  Belhaj said he will nevertheless "continue to seek the
  truth" and will appeal.
  
  He became Tripoli's military commander in the 2011, after the
  rebels took over the capital and the Libyan leader was ousted
  from power. In 2004 Belhaj – the then-leader of the anti-Gaddafi
  Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – and his wife were detained by US
  intelligence officers at Bangkok airport, when they were to fly
  to London to claim asylum, and returned to Libya where Belhaj was
  tortured and jailed for six years, until Gaddafi was ousted.

  According to files discovered in Gaddafi's archives after his
  fall, Belhaj was arrested in Thailand and returned to Libya
  allegedly thanks to a British tip-off. Belhaj claims the UK
  helped the US to arrange his rendition. He launched legal action
  against the UK government, the former head of counter-terrorism
  at intelligence agency MI6, Mark Allen, as well as former Foreign
  Secretary Jack Straw. In March the Libyan man offered to settle
  his case for only £3 and an apology.
  
  The judge who concluded that pursuing the case was likely to
  damage Britain's national interest explained that he came to the
  conclusion "with hesitation," as there appeared to be a
  "potentially well-founded claim that the UK authorities were
  directly implicated in the extra-ordinary rendition of the
  claimants."
  
  "Parliamentary oversight and criminal investigations are not
  adequate substitutes for access to, and a decision by, the
  court," he added.
  
  The judge mentioned he had to decide that "the conduct of US
  officials acting outside the US was unlawful, in circumstances
  where there are no clear and incontrovertible standards for doing
  so and where there is incontestable evidence that such an inquiry
  would be damaging to the national interest."
  
  According to Belhaj, however, the judge "was obviously
  horrified by what happened to my wife and I," while the
  solicitor representing him at firm Leigh Day said that "if
  this judgment stands, it will mean that anything our security
  services do alongside the US government is totally immune from
  the British legal system, even if MI6 officers arrange the
  rendition of a pregnant woman into the arms of Gaddafi."
  
  Amnesty International said it was an "extremely disappointing
  decision."
"We’re increasingly concerned that there’s never going to be
  any genuine accountability for the UK’s involvement in torture
  and other ill-treatment overseas. Avenues of investigation and
  redress are being closed down rapidly, despite these being
  incredibly serious allegations about UK officials’ involvement in
  torture and other ill-treatment," Amnesty official John
  Dalhuisen said.

"Very general arguments about national security are being
  used to prevent the truth coming out and justice being done.
  There can be no immunity for serious human rights
  violations," he added.
  
  In October, a complaint saying that the UK's intelligence agency
  GCHQ intercepted legal advice, which was privileged to be kept
  strictly private, was lodged by lawyers representing two Libyan
  families, including Abdel Belhaj's, among them. The claim pointed
  out that two of the clients, Abdel Belhaj and Sami al-Saadi, were
  prominent leaders of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group during the
  Libyan revolution, which makes them "likely to be of interest" to
  UK intelligence agencies. MI5, the Secret Intelligence Service,
  MI6, the Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, the UK
  Home Secretary and the UK Foreign Secretary were listed as
  respondents. The complaint was lodged with UK’s most secret
  court, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which examines
  complaints about the intelligence services and government use of
  covert surveillance. Most of the tribunal’s hearings are held in
  private, but the lawyers called for the case to be heard in open
  court. Al-Saadi and his family have settled his claim against the
  UK government for a payment of 2.2 million pounds.
  
  Earlier this month it was revealed that British intelligence in
  Afghanistan was also aware of the US mistreating terror suspect
  detainees after 9/11 attacks, but was told not to intervene.
  According to a new inquiry, set up by Prime Minister David
  Cameron, the UK might have been "inappropriately
  involved" in US rendition practices. The inquiry looked into
  20,000 security documents and followed allegations of wrongdoing
  on the part of MI5 and MI6, as the US prosecuted its war against
  terror after the 2001 attack. The episodes were said to have
  involved torture, mistreatment and illegal transfers. The report
  found that British intelligence officers were fully aware of US
  mistreatment of suspected militants in Afghanistan, Iraq and
  Guantanamo Bay, but were instructed to turn a blind eye out of
  the fear of offending Washington.













