Britain Pays Off Libyan Torture Victim for 2004 Rendition
Foreign Office: No Admission of Liability in Payoff
The British government has agreed to a $3.5 million payment to Libyan torture victim Sami Saadi to settle Saadi’s ongoing lawsuit against them for kidnapping him and his family and sending them to Libya to be tortured.
Saadi came forward in September of 2011, after fellow rendition victim Abdelhakim Belhaj brought details to light about the US and Britain sending dissidents to Gadhafi-era Libya to be disappeared into their brutal prison system.
Saadi had lived in Britain as a member of a banned opposition group in Libya, and later moved to Hong Kong. The British Consulate told him and his family they wanted him to return to Britain for his safety, but once they arrived they were arrested and shipped to Libya, where Saadi was tortured for years. He has been hospitalized for years in Tunisia recovering from his mistreatment.
Saadi says he took the payment because he wanted to avoid putting his family through the stress of a long trial, and because he needed money to pay for his medical treatment. The British Foreign Office says the payoff is not an admission of “liability” for Saadi’s abuse.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- Poll Shows Overwhelming Opposition to US Attacking Syria - May 22nd, 2013
- Kerry Confident Syria Counter-Offensive Will Fail - May 22nd, 2013
- Karzai Gives India 'Wish List' of Military Gear - May 22nd, 2013
- Report: Obama May Restart Gitmo Transfers - May 22nd, 2013
- Ten Dead in Latest Round of North Lebanon Fighting - May 22nd, 2013





persnipoles
December 13th, 2012 at 8:02 pm
Interesting they'd say that… …their take on their own 'liability' is irrelevant; it seems they've effectively admitted culpability (unless you think Joe Shmoe could get a payout on that pretext)…. S'ppose the lies they got out of him were operationally useful? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pgobHBv5qM "operationally useful [...] nobody ever argued with me when I said it was untrue; but [...] it was operationally useful."
John Watson
December 14th, 2012 at 1:43 am
The British Foreign Office must be full of shit to dare say that the payoff is not an admission of ''liability''.
Or are we to understand that it is an admission of guilt.
Using the taxpayer's money to pay for the crimes of a few scoundrels: they are the ones who should be paying, and not the people.
MvGuy
December 14th, 2012 at 5:58 am
Nice comment persnipoles…. Yaa…… operationally useful….. Why would ANYONE trust/believe the British…….. Look at that face….. What is his agenda…??? He is a "conservative"….. What is that? Is sending FAMILIES off for torture a conservative value or just…[maybe].."operationally useful… " What operations are these…anyway…. ??? Maybe someone should have had the presence of mind to as Phillip Zelikow if "for the U.S., did 911 offer operational usefulness…???
MvGuy
December 14th, 2012 at 6:12 am
WOW………………………..!!!!!!!!!! DEATH PENALTY FOR WEARING THE KILT…. When we look in Cameron's eyes we should remember this kilt edict is part of WHAT/WHO ……..HE!!! represents…….. The implakable power of EMPIRE…!!! Don't even think of ANY defiant behavior or we will KILL YOU… and STILL … To this DAY….!!! TODAY…TODAY…TODAY…!!!!! TORTURE YOUR FAMILY……… Rape your CHILDREN….!!! These are our NEW friends ….. Now that ……WE have BECOME THEM….
guest
December 14th, 2012 at 11:28 am
Why should the tax payer foot this bill. Should it not be paid by the people who made it possible or thru the pension plans of those organisations responsible.