‘Feet or Buttocks?’ Shocking Video Shows Gaddafi’s Son Being Tortured in Libyan Prison
A video that shows Saadi Gaddafi, son of Libya’s late Muammar Qaddafi, being tortured in jail has been condemned by lawyers and rights groups.
The nine-minute video shows Saadi, 42, in a green tracksuit, being hooked up to an improvised rack, apparently while in custody at Tripoli’s maximum security al-Hadba prison. His bare feet are then caned.
Segments show him sitting blindfolded and forced to listen to screams of other detainees being beaten in an adjacent room.
WARNING: Some may find elements of video disturbing
linked to Hillary!
“It raises serious concerns about the methods used to interrogate al-Saadi Gaddafi and other detainees at al-Hadba prison,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East Director of Human Rights Watch.
“The Tripoli authorities need to urgently establish exactly what did occur.”
The video’s release, by Arabic network Clear News, has alarmed lawyers worried about the treatment of other detainees at al-Hadba, where former Gaddafi-era officials are held.
“This is a shocking video that raises questions about conditions inside the prison,” said Karim Khan QC, London-based lawyer for Libya’s former prime minister al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi, also at al-Hadba. “The international community needs to demand a full investigation.”
Gaddafi is blindfolded by his captors, perhaps to prevent him from identifying those who are about to torture him. Photo: YouTube/Clear News
Saadi is facing trial on charges including killing a football player while head of Libya’s football federation. During his father’s time in power, he established a reputation as a playboy and had a brief unsuccessful career playing for several Italian football clubs.
The undated video, consisting of several segments, was apparently made by Saadi’s captors, some of whom are seen in the footage in military uniform. At one stage, a captor asks Saadi if he wants to be beaten on the “feet or buttocks”. He answers: “What kind of question is this? My feet.”
Al-Hadba is held by Libya Dawn, a militia alliance that controls Tripoli and is battling forces of the internationally recognised government based in the east of the country.
Gaddafi pleads with his captors as a metal rack with restraining straps is dragged into the room. Photo: YouTube/Clear News
Gaddafi is bound and helpless, his feet strapped to the rack. Photo: YouTube/Clear News
The release of the video comes a week after Tripoli authorities pronounced death sentences for Saadi’s older brother, Saif al-Islam , and eight other former Gaddafi-era officials, including Mahmoudi, after a trial condemned by rights groups and the United Nations as lacking due process. Saif al-Islam was tried in absentia, since he has been held since 2011 by a former rebel group in Zintan, a region beyond Tripoli’s control. Right groups say the verdict was riddled with flaws.
Despite the manner of his downfall, still enjoys pockets of goodwill.
In a rare demonstration, supporters in the eastern city of Benghazi on Tuesday shouted “Muammar, Muammar”, but dispersed after opponents opened fire with guns and hurled rocks.
No-one appeared to have been hurt among dozens of supporters of Gaddafi.
The Gaddafi supporters waved pictures of the man who had ruled for 42 years, and demanded the release of Saif al-Islam.
“Only God, Muammar and Libya!” the crowd chanted and waved the green flags of the old regime.
They dispersed after other residents, some of them carrying the Libyan national flag, opened fire.
Residents said this was the first protest of Gaddafi loyalists in Libya’s second-largest city, the cradle of the revolution, since 2011.
Frustration has been building among Libyans with the country’s chaos as two governments fight for power with the help of former rebels who have fallen out along political, tribal and regional lines.
Benghazi has been especially hard hit as fighting between forces allied to the official government based in the east and Islamist groups has closed the port, choking off wheat, food and petrol imports.
Sidney Blumenthal, a long-time friend of the Clintons, claimed David Cameron backed a French plot to create a break away zone eastern Libya
Britain hid secret MI6 plan to break up Libya from US, Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton received several warnings from a friend that Britain was acting deceitfully in Libya Photo: Reuters
By Raf Sanchez, Washington
Britain acted deceitfully in Libya and David Cameron authorised an MI6 plan to “break up” the country,a close confidante of Hillary Clinton claimed in a series of secret reports sent to the then-secretary of state.
Sidney Blumenthal, a long-time friend of the Clintons, emailed Mrs Clinton on her personal account to warn her that Britain was “game playing”in Libya.
Mr Blumenthal had no formal role in the US State Department and his memos to Mrs Clinton were sourced to his own personal contacts in the Middle East and Europe.
Nevertheless, Mrs Clinton seems to have taken some of his reports seriously and forwarded them on to senior diplomats working at the highest levels of American foreign policy.
The first of Mr Blumenthal’s Libya memos – which wereleaked to the New York Times – was sent on April 8, 2011, as rebel forces struggled to make gains against Gaddafi’s troops, and had “UK game playing” in the subject line.
The memo warned that British diplomats and MI6 officers were maintaining secret back channels with the Gaddafi regime “in an effort to protect the British position in the event that the rebellion settles into a stalemate”.
Muammar Gaddafi / Photo: REUTERS
Mr Blumenthal claimed that MI6 spies were in discussions with Saif Gaddafi, the dictator’s son, “regarding future relations between the two countries if he takes over power from his father and implements reforms”.
The memo also claims that the Libyan rebels were deeply suspicious of Britain and suspected that the UK would be “satisfied with a stalemate” in which Gaddafi or his family stayed in power in part of the country.
Their suspicions were stoked when Gaddafi’s foreign minister, Moussa Koussa,defected to Britain in March 2011, Mr Blumenthal claimed. The rebels apparently saw the defection as evidence that Britain had secret lines of communication with the highest ranks of the Gaddafi regime.
Extract from the email:
Eight minutes after receiving Mr Blumenthal’s email, Mrs Clinton forwarded it on to one of her most senior aides. She did not comment on the allegations about Britain. A week later, she met with William Hague, the then-foreign secretary at a Nato summit in Berlin.
Perhaps unbeknownst to Mr Blumenthal, who was working for Bill Clinton’s global charity at the time and not privy to classified information, the CIA was maintaining its own back channelsto Gaddafi.
Michael Morell, the CIA’s deputy director, spoke regularly to Abdullah Senussi, the head of Gaddafi’s internal intelligence service, even as US aircraft were bombing regime forces on the battlefield.
Mr Blumenthal emailed Mrs Clinton about Britain again on March 8, 2012 with the subject: “France & UK behind Libya breakup”.
By this time Gaddafi was dead and his regime had collapsed and a provisional government, the Libyan National Transitional Council, was trying to assert its authority across the country.
Mr Blumenthal told Mrs Clinton that MI6 and its French counterpart, the DGSE, were secretly encouraging rebels in eastern Libya to establish “a semi-autonomous zone” outside the control of the new government.
The plot was allegedly instigated by advisors to the French president,Nicolas Sarkozy, who believed that the new Libyan government was not “rewarding” French businesses for France’s role in overthrowing Gaddafi.
He alleged that MI6 joined in the plan “at the instruction of the office of Prime MinisterDavid Cameron“.
“The French and British intelligence officials believe that the semi-autonomous regime in the eastern city of Benghazi will be able to organise business opportunities in that region,” he wrote.
Extract from the email:
Mrs Clinton seems to have been sceptical about the report and forwarded it on to her aide Jake Sullivan with the comment: “This one strains credulity. What do you think?”
Mrs Clinton’s aides appear unimpressed with the stream of emails coming from Mr Blumenthal and Mr Sullivan replied that the MI6 allegations sounded like “like a thin conspiracy theory”.
Mrs Clinton was asked about the emails during a campaign appearance in Iowa and said Mr Blumenthal had been “a friend of mine for a very long time”.
“He sent unsolicited emails which I passed on in some instances. That’s just part of the give and take,” she said.
The Foreign Office did not respond to a request for comment.
Mr Blumenthal memos have aroused interest in the US because they appear to show a blurring of the lines between Mrs Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton Foundation set up by her husband.
Although he had no role in the State Department, he was working for the Clinton Foundation and various political groupsallied with Mrs Clinton, according to the New York Times.
Mr Blumenthal worked in Bill Clinton’s White House and was known for fierce loyalty to both the Clintons and for aggressively confronting their critics.
Aides to Barack Obama prevented Mrs Clinton from bringing him into the State Department in 2009, believing that he would only stir up trouble after the bitterly-fought election battle between Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton.
Libyan fighters drive through a destroyed military base used by Muammar Gaddafi’s army and subsequently bombed by NATO, southeast of Tripoli, September 2, 2011.
In memory of Col. Muammar Qaddafi was that of a Libyan revolutionary and socialist politician who does not beat around the bush, telling it straight to your face and of course such attitude can be perceived by some as dictatorial.
If we look around Africa Continent, the closest to Col. Qaddafi is late Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana who identified that African Continent is partially free politically and most definitely not economically and that Africans need to “emancipate itself from mental slavery and that none but ourselves can free our mind” (Pan-African).
Some of my readers may wonder why the comparison of Gaddafi and Nkrumah? It was what they stood for and not who they are and by that I mean they stood for the unity of Africa as a continent through economic empowerment such as increased trades between countries in the continent as well as political and technological cooperation.
Qaddafi focused on key areas that can help prolong average life span of Libyans such as good road network; good healthcare facilities, better housing so that Libyans will not sleep rough, and he eliminated poverty focusing on those Libyans who are unable to work due to disability or ill health.
Qaddafi’s effort to stabilize Libya by bringing all different tribes together and also working with poverty-stricken West African nations did not gain popularity in the West (news blackout) because it was distorting their (West) plan for Africa and Middle East, hence incitement of tribal unrest and counter coup in Libya in the past.
They (West) use their propaganda machine (Western Media) to turn Gaddafi into Mr. Jekyll and Hyde (man with two faces) in the eyes of his neighbors as well as around the world portraying him (Gaddafi) as a tyrant/dictator/terrorist hated by his own people and the world over.
In their “War against Terrorism,” they finally succeeded to get behind Qaddafi’s skin particularly after 9/11 because he started working with them behind the scenes hence made him more enemies than friends within the Arab community because he allowedthem (West) access to Libya and its facilities (marking the beginning of his downfall).
However, the financial and technical cooperation enjoyed by many West African countries under the government of Qaddafi must be acknowledged, – countries such as Sierra Leone, Guinea-Conakry, Chad, Niger, Mali, Senegal, and Burkina Faso – because it shows the other side of Qaddafi that the world did not see.
The West also enjoyed financial support from him and his family and without a doubt it was a subject on the lips of many European and West African leaders, either they like it or not, and there were individuals who had benefited from different educational funds he supported around the world.
I was fortunate to know Libyans from Benghazi and Tripoli who acknowledged that the government of Qaddafi gave them the chance to be true Libyans because they had peace and were able to move freely as a citizen without fear – unlike now after his demise.
The awakening that gripped Tunisia and Egypt was to the West’s detriment but perfect timing to incite regime change in Libya, because they already had their agents on the ground in Libya, making it easy for them to hijack the awakening and turning it into regime change in Libya.
The people of Benghazi under the supervision of the West seemed to be ideal to start the revolution for regime change; after all they had an old score to settle with Qaddafi even though majority from that part of the nation could vouch for political, economic and social peace enjoyed under Qaddafi and even Qaddafi had a home in Benghazi.
Some Western countries feared that allowing Qaddafi to continue as Libyan leader meant they had a lot to lose and one of such fears was over their financial indebtedness to Qaddafi, his family and people of Libya because repaying this money could deal a bigger blow to their own economy.
Also, deposing him would leave a power vacuum considering the volatile tribal division in Libya and an opportunity for them to have a say in Libya’s oil distribution network, which would in turn help sustain their businesses and economy through the period of Western economic crunch.
Like the situation with Mali, France took the lead and of course there was more than just political undertone for former French president’s involvement in Libya, some of which came out in French press while others did not make it to the print (News blackout?).
It was obvious that Qaddafi had made many enemies in the Middle East, hence not much support came from that direction to help bring political solution, and of course Qaddafi had himself to blame because becoming Mr. Jekyll and Hyde for the West always end in regret.
In the heat of it all, even Libya’s strong ally, Russia, could not do much to resuscitate his government because by this time there had been promises and counter promises madeto Qaddafi’s aides who were breaking ranks more than he anticipated and Western media were splashing news of defection daily, hence his government was doomed.
Qaddafi losing grip on power was a combination of many factors, amongst which was his close ties forged with West during Iraq war when he allowed Libya to be used strategically against al-Qaeda, and by conniving with the West he carved enemies for himself within the Arab community, hence Westcollaborating to oust him seemed imminent because he lacked popular support. It doesn’t matter if he did it to get out of the embargo done to Libya for over 10 years.
The Western media news blackout on turn of events during the Libya revolution and news propaganda about atrocities purported to have been committed by Qaddafi’s supporters did not favour him, hence common conversation in public places around the world was that he must go.
Africa may not have a voice, but comparing news heard from mainstream Western media and online news, it was obvious that the continent is well aware of the Western double standard.
Africa and the Middle East have been creating awareness in the mind of their younger generations that there is double standard in news reporting by the Western media, and one of the ways to identify existence of such double standard is for this younger audience to compare online reporting with mainstream Western media before forming opinion.
The Western leaders censor Western media to only report news they want the world to hear and Western media knows how to put it across nations of the earth fancifully and convincingly with no regards for psychological damage to listeners, and those networks that did not join the bandwagon suffered a witch hunt.
Qaddafi was a victim of such Western news propaganda and spreading lies is a continuous process of reporting by Western media and most recent is the reporting by a Western media showing a picture of mass killings to have been carried out by Syrian soldiers, but it was later proved to be untrue because picture from previous reporting were used.
People from Africa and the Middle East are more aware now that accusation made by the West against activities of leaders or nations may be untrue, hence they now use news comparison for verification before forming opinion.
The Western media have lost its popularity amongst many individuals from Africa and the Middle East, because it has become apparent that Western media through its satellite channels has been feeding them with propaganda and lies, hence they are switching from mainstream satellite stations onto the Internet for latest news and update.
It is ironic to see that Qaddafi, who was a dictator/tyrant hated by his people, could lend money to Western nations and yet they did not refuse to accept the money neither did they decline to use Libya as a base to torture individuals accused of terrorism.
Muammar Qaddafi is dead. Saif al-Islam Qaddafi is incarcerated, hence another news blackout on the real truth behind why the West sped up regime change in Libya using military force and under the disguise of the United Nation Security Council.
The West claimed that Libya is now a free nation with peace and stability after Qaddafi’s death, but there is no stable unity government that includes all tribes in Libya and moreover the United State suffers its first casualty in Libya in 2012.
Libya has been politically volatile since the awakening and while Western media only touch on it after the death of the US diplomat.