Describing Libya as an "ally" of the US is an abuse of the term.
Libya being a partner in the rendition process:
While the Human Rights Watch researchers were unable to interview al-Libi, they did interview four other Libyan prisoners, at Abu Salim prison on April 27, whom the CIA had sent to Libya under the rendition process in 2004 to 2006. The men claimed that before they were sent to Libya, US forces had tortured them in detention centers in Afghanistan, and supervised their torture in Pakistan and Thailand. Human Rights Watch
Libya, Iran, Sudan and Syria have all provided terrorist-related intelligence since 9/11. In this context, the USA finds itself in partnership with rogue states that have changed their view on international terrorism. In 2003, Libyan leader Moammar Quadafi pronounced Islamism "a threat to all regimes in the region" and began work with the United States that ulitmately led to the shutting down of Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation network. Source from the US Naval war college, PDF
So pray tell me, how else would you classify this?
Ally in the sense of having a common enemy, perhaps, but "ally" usually has a connotation of friendship. In this case we'd be "allies" in the same sense that the US and Britain were "allies" with Stalin and the Soviets during WWII - and that started falling apart even before the official end of the war.
The official line, at least, is that Libya has renounced terrorism and is now working with others to suppress it. Is that really so inconceivable? Gaddafi doesn't want a bunch of Islamist extremists muscling in on his territory any more than he wants the Americans to install a western democracy there.
For fuck's sake, Thanas, it's not like nations that don't like each other have never worked in a common cause before. Are you now going to claim that the US and the USSR were staunch allies because of the Apollo-Soyuz joint missions?
But more specifically - your cite for the rendition process mentions torture in "Afghanistan, and supervised their torture in Pakistan and Thailand" but not in Libya. I can certainly see the possibility that torture occurred in Libya but that particular
cite does not support it, though it does support torture in other places. If you're propping up your argument shouldn't you use cites that explicitly mention torture in Libya? Seriously, you couldn't find something more explicit from Human Rights Watch?
As for your second one - it shows that states that are normally in conflict with each other are, apparently, willing to work together to prevent at least some types of terrorism (presumably that which potentially targets all of them). If you use that to support the idea that Libya and the US are now "allies" then you will have to assert that the US is also allies with Iran
of all places as, apparently, they have done the same thing.
All your cites prove is that the US and Libya have cooperated on certain matters, which the US has been known to do with explicit enemies (such as the USSR) as well as with its allies. Way to blow it out of proportion. Unless you have something better than that.
And yes, I'm open to the possibility that the US and Libya were both involved in mistreatment of people but like I said, some actual proof would be nice to see when such accusations are put on the table.