Transnational Repression 81 want to do it because they understood the consequence would’ve been very severe if you were visiting Syria or they might visit your family members in Syria. The regime also punished Dr. Radwan Ziadeh, who had traveled from Syria to Chicago to give a speech at SAC’s opening conference in 2005. Dr. Ziadeh reported that after returning to Syria, “I was interrogated by the security forces and been banned from traveling because of my traveling into Chicago to participate.” (As referenced in Chapter 2, Dr. Ziadeh was forced to escape soon after to the United States.) SAC was the only organization in either the United States or Britain that attempted to mobilize the Syrian diaspora for both immigrant empowerment and political liberalization in the home-country, but it remained largely memberless and dormant before the 2011 revolution. For some Libyans, the era of Saif al-Islam’s purported reforms in Libya and a decline in known murders of dissidents abroad in the 2000s lessened the sense of threat. Other respondents, however, felt less safe, or just as unsafe, as they had before. During this thaw in Western relations with Libya, the United States and Britain both partnered with Gaddafi to render former members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group to Libya for interrogation and torture, just as Egyptian secret services had done with Hisham Matar’s father in the previous decade. The regime also leveled accusations of terrorism against its opponents to pressure Western governments to give up wanted refugees, including against Ashur Shamis, a peaceful activist and refugee residing in London. The organizers of regular demonstrations, whether in Manchester or New York, also recalled that participation in such events remained sparse during the era of Saif’s so-called reforms. Ahmed and Khaled reported that when they went to New York in 2009 to protest Gaddafi’s UN appearance, many of them – including Ahmed himself – covered their faces with masks, scarves, and sunglasses for fear of being identified and incriminating their families back home. Acting with the same caution as London protesters had done in 1984, past incidents of regime violence remained at the forefront of activists’ minds. As Monem attested, “everything is possible. You can’t trust a regime like that.” The public meeting of Libyan opposition members in London from across the diaspora in 2005 also reinforced, rather than assuaged, concerns about regime surveillance. Sarah recalled that after making friends with a “normal” Libyan named Ahmed, she invited him and his family to a family celebration at their home. But after telling her parents about the invitation, a few days later, my mom said, “Is there any way politely to un-invite them?” It turns out that [Ahmed’s parents] were in town because there was a big opposition conference going on, and my parents were paranoid that everyone’s being followed. So you’d think that everything is more open at this time, but no. For sure, people were being followed during the opposition conference. Even though the situation wasn’t as bad as the ’90s, there were always reminders [that little had changed]. Characteristic of the regime’s paranoia, the social groups formed by community members also came under suspicion. Zakia, who founded the Libyan https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009272148 Published online by Cambridge University Press