ARCHIVE
View by Date

March 2008 
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

CATEGORIES

    Conservative (10)
    Cool Stuff (1)
    Education (4)
    Labour (30)
    Miscellany (4)
    Old Stuff (667)
    Personal (6)
    Politics (26)
    Religion (5)
    Society (24)
    Technology (2)
    Terror (25)
    The Internet (14)
    War (18)


INFORMERS

Bloggerheads
Bob Piper
Chicken Yoghurt
Criticise.Me.Uk
Dave Weeden: Backword
Downing Street Says
Europhobia
Freedom and Whisky
Howlingspoons
MailWatch
Me and Ophelia
Ministry of Truthk
Nick Barlow
Perfect.co.uk
Peter Gasston
Samizdata
Simon Carr
The London News Review
The Skakagrall
The Yorkshire Ranter
UK Polling Report


ENTERTAINERS

Scaryduck
The Early Days of a Better Nation
Charlie Stross
Rikaitch
Supermum
The Urban Badger
The Six Dwarfs
Life in the Crescent
The Joy of Raki
Ye Olde Plague Blog
Rhyme or Reason?
Amstelladagain
Jewssansfrontieres
Bedsit Bomber
Doctor Vee


ALTERNATIVES

George Monbiot
Green Health - Richard Lawson


LABOUR ACTIVISM

Labour Conference 2004
Campaign for Labour Party Democracy
Labour Campaign for Open Local Government
Save the Labour Party
Labour Reform
Labour Left Briefing
Network of Socialist Campaign Groups
Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs
Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance
Chartist
Campaign for Socialism (Scotland)


    RSS | RSD | Atom

« Rendition | Main | Who's next? »

January 20, 2006

Gullible or dishonest

Yesterday I noted that the SNP had produced a list detailling potential rendition flights, including aircraft types and registrations. Can the government categorically state that none of the suspect flights were in contravention of our international obligations?

In a written statement to MPs on the matter of rendition flights using British airports, Jack Straw stated that:

We have found no evidence of detainees being rendered through the UK or overseas territory since 11 September 2001. We have found no evidence of detainees being rendered through the UK or overseas territory since 1997 where there were substantial grounds to believe there was a real risk of torture.

So it should be a simple matter for the FO and the security services to produce evidence to corroborate this statement.

Straw further noted that:

We are also clear that the US would not render a detainee through UK territory or airspace (including overseas territory) without our permission.

Really?

Now there is a long track-record of the U.S. being highly selective in what it tells its favourite ally in Europe. While the Government may consider the relationship between the U.S. and U.K. to be special, across the Atlantic it is perceived as convenient.

So either Jack Straw really believes that the U.S. would asked before using British airspace, or he is lying to us.

Either option presents an unedifying image of our Foreign Secretary.

Posted by Clive on January 20, 2006 8:15 PM in the category Terror

Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.theuktoday.co.uk/cgi-bin/mt-tbuk-x.pl/717


Comments

In the ongoing Craig Murray saga, Straw has got himself off the hook by saying that FCO officials didn't brief him on any of Murray's warnings on torture. Therefore, he can use plausible denialbility by claiming he was never told of Uzbek torture.

Now, he's saying there must be no rendition because he would have been told about it by his staff "unless they are deliberately witholding information".

He can't have it both ways - I'm amazed nobody's made this connection yet.

Posted by: Scaryduck at January 21, 2006 1:16 PM


Comments Closed