"Extraordinary rendition"

[bigfootedfred]

The government is not aware of any cases of the US moving terror suspects through the UK which it has not told MPs about, Jack Straw said.
The Foreign Secretary has been under pressure to explain the UK's involvement in so-called "extraordinary rendition" amid fears of torture.
A leaked Foreign office memo warned ministers such operations were almost certainly illegal.
Downing Street dismissed the document saying it contained nothing new.

'Black sites'
In a Commons written statement, Mr Straw said had already given MPs all the information he has about US requests to use British airspace or airport facilities for "extraordinary rendition", officials said.

"We think we should now try to move the debate on from the specifics of rendition"
Leaked Foreign Office memo

There have been widespread concerns the CIA has been seizing terror suspects around the world and flying them for questioning at secret detention centres - dubbed "black sites" - in eastern Europe or in countries such as Jordan and Egypt where torture is prevalent.
MPs have been demanding government assurances that the aircraft involved are not allowed to use British airports or airspace.
The prime minister's official spokesman said that two cases from 1998 identified in a December 2005 memo, leaked to The New Statesman, had subsequently been disclosed in a Commons statement by Mr Straw.

The first involved Mohammed Rashed Daoud al-Owhali, who was transported from Kenya to the US via Stansted Airport to stand trial for the Nairobi Embassy bombing.

'Tightly defined'
The request was approved by Mr Straw - then home secretary - along with a second suspect who did not, in the event, travel.
In the second case, the request from the US authorities was turned down because it involved transporting a suspect to Egypt.
In a statement last week, Mr Straw said the Foreign Office had unearthed one further case - again from 1998 - when ministers turned down a request for a flight carrying two detainees to the US to refuel in the UK.

MPs were alarmed by a section of the memo advising Mr Blair not to go into detail on the issue.
The memo, written to prepare Mr Blair for prime minister's questions, warned rendition was illegal under both UK and international law, except in certain rare, "tightly defined" cases and that co-operating with US rendition operations could also be unlawful.
Any case where there was a "real risk" of torture could never be legal, it said.

'Degrading treatment'
It advised ministers questioned on the issue to refer to comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who said the US did not transport people to countries when it believed they would be tortured.

But the memo also revealed a difference of opinion over what constitutes torture in law, suggesting the US authorities applied a less rigorous definition of "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment" than the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
The document also said there was "no mechanism" for establishing whether suspects captured by British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan had subsequently been transferred by the US to interrogation centres.
Shadow foreign secretary William Hague, who wrote to Mr Straw demanding a statement, said he wanted to know if the foreign secretary was "entirely satisfied that UK airspace and territory has not been used for the transfer of suspects leading to their torture".
Liberal Democrat acting leader Sir Menzies Campbell said there were "grave inconsistencies" between the contents of the memo and ministers' answers.
Lib Dem calls for a full public inquiry into alleged UK complicity in "extraordinary rendition" was rejected on Thursday by Commons leader Geoff Hoon.

--------------

well.
i really dont know what to say.
make of this what you will.

But as British citizen, i think we should know exactly how involved in this crap we are.

edit: oh yeah,
source

[Denny Crane!]

I'd like to see Blair and Straw face criminal charges personally. Wether or not I agree with the reasoning behind it, if they have broken the law they should face the consequences.

Criminal case or war crimes tribunal? Unsure.

Peter