The British Government has been accused of adopting a "hear no evil, see no evil" approach over CIA flights carrying terrorist suspects for possible torture, after Jack Straw said a Whitehall search revealed no evidence of US requests for such flights into UK airspace. The Foreign Secretary admitted for the first time that he had agreed to two rendition requests made by the US authorities under the Clinton administration while he was Home Secretary. Both were for landings in the UK related to rendition - or delivery of prisoner - flights to the United States. "This could be regarded as rendition," he said. Mr Straw said he approved the requests for stop-overs in the UK because the prisoners were due to be put on trial in the United States. But another, where a suspect was being taken to a third country, was refused by Mr Straw because he was "not satisfied" about the circumstances. The Foreign Secretary said the Home Office and the Foreign Office had checked their records carefully and found that no such requests had been made by the Bush Administration. In October, Mr Straw told MPs he had not approved any requests, but officials said last night he was referring to events since the 11 September, 2001, attacks on New York. Liberty, the human rights organisation, said last night that Mr Straw's replies to Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, raised more questions than they answered. They left open the possibility that the Bush administration had used British airports without asking permission, a Liberty spokesman said.
The Foreign Secretary admitted for the first time that he had agreed to two rendition requests made by the US authorities under the Clinton administration while he was Home Secretary. Both were for landings in the UK related to rendition - or delivery of prisoner - flights to the United States. "This could be regarded as rendition," he said.
Mr Straw said he approved the requests for stop-overs in the UK because the prisoners were due to be put on trial in the United States. But another, where a suspect was being taken to a third country, was refused by Mr Straw because he was "not satisfied" about the circumstances.
The Foreign Secretary said the Home Office and the Foreign Office had checked their records carefully and found that no such requests had been made by the Bush Administration.
In October, Mr Straw told MPs he had not approved any requests, but officials said last night he was referring to events since the 11 September, 2001, attacks on New York.
Liberty, the human rights organisation, said last night that Mr Straw's replies to Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, raised more questions than they answered. They left open the possibility that the Bush administration had used British airports without asking permission, a Liberty spokesman said.
The Polish government is launching an inquiry into whether the country hosted Central Intelligence Agency prisons on its territory, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, the prime minister, announced on Monday. The charge by US-based Human Rights Watch that the US intelligence agency kept prisoners accused of terrorism in Poland has been consistently rejected by Aleksander Kwasniewski, the Polish president. However, local media have uncovered evidence that US aircraft were stopping at Szymany, an obscure airport in northern Poland. On Saturday, the Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper quoted airport workers saying a US Gulfstream executive jet used the airport in December 2002, and three times more in 2003, when a Boeing 737 also landed at the airport. The workers said that the aircraft did not refuel and were met on the tarmac by buses with darkened windows, apparently from a nearby military base at Stare Kielkuty, which is used for intelligence training. According to the Polish edition of Newsweek, a senior official in the office of Mr Marcinkiewicz refused to deny press reports about a secret prison.
The charge by US-based Human Rights Watch that the US intelligence agency kept prisoners accused of terrorism in Poland has been consistently rejected by Aleksander Kwasniewski, the Polish president.
However, local media have uncovered evidence that US aircraft were stopping at Szymany, an obscure airport in northern Poland.
On Saturday, the Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper quoted airport workers saying a US Gulfstream executive jet used the airport in December 2002, and three times more in 2003, when a Boeing 737 also landed at the airport.
The workers said that the aircraft did not refuel and were met on the tarmac by buses with darkened windows, apparently from a nearby military base at Stare Kielkuty, which is used for intelligence training.
According to the Polish edition of Newsweek, a senior official in the office of Mr Marcinkiewicz refused to deny press reports about a secret prison.
How many intelligence bases (a/k/a "School of the Americas) does the USA have over the world?
This was total news for me. I had no idea they proliferated the bases for so called "intelligence training". "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within." Cicero
Benyam Mohammed al-Habashi is accused by the US government of planning a dirty bomb attack in America. He says he was tortured until he admitted the crime. He was arrested at Karachi airport in April 2002, with a passport under the name of Fouad Zouawi, a friend, and with a ticket to Zurich and then on to London. In documents compiled by the human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, he describes an encounter with someone he believes to be an MI6 officer and details the horror of his torture. Mr Habashi says the officer told him 'I'll see what we can do with the Americans'. "They gave me a cup of tea with a lot of sugar in it. He said 'Where you're going you need a lot of sugar'." He was taken to Morocco and questioned, then tortured after refusing to admit links al-Qa'ida links. "They took the scalpel to my right chest. One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. I was in agony. They must have done this 20 to 30 times in maybe two hours. They would do it to me about once a month."
He was arrested at Karachi airport in April 2002, with a passport under the name of Fouad Zouawi, a friend, and with a ticket to Zurich and then on to London.
In documents compiled by the human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, he describes an encounter with someone he believes to be an MI6 officer and details the horror of his torture. Mr Habashi says the officer told him 'I'll see what we can do with the Americans'. "They gave me a cup of tea with a lot of sugar in it. He said 'Where you're going you need a lot of sugar'."
He was taken to Morocco and questioned, then tortured after refusing to admit links al-Qa'ida links.
"They took the scalpel to my right chest. One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. I was in agony. They must have done this 20 to 30 times in maybe two hours. They would do it to me about once a month."
Sweet dreams, Izzy.
Bush and Company: Shooting Western World in the Foot?The terrorism against Western societies cannot result in victory for the perpetrators, but the so-called war on terror can be lost offhandedly by the West itself. To no small degree, this prospect has been helped by U.S. President George W. Bush's decision to declare war on Islamist terror on the one hand and the decision to makes the laws of war inapplicable to terrorists on the other. Never before has an American administration cut such a swathe in the field of international law - an unlawful war of aggression was legitimized and confessions extracted through torture were deemed admissible in courts of law. And never before has an American administration fought a no-holds-barred battle, one without any rules - for democracy - that has turned so many democracies into accomplices. But instead of openly declaring their complicity, European governments have silently aided and abetted. This does not refer to tolerating secret CIA-agent flights in European airspace - though it is good to know that CIA agents are still unbridled in their movements. Rather, the complicity began with the knowledge that these agents were accompanying suspected terrorists on their way to European and non-European torture chambers. The justifiable suspicion exists that European governments not only knew of the torture, but that they also benefited from the coerced testimony so gathered. ... The War on Terror cannot be waged with terrorism. Not until European governments have grasped this, not until the next President of the United States of America also understands this, can accomplices once more become allies.
Never before has an American administration cut such a swathe in the field of international law - an unlawful war of aggression was legitimized and confessions extracted through torture were deemed admissible in courts of law. And never before has an American administration fought a no-holds-barred battle, one without any rules - for democracy - that has turned so many democracies into accomplices.
But instead of openly declaring their complicity, European governments have silently aided and abetted. This does not refer to tolerating secret CIA-agent flights in European airspace - though it is good to know that CIA agents are still unbridled in their movements. Rather, the complicity began with the knowledge that these agents were accompanying suspected terrorists on their way to European and non-European torture chambers. The justifiable suspicion exists that European governments not only knew of the torture, but that they also benefited from the coerced testimony so gathered.
... The War on Terror cannot be waged with terrorism. Not until European governments have grasped this, not until the next President of the United States of America also understands this, can accomplices once more become allies.
But instead of openly declaring their complicity, European governments have silently aided and abetted. (...) The justifiable suspicion exists that European governments not only knew of the torture, but that they also benefited from the coerced testimony so gathered.
(...)
The justifiable suspicion exists that European governments not only knew of the torture, but that they also benefited from the coerced testimony so gathered.
Yes. This needs to be said and repeated and they must pay for it. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Yet how can we (collectively US and Europe) make them all pay for it and realistically what can we do? "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within." Cicero
There is good reason to take the words of an important member of the American Government seriously. Earlier this week, Condoleezza Rice told an audience in Kiev that the United States has obligations with regard to the U.N. charter against torture. It does not allow cruel, inhumane and humiliating treatment of suspects; "and American personnel, wherever they are, inside or outside the U.S., are bound by these obligations." Rice elaborated on her speech at NATO headquarters in Brussels, clearing up the issues of treatment of terror suspects, secretive detention facilities and secret CIA flight - issues that divided Europe and America - in one fell swoop. But there is also reason to be cautiously reserved about what Rice had to say. However, caution was not what we heard from Brussels yesterday. It is remarkable how quickly skepticism can turn into benevolence and obedience. Dutch Secretary of State Ben Bot, who earlier this week stated in the Dutch Congress that American statements regarding the existence of CIA prisons were "unsatisfactory," said that he was "very satisfied" with Rice's explanation. However, there was no detailed explanation, or further proof, or in other words: real arguments that would put the long running rumors to bed. In the same way as Rice was unwilling to give specifics, Bot was unable to elaborate. The implicit message: we have to trust the words of the American Secretary. Leg Irons and Hand Cuffs at Guantanamo Bay. But the recent unpleasant experiences with American actions do not justify trust. Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib provide facts that no one can ignore. Until there is real evidence that the abuse of terror suspects at the American naval base in Cuba have stopped can there be any reason for satisfaction. That is not the case today, in the same way that there are still too many questions swirling around the alleged CIA prisons, and ditto for the [secret] flights. Not only does the American government have to come up with additional specific information, so does Bot (and with him the Dutch Government). He will also have to elaborate in a much more detailed and precise manner than the vague terminology used by Secretary Rice. It is important to keep a very close eye on Washington over this matter. Vice President Cheney (and by extension President Bush) doesn't want a legally binding prohibition against the cruel treatment of terror suspects. On the other hand, Republican Senator and "expert-by-experience" McCain - POW in Vietnam - is pushing for just such a clause through an amendment to the defense budget bill. McCain is on the right track: there is a lot of wiggle room between verbal policy rhetoric and legislation, and not until McCain's amendment is signed into law will Condoleezza Rice's solemn policy proposals be legally binding.
But there is also reason to be cautiously reserved about what Rice had to say. However, caution was not what we heard from Brussels yesterday. It is remarkable how quickly skepticism can turn into benevolence and obedience. Dutch Secretary of State Ben Bot, who earlier this week stated in the Dutch Congress that American statements regarding the existence of CIA prisons were "unsatisfactory," said that he was "very satisfied" with Rice's explanation. However, there was no detailed explanation, or further proof, or in other words: real arguments that would put the long running rumors to bed. In the same way as Rice was unwilling to give specifics, Bot was unable to elaborate. The implicit message: we have to trust the words of the American Secretary.
Leg Irons and Hand Cuffs at Guantanamo Bay.
But the recent unpleasant experiences with American actions do not justify trust. Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib provide facts that no one can ignore. Until there is real evidence that the abuse of terror suspects at the American naval base in Cuba have stopped can there be any reason for satisfaction. That is not the case today, in the same way that there are still too many questions swirling around the alleged CIA prisons, and ditto for the [secret] flights. Not only does the American government have to come up with additional specific information, so does Bot (and with him the Dutch Government). He will also have to elaborate in a much more detailed and precise manner than the vague terminology used by Secretary Rice.
It is important to keep a very close eye on Washington over this matter. Vice President Cheney (and by extension President Bush) doesn't want a legally binding prohibition against the cruel treatment of terror suspects. On the other hand, Republican Senator and "expert-by-experience" McCain - POW in Vietnam - is pushing for just such a clause through an amendment to the defense budget bill. McCain is on the right track: there is a lot of wiggle room between verbal policy rhetoric and legislation, and not until McCain's amendment is signed into law will Condoleezza Rice's solemn policy proposals be legally binding.
It is remarkable how quickly skepticism can turn into benevolence and obedience.
Our leaders do not desrves to be trusted either, it would seem. Our press seems to be doing its job somewhat better. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
To put it bluntly isn't that analogous to arguing how much incest is too much, or how much pedophilia is tolerable, or any other number of horrors being compromised? "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within." Cicero
The Foreign Secretary admitted for the first time that he had agreed to two rendition requests made by the US authorities under the Clinton administration while he was Home Secretary. Both were for landings in the UK related to rendition - or delivery of prisoner - flights to the United States. "This could be regarded as rendition," he said. Mr Straw said he approved the requests for stop-overs in the UK because the prisoners were due to be put on trial in the United States. But another, where a suspect was being taken to a third country, was refused by Mr Straw because he was "not satisfied" about the circumstances. The Foreign Secretary said the Home Office and the Foreign Office had checked their records carefully and found that no such requests had been made by the Bush Administration.
In the USA young teenagers will state as their final "strong" argument to escape responsibility But everyone else does it!
Yes, the Republicans in America absolutely excell at this type of terribly juvenile behaviour. "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within." Cicero
