Rendition flights DID use British territory
Frankly, I never believed otherwise. And I'm in two minds whether to believe that Tony Blair et al were deceived by the Americans.
So, what remains to be discovered about Shannon Airport? Our government was given an "assurance" by Condi Rice that nothing untoward was going on. Are we sure? In light of Miliband's statement, it's all up in the air in my book.
From the Guardian Wrap:
The [UK] foreign secretary, David Miliband, announced in parliament yesterday that, contrary to initial denials, the British island of Diego Garcia had been used by Americans for rendition. "It may be our territory, but America is in control," writes the Times' foreign editor, Richard Beeston.
"Underpinning the awkward [US-UK] relationship is the island's troubled modern history. Britain removed the indigenous population of the Indian Ocean territories to make way for the construction of a US military base at the height of the cold war. Since then the Pentagon has not looked back."
The Guardian's editorial is furious. "Mr Miliband said he was disappointed at having to make the admission. Disappointment is surely an understatement. Embarrassment and even shame might be more appropriate words. After all, ministers in the government have enjoyed famously close relations with their US counterparts. Yesterday's revelation apparently took place because the Americans are keenly aware of the British public's sensitivities. Why, it must be asked, has the US waited until now to reveal what is going on? Why have all those official requests from London failed to elicit the truth until now?"
The FT's editorial calls for a thorough inquiry. "What else does London not know -- or want to be able to plausibly deny -- in a relationship with Washington that appears as unsighted as it is unequal, despite Mr Blair's pretensions to be a player? This affair should not end without a thorough inquiry into whether other rendition operations have used British facilities and indeed whether Diego Garcia was part of the same lawless network that includes Guantanamo and Bagram."
Writing in the Independent, Shami Chakrabarti joins the chorus. "Our government had a responsibility to investigate the allegations, a responsibility it systematically ducked. Rather than looking the other way with fingers stuck firmly in ears, there should have been a proactive and aggressive inquiry into when and why US military flights were accessing our airspace."
The Times' editorial manages to adopt a less irate stance: the United States has needlessly embarrassed the government, but the facts that emerged yesterday were actually quite modest compared with the allegations levelled at the government.
"There were two occasions in October 2002 when planes each containing a single suspect landed at Diego Garcia, the British territory in the Indian Ocean that largely acts as US base, to refuel. In neither instance did the individuals concerned, one of whom is at Guantanamo Bay and the other of whom has since been released, leave the relevant aircraft. The US authorities should have sought UK permission to land at the time but they did not and the evidence that these flights happened emerged just last week."
* Guardian: Much to be sorry for
* Times: Beautiful Diego Garcia makes forces blush
* FT: Sorry is not enough
* Independent: The excuse that America didn't tell us doesn't wash
Categories: UK, US, USA, rendition, torture, flights, Diego, Garcia
So, what remains to be discovered about Shannon Airport? Our government was given an "assurance" by Condi Rice that nothing untoward was going on. Are we sure? In light of Miliband's statement, it's all up in the air in my book.
From the Guardian Wrap:
The [UK] foreign secretary, David Miliband, announced in parliament yesterday that, contrary to initial denials, the British island of Diego Garcia had been used by Americans for rendition. "It may be our territory, but America is in control," writes the Times' foreign editor, Richard Beeston.
"Underpinning the awkward [US-UK] relationship is the island's troubled modern history. Britain removed the indigenous population of the Indian Ocean territories to make way for the construction of a US military base at the height of the cold war. Since then the Pentagon has not looked back."
The Guardian's editorial is furious. "Mr Miliband said he was disappointed at having to make the admission. Disappointment is surely an understatement. Embarrassment and even shame might be more appropriate words. After all, ministers in the government have enjoyed famously close relations with their US counterparts. Yesterday's revelation apparently took place because the Americans are keenly aware of the British public's sensitivities. Why, it must be asked, has the US waited until now to reveal what is going on? Why have all those official requests from London failed to elicit the truth until now?"
The FT's editorial calls for a thorough inquiry. "What else does London not know -- or want to be able to plausibly deny -- in a relationship with Washington that appears as unsighted as it is unequal, despite Mr Blair's pretensions to be a player? This affair should not end without a thorough inquiry into whether other rendition operations have used British facilities and indeed whether Diego Garcia was part of the same lawless network that includes Guantanamo and Bagram."
Writing in the Independent, Shami Chakrabarti joins the chorus. "Our government had a responsibility to investigate the allegations, a responsibility it systematically ducked. Rather than looking the other way with fingers stuck firmly in ears, there should have been a proactive and aggressive inquiry into when and why US military flights were accessing our airspace."
The Times' editorial manages to adopt a less irate stance: the United States has needlessly embarrassed the government, but the facts that emerged yesterday were actually quite modest compared with the allegations levelled at the government.
"There were two occasions in October 2002 when planes each containing a single suspect landed at Diego Garcia, the British territory in the Indian Ocean that largely acts as US base, to refuel. In neither instance did the individuals concerned, one of whom is at Guantanamo Bay and the other of whom has since been released, leave the relevant aircraft. The US authorities should have sought UK permission to land at the time but they did not and the evidence that these flights happened emerged just last week."
* Guardian: Much to be sorry for
* Times: Beautiful Diego Garcia makes forces blush
* FT: Sorry is not enough
* Independent: The excuse that America didn't tell us doesn't wash
Categories: UK, US, USA, rendition, torture, flights, Diego, Garcia
6 Comments:
Sticking out a mile.
Even the Irish Human Rights Commission, ably led by Maurice Manning, is telling the government that there is no alternative to searching planes.
Good post, Nora. Lots of meat here for me to get my teeth stuck into.
Interesting reading there, Nora. I wonder how much the air traffic controllers' strike and refusing to work overtime affects military flights in Shannon?
You wouldn't be Stephen, Anon, would you?
One assumes they'll be affected -- even US troop transports and CIA Gulfstreams need air traffic control. But it's hardy a long term solution. Unfortunately.
No. That's all right. Condoleezza said it doesn't happen, so really there's no need to worry.
Sure I know ... Where would we be without Bertie bringing big bowls of shamrock to the White House, and reassuring us about Shannon, via Condi. And us down there making fools of ourselves protesting! I'll only take a lump hammer the next time.
Post a Comment
<< Home