Extraordinary Rendition?
Dec. 12th, 2005 01:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueLovely term that. "Extraordinary Rendition" a euphemism neatly filed with 'collateral damage' for glossy terms for horrible things.
Anyhow, Jack Straw, our illustrious foreign affairs minister got nailed on Today this morning. The article about it is here.
Now, does anyone else read that as political doubletalk for not wanting to be caught lying about something really rather horrendous, but at the same time, not wanting to blow the story?
"We have checked the records as carefully as we can and I believe the answer we have given from the records suggest that there have been no such flights through United Kingdom territory,"
e.g. we got the shredders out each time we found some.
There's a fair bit of note, but the thing that struck me was that he mentioned that the Clinton administration had asked to move prisoners 3 times, and 2 had been oked because they were headed to the US for trial, and one hadn't because it 'looked a bit fishy'.
The Bush administration has made no such requests.
"Careful research has been unable to identify any occasion... when we have received a request for permission by the United States for a rendition through the United Kingdom territory or airspace"
The entire gist is paraphrased by the BBC, but the one that stuck in my mind was that there were no requests, and military/diplomatic flights especially in transit, aren't checked.
Which basically is playing 'see no evil' as far as I can tell.
Oh, maybe the CIA _haven't_ been naughty, but that interview this morning left me thinking they could _so easily_ have been.
And of course, that's leaving aside the fact that "rendition" - turning prisoners over to another country, is actually illegal under international law, without an extradition process.
You know, the kind of thing that checks that by giving them this person, they're not going to have nasty things happen to them like torture or execution.
Amnesty has a few more details on the subject.
Anyhow, Jack Straw, our illustrious foreign affairs minister got nailed on Today this morning. The article about it is here.
Now, does anyone else read that as political doubletalk for not wanting to be caught lying about something really rather horrendous, but at the same time, not wanting to blow the story?
"We have checked the records as carefully as we can and I believe the answer we have given from the records suggest that there have been no such flights through United Kingdom territory,"
e.g. we got the shredders out each time we found some.
There's a fair bit of note, but the thing that struck me was that he mentioned that the Clinton administration had asked to move prisoners 3 times, and 2 had been oked because they were headed to the US for trial, and one hadn't because it 'looked a bit fishy'.
The Bush administration has made no such requests.
"Careful research has been unable to identify any occasion... when we have received a request for permission by the United States for a rendition through the United Kingdom territory or airspace"
The entire gist is paraphrased by the BBC, but the one that stuck in my mind was that there were no requests, and military/diplomatic flights especially in transit, aren't checked.
Which basically is playing 'see no evil' as far as I can tell.
Oh, maybe the CIA _haven't_ been naughty, but that interview this morning left me thinking they could _so easily_ have been.
And of course, that's leaving aside the fact that "rendition" - turning prisoners over to another country, is actually illegal under international law, without an extradition process.
You know, the kind of thing that checks that by giving them this person, they're not going to have nasty things happen to them like torture or execution.
Amnesty has a few more details on the subject.
