British opposition parties demanded answers from the government on Thursday after a leaked memo suggested uncertainty about the exact number of United States ”rendition” flights allowed to use British airspace.
A Foreign Office memo to Downing Street — obtained by the New Statesman magazine — suggests the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) may have operated more flights than the two already confirmed by London.
William Hague, the main opposition Conservatives’ foreign affairs spokesperson, said the document required ”fresh explanations” and any additional requests from Washington for permission should be made public.
The Liberal Democrats called for Prime Minister Tony Blair to make a statement in Parliament about the apparent ”inconsistencies”.
But Blair’s spokesperson said the memo added nothing new to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw’s ”comprehensive” answer on the two flights.
”This is a classic case where people have got over-excited by getting a leaked memo, rather than actually reading the content of it,” he said.
”It simply confirms what the foreign secretary said both in his statement on December 12 and in his evidence to the foreign affairs [parliamentary] select committee on December 13.”
Former defence secretary and now Leader of the Commons Geoff Hoon later rejected a Lib Dem call for an inquiry.
On December 12 last year, Straw told parliament checks had found no occasion since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States when Washington had requested the use of British airspace for rendition flights.
He said he was aware of only two previous cases when such a request had been approved — both to transfer suspects to the United States in 1998 — while a further demand to transfer another detainee to a third country was denied.
The undated memo, written around December 7, advises how to handle questions on ”rendition” — the extra-judicial transfer of a suspect to US jurisdiction — and ”extraordinary rendition” — transfer to a third country.
It suggests avoiding getting drawn into detail about the practices and says of extraordinary rendition: ”In the most common use of the term [i.e involving real risk of torture], it could never be legal.”
It suggests British co-operation with a US rendition operation would be illegal ”if the US were to act contrary to its international obligations” and Britain knew of the circumstances.
Referring to the two known 1998 cases, it continues: ”The papers we have unearthed so far suggest there could be more such cases.
”The Home Office, who lead, are urgently examining their files, as are we. But we now cannot say that we have received no such requests for the use of UK territory or air space for extraordinary rendition.”
Instead, it advises moving the debate on to focus on US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s ”clear assurance” that their activities never include the use of torture. – AFP
