UK 'was inappropriately involved in rendition'

There is evidence Britain was inappropriately involved in the rendition and ill-treatment of terror suspects, an inquiry has revealed.

Retired judge Sir Peter Gibson reviewed 20,000 top secret documents after allegations of wrongdoing by MI5 and MI6 officers in the wake of 9/11.

He found no evidence officers were directly involved in the torture or rendition of suspects.

But he said further investigation was needed into evidence of complicity.

UK 'was inappropriately involved in rendition'

Well this is interesting. Probably the worst kept "secret" to anyone with a brain, it has been almost inconceivable (to me at least) that the UK wasn't involved in the rendition of terror suspects given our role in Iraq and Afghanistan and our experience of dealing with such issues with the IRA.

So I have to say I'm suprised to read the headline - but I guess its much the same as when Snowden ratted out the NSA for spying on its own populace (and indeed everyone else) - WE (and by that I mean ATS members generally) aren't shocked by this kind of news, because we saw it coming a long way off

Am I right? Is anyone shocked by this - and, if so, why?

I'm also interested in what the repercussions of this might be. There may be some ex-ministers and maybe even an ex-Prime Minister (Mr.Blair) who will be wondering if there is going to be blow-back on them because this is coming out into the public eye.

We live in interesting times!

reply to post by neformore

In 2012, the government vetoed the release of the documents to the Inquiry detailing minutes of Cabinet meetings in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Concurrently, the British Foreign Office successfully appealed against a judge's ruling which had ordered disclosure of extracting a conversation between George W. Bush and Tony Blair days before the invasion. The government stated that revealing a phone call conversation between Bush and Blair days before the invasion would later present a "significant danger" to British-American relations.[7] The million word report of the Inquiry was due to be released to the public by 2014,[8] but difficult negotiations were continuing with the U.S. over the publication of documents relating to the US.[9]

en.wikipedia.org...

So close to convictions, if these documents had been released then Blar and his cronies would be sitting in a jail cell by now.

I can't help but say this is among the stack of issues that need to be seen about ending, or insuring it really has ended but then leave alone while the war it was a part of is still being fought.

If that means we END the war sooner so we can get to handling the dirty business which came to be a part of it, well that's just fine with me too.

It's exceptionally counter-productive to be attacking our own side as much or more than the enemy is capable of, while it's of direct benefit to them

I just suggest we get our side out of the war before tearing into it ourselves.

Zcustosmorum
reply to post by neformore

 

In 2012, the government vetoed the release of the documents to the Inquiry detailing minutes of Cabinet meetings in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Concurrently, the British Foreign Office successfully appealed against a judge's ruling which had ordered disclosure of extracting a conversation between George W. Bush and Tony Blair days before the invasion. The government stated that revealing a phone call conversation between Bush and Blair days before the invasion would later present a "significant danger" to British-American relations.[7] The million word report of the Inquiry was due to be released to the public by 2014,[8] but difficult negotiations were continuing with the U.S. over the publication of documents relating to the US.[9]

en.wikipedia.org...

So close to convictions, if these documents had been released then Blar and his cronies would be sitting in a jail cell by now.

My faith in humanity would return if Bliar and Cronies were locked up for a very long time.

The US and Great Britain had a long standing deal going back to WW2 that in order to not break the law they would simply do the job of spying on each other's citizens. MI6 was watching the Nazis in the US while the US (OSS/CIA)returned the favor on English soil.
At some point I suppose they said "the hell with the law" and didn't worry about getting caught or prosecuted. It was just too inconvenient for each side after a point. There was also a bit on spying on each other which may have soured their relations.
I agree it certainly wasn't a well-kept secret as most of us suspected it was going on but naturally lacked the proof to substantiate such a claim. Will there be any real fallout? Not if it plays out like the NSA revelations have in the US.
Business as usual will continue.
Rendition is worse than piracy or slavery so our claim to any moral high ground becomes a moot point.

News is 11 years too late

reply to post by neformore


Maybe Piers Morgan can get an interview with Blair and rake him over the coals on this. Blair should address it in some form, and an "honest" interview (hahahahahaha huh?) may be the place to do it - either that or standing accused in the dock.

reply to post by neformore


It seems interesting to me that the specter of "not enough evidence" is still promoted by the reporting. After all, just how likely is it that the US could have kidnapped rendered Subjects of the Crown without their tacit and explicit approval? By that measure alone they must have "participated" in the process.

It seems clear from the text that the selected commentators are posturing to put this matter on their notional "to-do" list to explore, but right now no one will point any fingers. In my twisted mind that means that the appropriate tracks have not yet been covered-up and obfuscated.

The politics of fear empowered them to suspend selected, politically expedient, human-rights to bolster their "performance" metrics... it's a sad affair that we actually incline to believe our safety as a nation depended on it.

The problem with gathering intelligence in the wake of a tragedy such as 9/11 is how far can you morally go before you start pushing boundaries.

Let's be completely honest, if anyone of us was in the hot seat and we had just witnessed thousands of our citizens murdered (conspiracies aside on this one) - laws are bound to, and IMO need to go out the window.

British forces learnt in NI and much earlier than that in the second world war and before that in the Boer war the importance of intelligence in warfare, that's why its not so shocking to me.

reply to post by TheGreatest


Kiddnapping foreign nationals from allied soveriegn countrys and totureing them not just crosses the bounders but pisses on them before setting them alight then running off into the distance.


Sorry but if the USA has a problem with me then they should take it up through offcial channels. If I havent broken US law on its soil then I should not be kiddnaped by a CIA team and carted off to a black prison and if I break a UK laws while pissing the USA off? Well I expect to be tried and sentaced under a UK court not a American one.

reply to post by neformore


Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges

Sad but true...

Even Canada gets into that sort of thing occasionally.