Extraordinary Rendition

I do not understand why extraordinary rendition is not causing more outrage in the UK.  Read this to find out what it is like to be tortured, and British complicity. 

Credit, though, to BlairWatch, who highlights a recent article in the Guardian.

And to my father, Brian Barder, who resigned from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in protest at the Government’s attempts to use the immigration system to imprison people without a fair trial (which the High Court subsequently found to be illegal) and whose blog is an essential resource for anyone interested in civil liberties.

And to Tony Hatfield, who continues to plug away on this. 

And to Stephen Grey, a remarkable journalist who has probably done more than any other British journalist to hold the Government to account (see his website, online news article here, radio transcript here, newspaper article here).

And we should acknowledge Kenneth Clarke for raising the issue in his recent speech on foreign affairs. 

Apologies to anyone I’ve missed (let me know in the comments section if there are other great blogs about this.) 

The British Government should not condone, tolerate, participate in or benefit from torture. Full stop.

10 thoughts on “Extraordinary Rendition”

  1. I’m sorry, but what evidence is there that this guy is telling the truth?

    You’d think that if his lawyer was prepared to “compile a 28-page diary of his torture”, he’d also take the time to get a doctor’s report. The fact that he did not do so is suspicious, no?

    And even if there is some scarring evident
    we need to know whether it was self-inflicted. After all, these people are prepared to kill themselves…

    Please. Scepticism toward statements from your own Government is all well and good, but at least apply the same standard to terrorists.

    Owen replies: The circumstantial evidence supports his claim. I happen to know (and trust) the journalist who wrote the story. But most of all, the British Government has refused to deny their (ie our) involvement in extraordinary rendition and torture. If it isn’t true, why don’t they say so?

  2. Well, maybe in the previous comment lies your answer Owen, it isn’t causing outrage in the UK because :

    People don’t know about it, and when they read something about it, they don’t believe it.
    Then, when faced with evidence, they don’t want to, or refuse to believe it.
    Which, in a way is not remarkable, because in any sane world it is unbelievable!

    If someone had said to you in 1997 that a New Labour Govt would be complicit in flying terror suspects to countries to have them tortured on our behalf, would you have believed it?

  3. Tony, we’re all well aware of such reports and of the concerns surrounding rendition.
    But your extract does not mention Benyam Mohammed.

    Here we have a probable terrorist who has made some claims which we can perfectly expect him to have lied about.

    If the claims were true we could expect his lawyer to obtain testimony from a doctor concerning scar tissue on his client’s penis (at least) and yet this did not happen.

    These are excellent grounds for believing that Benyam Mohammed is lying. Yet you, blairwatch and Owen shrug all this off and take Benyam Mohammed’s word as gospel.

    Forgive me for concluding that this is because you *want* to believe him.

    As to whether rendered suspects have been tortured: given thatwe have no evidence that this is the case, it is perfectly respectable to say “we don’t know”. There is in fact no other respectable position.

    Not is it respectable to claim that “aggressive interrogation” necessarily implies torture.

  4. I’m a bit confused am, is your contention that there is no such thing as rendition, or that rendition is a reasonable process that doesn’t involve torture, or that all those who have spoken out about the process are lying?
    Or is it just that because you don’t belive one account, the rest must be lying too.

    If ‘agressive interrogation’ doesn’t involve torture, I assume you would be quite happy for you or one of your loved ones to undergo ‘agressive interrogation’ if mistakenly picked up and spirited to Egypt, Jordan or Uzbekistan.?

  5. What’s with all the silly strawmen?

    Of course there is such a thing as rendition. Silly.

    Whether rendered people have been tortured is *not known*.

    Whether some or all of those who have alleged torture are lying is *not known*. They have *obvious* motivation to lie about it, so we must reserve judgement until reasonable proof is provided.

    You choose to believe the word of probable terrorists. You choose to escalate “aggressive interrogation” into “torture”. Even though we know that in Gitmo, finger poking and shouting are classified as aggressive interrogation.

    I am more prudent, more realistic and less partisan, that is all.

  6. If ya say so…

    So, I take it that you would be happy for you, or one of your loved ones to go through ‘aggressive interrogation’ in Gitmo or under the rendition process, if mistakenly implicated in a terrorism investigation.

    Because,if you or one of your loved ones was implicated in ‘terrorism’, by mistake, as happens, they instead of being a ‘suspect’, become a ‘probable terrorist’.

    Which would justify whatever was done to them. And mean that as a probable terrorist, they lose all their legal rights, and couldn’t be believed.

  7. Pingback: Tim Worstall

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *