David Miliband misled Parliament and the public in his statement to the House of Commons on US "extraordinary-rendition" flights

David Miliband misled Parliament and the public in his statement to the House of Commons on US "extraordinary-rendition" flights

In the first place, David Miliband used the term rendition: "I would like to make a statement on US rendition operations". However, there is a clear distinction between rendition and extraordinary-rendition. "The US policy of moving suspects from one country to another without any court hearing or extradition process is thought to have begun in the Reagan era.

In those days, joint CIA and FBI teams would bring drug traffickers and terrorism suspects to the US. They would be read their rights, given lawyers, and put on trial.

In the wake of the 1993 truck bomb attack on the World Trade Centre, these detentions, known as "renditions", were largely replaced by the "extraordinary rendition" policy of taking suspects to a third country.

CIA officers combating Islamist terrorism decided that they should keep some suspects out of the US courts, for fear of jeopardising their sources, and to protect intelligence officials from other countries who did not wish to be called as witnesses".

I don't see why we should accept the Central Intelligence Agency label, because it does not do what it states on the tin. A clearer label is provided by Edward Davey of the LibDems who used the term "state-sponsored abduction" which is what it is.

I feel that the use of the word "error" is not good enough: "An error in the earlier US records search meant that these cases did not come to light". What kind of error? And what kind of search was it that produced such an error? For example, it is not an error to deliberately overlook or ignore or conceal this information.

"The Council's report also concluded that some detainees were "processed" at a secret prison on the Pacific Island of Diego Garcia, a territory that is the legal responsibility of the UK. The report says: "We are concerned that the UK government has accepted 'assurances' from US authorities to the contrary, without ever independently or transparently inquiring into the allegations themselves, or accounting to the public in a sufficiently thorough manner". Contrast this with Miliband's statement: "the US Government has assured us that no US detainees have ever been held on Diego Garcia".

David Miliband states: "I spoke myself with Secretary Rice. We both agree that the mistakes made in these two cases are not acceptable, and she shares my deep regret that this information has only just come to light. She emphasised to me that the US Government came to us with this information quickly after they discovered it". However, this information was available in 2006.

"The House and the Government will share deep disappointment at this news, and about its late emergence". Hardly news, is it? And the only late emergence here is David Miliband's statement. My deep disappointment is that Labour has tried to get away without saying anything about it. "They recognise the absolute imperative for the British Government to provide accurate information to Parliament". So, why has Labour lied to Parliament? Who are you trying to kid, Mr Miliband, with this statement? "We fully accept that the US gave us its earlier assurances in good faith. We accepted those assurances, and indeed referred to them publicly, also in good faith". In law, bad faith negates good faith. The US clearly acted in bad faith. So did Tony Blair and Jack Straw, both of whom are lawyers. There really is no excuse.

UPDATE: Shami Chakrabarti: The excuse that America didn't tell us doesn't wash

As I was saying...