Memo stokes 'terror flights' row

BBC

The US may have used UK airports to transport terror suspects on more occasions than the two so far admitted, a leaked government memo suggests.
The Foreign Office memo, leaked to the New Statesman, warned that the process of "rendition" would be illegal if the suspects were to face torture.

It advises that the government avoid detailed questions on the flights, and stress their anti-terrorist purpose.

Opposition parties have demanded more government transparency on the issue.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told MPs on 12 December that only two cases, in 1998, had been found where such transfers were approved, and none had been found since 11 September 2001.

But the memo, written in early December and apparently designed to prepare Tony Blair for questions about the flights, said officials were urgently examining the files.

"We cannot say that we have received no such request for the use of UK territory.

"The papers we have uncovered so far suggest that there could be more than the two cases referred to in the House by the Foreign Secretary," it says.

It adds: "It does remain true that we are not aware of the use of UK territory or airspace for the purposes of extraordinary rendition.

"But we think we should now try to move the debate on and focus people instead on (US Secretary of State Condoleezza) Rice's clear assurance that US activities are consistent with their domestic and international obligations and never include the use of torture".

The memo suggests that Whitehall officials were worried that US activities may be illegal under international law.

"In the most common use of the term - ie, involving real risk of torture - it could never be legal because this is clearly prohibited by the UN Convention Against Torture," it says.

The Foreign Office and Downing Street both refused to comment on a leaked document.

But a Foreign Office spokesman said Mr Straw had already made clear the UK had not agreed, and would not agree, to help transfer people to places where there were "substantial grounds to believe they would face a real risk of torture".