LONDON: Britain’s defense minister made an unusual public apology yesterday, admitting Britain had taken part in “renditions” of suspects detained in Iraq after denying it for years.
In a lengthy statement to Parliament, Defense Secretary John Hutton confirmed that Britain handed over two suspects captured in Iraq in 2004 to US custody and that they were subsequently transferred to Afghanistan, breaching US-British agreements.
The Ministry of Defense has been repeatedly asked over the past five years about its involvement in rendition, the unlawful transfer of suspects to a third country, and consistently denied it played any role in the US-administered program.
“I regret that it is now clear that inaccurate information on this particular issue has been given to the House by my department on a small number of occasions,” Hutton said. “I want to apologize to the House for these errors.”
Two men seized by British troops in Iraq in February 2004 were transferred to US detention and later flown to Afghanistan, where they remain in US custody. Both are said to be members of Laskhar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based group with links to Al-Qaeda.
Human rights groups said Hutton’s admission amounted to a “major U-turn” that called into question the government’s previous denials and whether its position now was believable.
“For years now the British government has been tossing us miserable scraps of information about its involvement in illegal renditions in Pakistan, Diego Garcia and now Afghanistan,” said Clara Gutteridge, an investigator with Reprieve, a charity that campaigns for the release of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Hutton said the United States had provided assurances that the suspects, who are categorized as “unlawful enemy combatants,” were being properly treated in Afghanistan.
Asked about the legal implications of Hutton’s apology, a spokesman for the Ministry of Defense said there was nothing illegal about Britain’s involvement in the rendition process.
The Americans, he said, had merely breached a long-standing agreement that those captured by British forces in Iraq would not be transferred out of Iraq without prior consultation.
“I think, basically, we were let down by the Americans, hence the need to apologize today,” he said.
However, human rights lawyers and members of parliament suggested the Ministry of Defense was trying to play down the extent of the problem, and said there were no guarantees that Britain had not been complicit in illegal rendition.
Extraordinary rendition, which involves transferring suspects to a third country where there is no prohibition on the use of torture during interrogation, goes a step further than rendition and is considered illegal by Britain.
Andrew Tyrie, who heads an all-parliamentary group looking into extraordinary rendition, said it was time the government held an inquiry into its involvement with the US program.
“US assurances that it does not use torture are unreliable, as the foreign affairs committee concluded in its human rights annual report published last year,” he said.
“Given that all previous assurances have been baseless, we can have no confidence in the ones we are being given now. The government must now carry out a comprehensive inquiry in order to bring closure to this sorry business.”
