EVIDENCE exists that Britain was "inappropriately involved" in the rendition and ill-treatment of terror suspects following the 9/11 attacks, an inquiry has found.
But the handing over of the investigation, initiated by judge Sir Peter Gibson, to a group of MPs has prompted fears of a "whitewash" among campaigners, given the Commons Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which will take up the probe, had previously concluded Britain was not complicit in illegal activity.
It follows claims airports at Wick, Aberdeen and Inverness were used in the rendition of terrorist suspects by the CIA. Documents seen by the Gibson inquiry showed British agents were told in 2002 that there was "no obligation to intervene" if they came across apparent breaches of the Geneva Convention.
A minute appeared to show the growing doubts of the then Prime Minister Tony Blair about the activities of American allies as he admitted how he was "initially sceptical about claims of torture" against detainees but said he had to make clear to the US it would be totally unacceptable. The Prime Minister said he was determined to "clear things up" to "restore Britain's moral leadership in the world".
But David Cameron's judge-led inquiry was halted after the launch of police investigations relating to detainees allegedly transported illegally to Libya.
Ken Clarke, the Minister Without Portfolio, said it would be wrong to ask a judge to take forward an inquiry which could compromise a criminal probe.
Shami Chakrabarti, of human rights group Liberty, said: "The 'judge-led inquiry' that never was is shut down and investigating kidnap and torture in freedom's name will be left to a watchdog that never barks and which exonerated the spooks six years ago."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article