Why so coy Jack Straw?

The British media is reporting that Abdel Hakim Belhadj is alleging that the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw allowed his rendition to Libya to happen. Jack Straw is refusing to comment.

Remember that last year Last year Jack Straw denied any knowledge of any such the operation:

'The position of successive foreign secretaries, including me, is that we were opposed to unlawful rendition, opposed to torture or similar methods, and not only did we not agree with it, we were not complicit in it, nor did we turn a blind eye to it.'

More recently Jack Straw admitted that he signed off on the decision to capture Abdel Hakim Belhadj and hand him over to Colonel Gaddafi's Libyan regime. Oddly Jack Straw only remembered this once the Foreign Office had shown Jack Straw his signature authorising them to arrange the abduction in 2004.

Why did Jack Straw sign that document? Did the Labour British government collude in rendition and torture contrary to their vehement denials as recently as last year? What is the truth behind the relationship between senior Labour ministers and the Libyan regime of Colonel Gaddafi?Do any other former Labour ministers have questions to answer in this regard: Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson etc.?

What the BBC don't tell you about claims of torture made by Al-Qaeda suspects

The BBC like to take at face value the claims of any Islamic terrorist that he has been tortured. What the BBC do not tell you is that The Al Qaeda manual states that:

'IF AN INDICTMENT IS ISSUED AND THE TRIAL, BEGINS, THE BROTHER HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:

1 . At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators ]before the judge.

2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.'

It's a tactic, a well known one, and one that the BBC swallow and regurgitate time after time.

"complicit with serious abuse"

The BBC report that:

"Ministers have admitted they handed over terror suspects in Iraq to US authorities, sparking claims of collusion in extraordinary rendition.

Defence secretary John Hutton said two men detained in 2004 were transferred to US custody and were then transported to Afghanistan, where they remain.

He said he was reassured they had been treated humanely but apologised for past incorrect answers given to MPs.

The Tories said the UK faced charges of being "complicit with serious abuse".

The Lib Dems said Mr Hutton's comments raised "as many questions as answers" and called for all relevant documents in the case to be published.

Mr Hutton said that contrary to previous statements he now knew UK officials were aware that the two men, understood to be Pakistani nationals, had been transferred to US custody in 2004 but that no action had been taken on the issue.

He said "brief references" to the case had been included in papers sent to then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Home Secretary Charles Clarke in April 2006 but its significance had not been highlighted at the time. "

Read the whole of the BBC article, have a think about it, bear in mind John Hutton's remark that

"I regret that it is now clear that inaccurate information has been given to the House by my department "

Then wonder if John Hutton or Jack Straw will feel they should resign and then realise that this the 21st century and a Labour government and that Ministers don't resign. You might also wonder what Tony Blair really knew when in 2005 he said:

"It is not something that I have ever actually come across until this whole thing has blown up (the row at the time about whether US extraordinary rendition planes had passed through the UK) and I don't know anything about it, and the reason why I am not going to start ordering inquiries is that I can't see a reason for doing it, I am afraid."

"Whiter than white", "ethical foreign policy", respect for human rights - don't make me laugh.