In February 2008, Foreign Secretary David Miliband corrected earlier assurances about rendition flights through Diego Garcia. New US information revealed two occasions in 2002 when aircraft carrying individual detainees refuelled there. The detainees remained on the aircraft, according to the statement.
The record is unusually direct: Parliament was told that earlier explicit assurances needed correction. The original confidence had depended on an inadequate records search. A negative assurance is only as strong as the evidence and process behind it.
The later review compiled 391 flights that had attracted concerns. The statement explicitly warned that inclusion was not endorsement of an allegation. This distinction is useful whenever a suspicious itinerary is presented as proof: travel data can identify a question without settling what a flight carried or did.
The established record.
- 01
Two refuelling occasions in 2002 were acknowledged in 2008.
- 02
The February statement corrected earlier government assurances.
- 03
A later list of concerning flights did not verify each allegation.
How the story unfolded.
- 2002
The two flights
Detainee-carrying aircraft refuel on Diego Garcia.
- February 2008
Earlier assurances are corrected
The Foreign Secretary acknowledges new US information.
- July 2008
Concerns are compiled
The government explains the limitations of the wider flight list.
Where the evidence stops.
The acknowledgment concerned two flights. It did not establish that detainees were held on Diego Garcia or verify every flight on the later list. Diego Garcia is a British overseas connection, not an English location.
Read the original sources.
The source may establish a narrower point than the headline. Follow the specific finding, its date and its limitations.
What is the difference between “no evidence found” and a search strong enough to justify an assurance?