Main content | Sidebar | Links

Monday, March 21, 2005

Red Sox part-owner's plane used for CIA 'renditions.'

N85VMThe Boston Globe picks up on a Chicago Tribune story that identifies the private Gulfstream jet that appears to have been used by the CIA to "render" suspects to other nations for brutal interrogation. (The photo of the jet is from a 2003 air show in Schenectady, New York.)

Phillip H. Morse, a minority partner of the Boston Red Sox, confirmed yesterday that his private jet has been chartered to the CIA and said he was aware that it had been flown to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where more than 500 terrorism suspects are held, as well as other overseas destinations. . . .

Morse said he was "stunned" by a published report suggesting that the plane might have been used for special renditions, the controversial practice in which terrorism suspects arrested abroad have been forcibly returned to their native countries for interrogation, sometimes with methods that are barred by US law.

Between June 2002 and January of this year, the plane has flown to Afghanistan, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Italy, Japan, Switzerland, Azerbaijan, and the Czech Republic, and made 82 visits to Dulles International Airport outside Washington, according to the Chicago Tribune, which cited records from the Federal Aviation Administration.

("CIA Uses Jet, Red Sox Partner Confirms," Gordon Edes, Boston Globe 3.21.05; "Jet's Travels Cloaked in Mystery: Red Sox Partner's Plane Hits Spots U.S. Sent Terror Suspects," John Crewdson and Tom Hundley, Chicago Tribune 3.20.05, reg req'd. The Tribune also reported on another Gulfstream V jet used in special renditions: "Mysterious Jet Tied to Torture Flights," John Crewdson, Chicago Tribune 1.8.05, reg req'd.)

Copyright © 2005 by Philocrites | Posted 21 March 2005 at 8:28 AM

Previous: It's not easy getting ready for a peace vigil.
Next: Meet your fellow Philocritics in person!




Scott Wells:

March 22, 2005 11:29 PM | Permalink for this comment

So we're against the Sox this year, right?


March 23, 2005 09:26 AM | Permalink for this comment

Tough call, but it's starting to look that way.


Comments for this entry are currently closed.