Wikileaks (7): mais provas das mentiras de Sócrates e Amado e da ocultação dos «voos da CIA»

Desde Domingo à noite, houve quem duvidasse da existência destes despachos. Porém, eles aí estão.

• «Portugal (...) has also granted permission to use Lajes in support of repatriation of detainees from Guantanamo. (...) Portugal has been an outstanding partner in the war on terror and collaborates actively with us as a member of the Proliferation Security Initiative, the Container Security Initiative, and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. (...) Socrates agreed to allow the repatriation of enemy combatants out of Guatanamo through Lajes Air Base on a case-by-case basis. This was a difficult decision, given the sustained criticism by Portuguese media and leftist elements of his own party over the government's handling of the CIA rendition flights controversy. Socrates's agreement has never been made public. The Attorney General's Office was forced to review a dossier of news clippings and unsubstantiated allegations regarding CIA rendition operations through Portugal provided by a member of the European Parliament. The AG's report should be released in the near future. Although we cannot predict its conclusions, government insiders and legal scholars have told us there was no useful or prosecutable information in the dossier.» (7/9/2007)

Lê-se: «Sócrates concordou em autorizar o repatriamento de combatentes inimigos de Guantánamo através da Base Aérea das Lajes (...) a concordância de Sócrates nunca foi tornada pública». Perante o Parlamento, dezasseis meses depois, o mesmo Sócrates diria: «nunca nenhum membro deste Governo, nunca este Governo foi informado ou recebeu qualquer espécie de pedido de autorização para sobrevoo do nosso espaço aéreo, ou para aterragem na Base das Lajes, de aviões que se destinassem ao transporte ou à transferência de prisioneiros». Mentiu.

Passemos a Luís Amado. O «pedido» foi em 2006. Em Setembro.

• «Ambassador Hoffman's meeting with Foreign Minister Amado on September 8 covered the waterfront of issues. The Minister said that he would push hard with the Prime Minister to allow Lajes to be used as a transit point in repatriating Guantanamo detainees (...). During recent closed testimony before the Portuguese Parliament, he did not diverge from his predecessor's position that the Portuguese government was not aware of any CIA flights on/through Portugal. Amado reiterated his request to meet with Secretary Rice as soon as possible to discuss the Guantanamo detainee repatriation request in addition to Portugal's upcoming EU Presidency agenda. (...) Ambassador Hoffman (...) asked the Minister if the USG could use Lajes as a transit point for flights returning detainees to their home countries (...) Minister Amado said that he needed to check with the Prime Minister who would be difficult to convince, but that he would push hard for Portuguese cooperation so long as there was total transparency. Details would need to be worked out; there would need to be a clear political approach. He underscored that there could be tremendous negative fallout if this was not done right. The timing was not ideal on the heels of his Sept. 5 testimony on CIA flights. He promised to provide an interim answer next week. He said that he needed to meet with Secretary Rice to discuss this and a host of related issues.» (8/9/2006)

Portanto, Amado, membro do governo de Sócrates, recebeu um pedido para transferir prisioneiros. Até sabemos a data: 8 de Setembro de 2006. E até sabemos que «pressionaria com força» Sócrates para aceitar. Ah, mas espera. Não era um «pedido». Era uma «diligência» (só Amado é que sabe a diferença entre as duas coisas). E a conclusão da reunião foi esta:

• «Amado is very pro-American and extremely accessible. He was strongly supportive of our request to use Lajes as a refueling/transit point for Gitmo detainees being returned to their home countries and was prepared to press the Prime Minister for an expeditious and positive response, so long as we continue to be fully transparent with the GOP about the flights.» (8/9/2006)

Há uma semana atrás, Amado explicou-se assim: «o ministro adiantou que as autoridades norte-americanas chegaram a fazer uma diligência para escala de um voo que transportava três detidos a repatriar, "libertados de acordo com as garantias pedidas" pelo Executivo português. Mas esse voo não se chegou a realizar, conforme declarou Luís Amado. "Houve apenas diligências diplomáticas, a matéria não existiu do ponto de vista factual"». Se houve apenas «diligências» em 8/9/2006, que não  passaram disso (disse ele na semana passada), então como se explica o despacho de 7/9/2007 em que a autorização é dada como «concedida»? Ou, mais ainda, o despacho seguinte, de 11/7/2007, em que o próprio Amado é dado como tendo autorizado o que ele agora anda a dizer que não existiu?

• «Amado agreed to allow the repatriation of prisoners through Lajes Air Base on a case-by-case basis under limited circumstances. This was a difficult decision, given the sustained criticism by Portuguese media and leftist elements of his own party of the government,s handling of the CIA rendition flights controversy. Amado,s agreement has never been made public. (...) He has been a great friend of the US, both in his previous capacity as Minister of Defense and now as Foreign Minister.» (11/7/2007)

Há apenas uma semana, o ainda MNE dizia: «Pura e simplesmente não houve voo nenhum. (...) Se tivesse havido operação [de repatriamento] teria sido pública, para ficar sob escrutínio público». E mais: «Não houve aviões com detidos de Guantánamo a sobrevoar Portugal». Mentiu.

E ainda outro despacho.

• «Amado has told me that he would like to assist us in our efforts to repatriate Guantanamo detainees through Lajes AirBase. However, given intense CIA Rendition scrutiny and his own party's left wing opposition to his pro-US slant, Amado underscored the need to be on firm legal ground before consenting to do so. Subsequent conversations with MFA staff indicate that Amado is awaiting the US to address his concerns before responding to our request.» (20/10/2006)

O assunto fede.