The fundamental problem here is that, on the one hand, a committed supporter of jihad willing to murder countless numbers of innocent civilians is unlikely to confess this fact to the security services of the 'enemy' nation if sat down and given tea and biscuits. On the other hand, someone who is *not* a committed supporter of jihad willing to murder countless numbers of innocent civilians is fairly likely to nonetheless 'confess' to being one if disappeared to some dodgy U.S. ally and tortured for two years.

So you can have no confessions, or you can have completely unreliable confessions. But you're extremely unlikely to get a reliable confession out of a committed terrorist against whom you have no other useful evidence, if it doesn't suit his purposes in some way.

The bootnote of this story is especially ironic given the reason the Security Service doesn't like being called MI5 is that would identify it as a branch of military intelligence (rather than the separate, civilian agency it actually is). Apparently they're very sniffy about being too closely identified with the military, except when that military is the American army...

But the stupid, evil minions of the Bush administration have no shame.

Never mind that the civilized parts of the world long ago abandoned torture as a means of extracting information because what you get out of frightened prisoners in pain is, to paraphrase the article, anything the interrogators have set their evil little hearts on hearing

Bush et cie: stupid and evil. Objective: lining the pockets of Texas oil millionaires.

Gordo et cie: stupid but well-meaning. Objective: creation of a socialist worker's paradise.

Why since this chap is not a British national have we been trying so hard to have him released from Guantanamo?

Surely the Ethiopians should be the ones protesting, he only had leave to remain in the UK and left... if he returns then fair enough he should be allowed back is that is his right but... he has no right to aid to get him back here!

I don't agree with torture etc but i also don't agree with wasting my tax dollars (ok pounds but is sounds better the American way) to get him back to the UK!!!

Fire - because i am expecting to get flamed as a racist!

A particularly good and in depth article on how the UK and US administrations collude after the US decide the guilt of the accused before any legal due process.

How about an in depth article on the UK government's people database schemes?

Gosh it is so boring, and you know what, war can be quite romantic in its own way.

Can't say I have found peacetime that great of a proposition, dull and dreary, and you know men are designed for war, without it one feels a little cheated out of life.

The glory of the battlefield, the thrill of the hunt, the raw deep adrenalin push of survival, I imagine it sort of makes one feel alive, such is the irony of the human condition.

I might train for ultimate combat / fighter, could be just what I need, f*ck the hippies and their hypocritical summer of love, let's get down to the real stuff, two men enter one man leaves.

Though of course the strategy side of it would be fun as well, analyse the positions click the button and launch the missiles, stuff five minutes of fame, give me 10 seconds of that and I would be a happy little soldier.

And come on, it is not like our ancestors didn't do it, and we are here today, perhaps because of it. You cannot argue with reasoning like that :P

"it is inconceivable that there are no documents in the possession of the United States Government that relate to what happened"

If I was doing something illegal, I'd make damn sure there was no paper trail.

As to dirty bombs - no, there's no real danger, but if you were (say) working 5 days a week in the street where it went off, thus increasing your cancer risk a lot, would you carry on going there ?

Nice write up of events though.

Here's the problem, perhaps he's guilty, perhaps he's not, but I have no faith in the prosecution of terror suspects in USA, because Bushie wouldn't bring them to a proper trial, which to me says the evidence is iffy or made up. Since there is nothing to fear from a trial with all the procedures weighted in your favour and a favourable jury, there was no need to avoid it.

UK is out because, well 'secret witnesses' break the 'right to face accuser' and 'bad character evidence' is really 'even if the evidence isn't enough, convict him anyway cos I say he's a baddun' and don't get me started on the anti possession of knowledge laws, plus all the other shit that has no place in a proper democracy.

So how about the the Hague? How about they get tried at the Hague, everyone sees the evidence, everyone is happy or not, problem solved.

You could find him guilty as sin and nobody would believe you because you have no credibility.

..because evidence extracted by torture is worthless, unless you don't care about facts and just want to hear what you want to hear. Putting the morality aside for one moment, if you (hypothetical you, no-one in particular) want to really fight terrorism then torture is the worst way to do it because a torture victim will always always always tell you precisely what you want to hear, sooner or later. That was good enough for the Inquistion or Stalin's show trials but it doesn't win the War of Terror does it? Unless the point always was to get showpiece confessions to splurge over the media to show just how good our highly-paid spooks n coppers are.

by the way, torturers all over the world are evil scum, even if they work for the good ol' US of A and go home to momma every night and cry red white and blue tears.

if you still believe that it's better that the innocent get punished rather than the guilty go free, well so did Hitler. Enjoy that thought.

Stop taking prisoners.

I couldn't help but notice this little gem:

"However, after being starved and put in stress positions for some days, the US agents threatened that he would be taken to another nation and tortured if he kept silent."

Who starved and put the US agents in stress positions?

I also particularly liked the way you reported Mohamed's allegations in such a way as to read as reporting of facts, rather than allegations.

>Gordo et cie: stupid but well-meaning. Objective: creation of a socialist worker's paradise.

Eh? Are you talking about Brown here? He's neither stupid, or particularly well meaning anymore. There's precious little socialism in his body either, or his predecessor's, and hasn't been an appropriate word to apply to any of the UK government's actions for a good twenty years. They're all about big business and banking and pocket-lining.

The "no danger" about the dirty bomb is correct only for Uranium (and probably Plutonium though I would not try to dissolve Pu in a bucket, its critical mass behaviour tends go weird in solution). Anyway, back to subject, it is definitely incorrect as far as various more exotic short lived isotopes are concerned.

I have worked with radioactive phosphorus and other short-lived isotopes in the past and I do not want to be anywhere near it when it gets dispersed. Same for Cesium. Same for a few others.

The difference between them and Uranium or most "fuel/bomb" radioactive material is that they can get incorporated into living tissue and actively participate in the human metabolic pathways. As a result even a very small dose is likely to have very adverse long term effects.

However, obtaining them in the necessary quantities and transporting them is beyond the abilities of anything but a state which possess a working reactor and facilities to isolate the products. So I would not worry about someone mixing them in a bucket and spinning them around their head shouting Allah Akhbar for the time being.

It's a bit of a dog's breakfast isn't it. In a war, you simply imprison your prisoners until the war is won (or lost). In law-enforcement, you try the buggers and set them free if the evidence warrants. Is this a war, or is it a law-enforcement action?

Bush claims that this is a war, yet here we see trials. Bush naturally claims that evidence is lacking, or that presenting the evidence would compromize security. Since the world hates Merka, you can hardly expect anyone to come forward with either inculpatory or exculpatory evidence now can you?

No justice, no peace. No peace, no justice. Which comes first, the egg or the penguin?

They couldn't send him to The Hague.

That's for war crimes tribunals, which would require him to be a formal enemy combatant, which would mean they'd have to treat him in accordance with the treaties concerning POWs, which would mean that all sides would have broken so damn many laws the UN would be displayed as the impotent piece of theatre it is.

It does make me curious as to how a "developed" nation would handle a civil war right now. Would the anti-government side be terrorists or military?

And any documents in the possession of the UK Government will have been lost anyway.

Mine's the one without a memory stick in the pocket.

This type of thing scares the crap out of me. now this guy might be guilty, he might be innocent. for sure hes no mother teresa and probably should be locked up somewhere. That does not mean he, or anyone else, deserves mistreatment.

A wise man (who I would name if I could remember) once said that a society can be judged by the way that it treats its criminals. If this man, and others, need to be subjected to this sort of treatment in order to attempt to justify a prosecution, just what exactly do the authorities believe they are trying to protect. Surely we are trying to protect a society in which precisely that sort of treatment is not permitted. We endeavour to rise above, not to fall into this type of trap. By attempting to defend what we have we are guilty of becoming exactly that which we fear.

I am more afraid of my own and the US government than any terrorist.

Most Western Europe countries have used these methods in the past. Of course, most Western Europe countries encountered ter'ist threats in the past. They later discovered that torture and all that stuff are counter-productive when dealing with terrorists. The one thing you don't want is creating iconic martyrs. This situation is quite new for the US, which is thus behaving as a baby-state. Not surprising, when all evidence point to the inability of the human kind to learn from other people's errors.

The worrying part is, why would you willingly give a baby-state all power on your residents and/or nationals?

Can anyone really blame Dave Hicks for going the plea bargain? No matter his level of guilt/innocence, I know I'd have prolly taken it too.

Then there's the whole thing of finding a truck driver being guilty of.. driving trucks.

If the true 'bottom' of this story is ever found, prolly won't be for another 30-50 years, when official secrets act etc. comes into effect and some more stuff's released. Or someone in the SyS (UGH!) grows some balls and comes out in public about the continued destruction of our styles of democracy - although by the read of the article, seems like the UK beaks might just do this for us. More power to them!

Coat, 'coz all decent spooks have a really comfy coat.

A quick Google attributes it to Dostoevsky. I was thinking Foucault but was as usual wrong. Sigh.

As secret witnesses and non-disclosure for 'national security' become de facto for denied basic legal rights (which our country is founded on), we either need to find a way to maintain security and give defendants their rights or change the way these crimes are tried.

There is the official secrets act and in this case the lawyers are being ordered not to tell people outside the case, so what is the problem. Why can't this be applied to other 'terrorism' cases.

Dictionary.com says;-

Terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes

That sounds alot like what the merkins are doing in all this?

So it must be time to send in the granny protesters dressed in black to peacefully walk up and down Downing Street and around Westminster members rush hour lunch time carrying just one photograph with the caption why ?

As no sane cop army soldier or politician would want to be publically seen beating , shooting or macing dear old loveable granny in public no siree , housewives factory/office workers and students yes they will do the evil deed upon that lot , but none to the last man in the line man will put a finger on dear old loveable frail granny and thus they will turn around and stuff their sharp pointy sticks in the A**** of the moron that gave the order in the first place !

Surely if you want secret documents all you need to do is look on any underground train for a laptop?

Why are so many people bent on propagating this nonsense? If New Labour were intent on any such thing, I'd be voting for them...

Hardly the point of the article I know, but where *do* you get this stuff from?

Both "MI5" and "The Security Service" are official names these days. Both names are used on pretty much all official documents; see http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1 for a typical example.

More informally, it's simply "the Service".

"SyS" indeed... there's really no need to make this stuff up, and I really hope the rest of the article is more accurate.

Of a dirty bomb plot? Puhleeeze... That's just a general comment, before you even consider the specifics of the "recipe" contained in the file found on his computer, which BM himself was able to identify as laughable. It's a sad state of affairs when interrogators are sent in with a brief to "convince" a prisoner to admit to such a plot. Does nobody in the chain of command have the slightest clue?

As for how ridiculous (or otherwise) the idea of sending him to The Hague... no comment.

(AC fer obveeus raisins)

Probably because they've been around and seen enough to know for a fact that when push comes to shove and all this blows up in their faces - and it will - it's their arses on the line and Uncle Sam will be nowhere to be seen. Despite their myriad flaws, the British media and public is nowhere near as tame as America's when it comes to "terr'ism and terr'ists". The so-called typical British reserve and sense of fair play may be a self-serving sentimental myth, but the end result is anyway the same.

The "I'm alright, Jack" attitude your comment epitomises is one of the prime evils facing the world today.

We're talking about a man who was disappeared under circumstances where British spooks had grounds to believe he would be tortured. As I've already said: that was unlikely to be their real motivation but what more reason would you need to make an effort on a fellow human's behalf? Do you seriously think Ethiopian officials would have any say in the matter, even *if* they actually bothered to do anything about it? Christ, they're too busy torturing their own dissidents to bother with a pissy little matter like one of their plebs being mistreated at the hands of the greatest imperial power yet known.

This is about power and responsibility. The Brits had both the power and the responsibility to at least make the tiny efforts they did. If we hadn't said or done anything on this man's behalf I'd be more appalled.

And you're worrying about your tax "dollars". Seriously dude - you suck.

"Mohamed is an Ethiopian national, and that having been refused asylum in the UK he was granted leave to remain for four years"

Not to be too insensitive but why are we bending over backwards to help him out? He was only stopped because he was trying to enter Britain using a fake British passport! Hand over any information we have to the Americans and forget about him.

Also is it just me or does anyone else find it a bit odd that we refuse asylum and then let someone stay anyway? Why bother refusing as it sounds like it's easy enough to get a fake passport and disappear sometime in the next 4 years.

That's what evidence can be used for.

And I don't mean the kind extracted through torture. If someone starts hacking at my sack, I'll tell them the moon is made of cheese if that's what they want to hear...

The _real_ terrorists here are the bloody security services. If the horrors that this bloke had to endure don't constitute terrorism, then I don't know what does.

Maybe he is guilty. Maybe he is not. I don't know. What I do know, is that this is very very wrong, and is categorically not the way that a 'modern', 'democratic', 'civilised' country should be conducting itself.

.....just inquiring after your health and general state of mental alertness, friend.

"Gordo et cie: stupid but well-meaning. Objective: creation of a socialist worker's paradise."

On what planet and in which universe are you currently resident? Do tell.

Paris because she also lives in cloud cuckoo land.

If this guy wasn't a terrorist before, it is hard to see him having much compassion for the Western world if he ever does get released, so might as well just execute him now and get on with other things, no?

<-- Dying Vulture, dying democracy.

@ Anon. Cwrd (above)

> ...Hand over any information we have [on the to the Americans and forget about him.

Not on MY watch, y'blighter! Treat ALL honest and decent, me goodly droogie-chum, or just GET OFF to JUDAH, okay, Neighbor?

<ACK!> (huk-huk-hukkk...) (Ahh-hhh.) Um, y'know, wot yur proposin', Mate, could just as well be instigated on someone else next year, only someplace else, y'know? When one least expects it, y'know? On exactly, next time, someone else such as you or I, y'know? Um, what some rare folks keep on insiistin'; about what one does to one's neighbor bein' a good part of what one ends up having done to ones' own self, in the end, turns out... Y'know?

Just look at all the festering self-inflicted wounds my land's dominant peoples have wrought on themselves, from the first settlers and how they even beat their own children with no mercy at all! So adding more of the same and dragging Blighty down in the process'll somehow magickally just help make it better, these remarkably scamfluffled post-ninesey-'levensey days?

For WHO, pray tell? Better for State torturers and those Statists who employ them, overall, than normal honest productive warm-bloods, I do think. Lasdst I heard, the fee tended toward about thirty ounces of gold's worth of Just Whatever for any given "slap-job". So c'mon 'n' get real on this, won't ya'?

The truth is worth so little as this?

Lookit: Just because the White Man's privatized little inbred and degenerate "Royal Line" (for that is what we are now saddled with AGAIN!), having first turned to paedophilic cutthroat sodomy, imperialistic invasionism and the dubious sultry delights of the /strappado/ and worse, has now abolished Habeas Corpus entire on this side of the Pond does not excuse your own self even *thinking* of using My Fair Albion Plate (of which I myself own but a mere one square inch, from long ago, but it is LEGAL!) as such a morally compassless sinkhole of an ill-founded notion as that. There are still a fair bunch of decent people left Out In The Cold now in the formerly fairly good ol' USA, but there is always a Saving Remnant that is not so easily ploughed under, mark these words well.

That "Jump 'em 'n' dump 'em" approach is rightly termed, "Externalizing the Problem" - dumping it off on OUR laps. Globalista mondo-corporate rotters in silk suits do it all day long from their panelled suites - and now YOU seep out of the linoleum to speak on behalf of even MORE Toxic Dumping?

Solves nothing in this world, let alone the next. Forget it. Bad idea. Violates all manner of Natural Law as well as bringing out the very worst of Human Nature yet again, all the way around. Plus now I've gone grumpy. (Oh well...) So now y'see? If so, good-o!

Next!

> Also is it just me or does anyone else find it a bit odd that we refuse asylum

> and then let someone stay anyway?

Um, I'm no barrister on Blighty's turf, but isn't a grant of political asylum an entirely separate matter, provided under entirely different well-defined conditions from a grant of a humanitarian-based semi-normal residency? Don't they issue from different offices?

Just askin'. Decent stout, by the way, thank'ee.

um.. yeah.. what you said..

Mine's the one with the memory stick in the pocket.. oh.. wait.. it's missing....

"The _real_ terrorists here are the bloody security service"

Now that's what I *call* moral equivalence. Or worse.

Dodgy asylum seeker (and subsequent self-confessed terrorist) enters Britain on a fake passport, is given leave to remain, to God knows what end. Goes to Pakistan (Big Clue One), then to Afghanistan (Huge Red Flashing Clue Lights Now). Gets caught.

I'd say this guy deserves everything he gets. What baffles me is just why some of you care-bears are wringing your hands? Why should we apply our own standards of democracy, due process and decency to a known terrorist explosives operative and illegal alien who wants to kill us? Mo's a vile enemy combatant, who shouldn't even have the right of access to British justice in my view. We certainly don't owe him anything.

This most certainly is a war and dirty things happen in wars.

When are you people going to realise the true nature and intentions of the vipers you wish to clasp to your collective bosom? Will it take more smouldering buses and trains to wake you up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Standing by and staying quiet while another human being is treated this badly is wrong(tm) - and in the longer term, self defeating.

Uncle Sam and some of the less nice groups (on behalf of someone, possibly the government) seem to be stretching their muscles as a 'world police' again. That's not good for anyone, especially when they flagrantly ignore the laws they are supposed to reject.

Not anonymous, since there's absolutely no point these days ;)

That should of course have been "protect" not "reject".

Also is it just me or does anyone else find it a bit odd that we refuse asylum and then let someone stay anyway?

Aslyum is granted to people who are at risk of death or torture if they return home. However, we have "safe" countries, where although the political state is classed as unstable, they are not granted asylum as it's not seen as a permanent status. Many Afician countries fall under this.

For example, someone that flees Nigeria, may be given leave, but refused Asylum, as it is deemed it may be ok to return one day, therefore putting them in limbo where they cannot return, but cannot work or settle here.

It is also applied to minors, for example a 16 yr old may arrive, fail to gain asylum, but have leave to stay until they are 18 (or sometimes 21).

It is often used as a holding state, where we can't send them back immediatly, but don't want them to stay and gain rights. This often, unfortunatly, happens where someone is wanted for a crime that will carry the death sentance. As a EU country we cannot send people to their death, at the same time we don't want them here either.

You fight for centuries for the right NOT to disappear into some hole in the ground, and the US gives up that right, and for what ? Was the attack on the world trade center really worth that ?

@Philip - Its not la-la-land you dolt, its called due process, and me and mine and probably yours (if you are from the UK) lost blood, tears and kin fighting for it. The legitimacy of the process is vital for people to trust the system. If you want a return to the star chamber you are going to have a bloody hard fight on your hands. Fucking ignorant shite, you probably do not even understand what the star chamber represented. As for smoldering buses and trains, I am not afraid, unlike yourself I like to have some idea of the actual chance of such events occurring, in this case .. no chance.

Time to get a life and get out from under your scared little stone you ignorant pillock.

"A British spook from the Security Service (aka MI5, or SyS* as they seem nowadays to prefer to be known)"

Doubtful. MI5's remit is largely within the UK whereas MI6 is largely external and a.k.a. "Secret Intelligence Service" or "SIS". Be mindful that a trivial errors can undermine an entire argument, even if (big if) your major premise is correct.

This was a large monologue, and a bit of a walk about. Please consider including a pithy executive summary at the start, just one paragraph.

So I have been known to grumble at El Reg for the way in which some issues have been covered.

Well fair's fair -- this series of articles on the global security situation and the way sin which governments behave is really tremendously well researched, well written and illuminating. The world needs more of this kind of coverage!

That is what investigation, facts and proof are all about. Confessions even without any threat of torture / coercion are notoriously unreliable (and rightly so).

Reliance on confession as the sole or primary reason for intimating guilt strikes me as just a cover for a lack of proof.

Send him on his way and trust he doesn't meet with some kind of 9mm fatal accident on his way out the door.....wouldn't that be a shame.

He's not British and not our responsibility. I agree with AC 17:38 actually. And Blackworx..I disagree with you. Therefore I suppose by your yardstick I suck too. But thats my right isn't it. I could opine that your gullible and the worst kind of liberal 'wet' but like the 'suck' comment thats something we won't agree about. Therefore let's agree to disagree.

Coward: let's not agree to disagree. Let's agree that you are wrong, can't spell, have scant regard for punctuation and suck satan's fat one to help you sleep at night.

Philip: "this is a war and dirty things happen in wars" ... Any more odious regurgitated platitudes you fancy enlightening us with?

@ Philip Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 09:41 GMT

You're either being disingenuous to the point of post-ironic excess, or you really are a credulous seeping cock-end.

Standards of democracy, due process and decency are applied unilaterally, and without prejudice or distinction, otherwise they would not be standards now, would they.

You're applying post-hoc logic, pre-assuming that the man is guilty in order to justify subjecting him to even a fraction of the treatment that he has undergone. Maybe you think it's acceptable because he's a darkie? Which elevates you from cock-end to racist cunt.

The assumption of innocence is not some namby-pinko-liberal woolliness - it's a paradigm that extols the value of humanity, and recognises that you can't just fuck someone over because you have some suspicions. If this bloke is so guilty, it should be a shoo in to convict, without the need for this wasteful torture lark and secret trial shenanigans.

Torture, rendition, secret detention - These do nothing to keep us safe. It foments distrust, secrecy, extremism, and hatred. They break down the rule of law itself.

They do, however, provide an illusion of security, that something is being done, to the more facile minded among us (that means you, Philip, just in case you are too soft-headed to infer the correct point, you muppet brained stain).

Typical 'liberal' discourse - laced as usual with that most moonbat of DNA - little argumentative logic, shrieking emotion and ugly, hateful ad hominem:

• Fucking ignorant shite

• you ignorant pillock

• coward

• odious, regurgitated platitudes

• credulous seeping cock-end

• racist cunt - by the way nana, this was your very own piece of post-hoc logic!

• muppet brained stain

Nice. Amazing what soft-arses like this will utter from their filthy mouths when they've go no chance of being twatted.

This vile specimen is not even in the UK and has no right to be either - ergo he should not be subject to British Justice. We have no responsibility for him, so no need to apply any assumptions - guilt or otherwise. Keep him in Gitmo and let the Americans deal with him.

I know, why not throw in a few ugly, hateful ad homs of your own and a little talk of physical violence? That'll get your point across, big man. Violence is nothing more than the admission that your ideas could not prevail on their own merit.

What is this tripe you are talking about "British" Justice (with a capital 'J' no less)? Is justice a different thing depending on where on this ball of rock one happens to have been born? Why then should this guy be subject to US military justice? He wasn't even fucking arrested in Britain or America. Just use your brain for longer than it takes to come up with some irrelevant conclusion that says this man is less entitled to due process than you or me and there is a tiny, tiny chance that you might begin to see a little truth.

Never be on the side of the executioners. Just keep at it with thinking and one day you might get there.

Not only is the sentiment quite mutual but that I was brought up to believe that when you resort to Ad Hominem attacks ..you have simply run out of logic and lost the debate.

Quite apart from the fact that both of the ad homs in my previous post were each actually an attempt at trying to convey a slightly more subtle point, where is the use in coming out with the biggest thought-terminating cliche going on the net?

"The potty-mouthed softarse made a big nasty ad hom so the debate is closed, nothing to see here, back to sleep everybody".

Best you just go back to polishing your boots eh?

The 'tripe' I am talking about (British Justice) is distinct from American Justice because it takes place in a different jurisdiction, with different legislation, procedures and rules.

You may be referring to natural justice, I am referring to the legislative kind. This may be a difficult concept for you to grasp.

My point is that I don't believe that we have any further responsibility to Mo - he is a proven fraudulent asylum seeker, so shouldn't be coming back here. Yet by the time Stafford-Smith has finished with this frivolous and self-serving litigation, we would have probably have been able to open a small hospital wing with the fat fees he and other avaricious litigators will inevitably be trousering at our expense.

I see this as fundamentally, morally wrong.

So I would answer yes - I *do* believe he is less entitled to due process in Britain than I am because:

• He is neither British nor resident in Britain

• He has attempted to enter this country by fraudulent means.

• He is a dangerous Jihadist that wishes to kill us.

• As you so delightfully and eloquently pointed out - 'he wasn't even fucking arrested in Britain or America'.

I think these are reasons aplenty, myself. I say again - keep him in Gitmo and let the Americans deal with the tosser.

"yes - I *do* believe he is less entitled to due process in Britain than I am"

That is not what I said, moreover If you hadn't already admitted to knowing exactly what I am talking about I could only conclude that, by continuing with the same rhetoric and failing to address my point, it is not me but you who is having difficulty understanding.

And on what planet is the discovery of evidence "frivolous and self-serving"? Clearly from the judgment there were elements to the suit ("a broad "fishing" request") which the beaks had no truck with, but over the substantive request there was never any doubt of the outcome. And quite apart from bending over backwards to help the guy, our government has been trying to do the exact opposite. It is only because of their refusal to provide specific information that this case had to be brought in the first place. The argument that the information could not be released "for security reasons" is a plain old appeal to ignorance.

"...it is a basic and long established value in any democracy that the location of those in custody is made known to the detainee's family and those representing him". It's a pretty simple idea; why does the fact that the guy's defence had to take the government to court just to try to obtain that information not set alarm bells ringing in your head?

And as for lawyers fees, come on mate you're clutching at straws. Why not just go the whole hog and say there are dying little old grannies whose lives might be saved if it weren't for this filthy towelhead and his money-grubbing lawyer?

Is when utterly worthless scrotes like this not only try to enter this country fraudulently, but then travel on to Jihadistan to get trained in how to blow it up.

And who, once having been caught, jump at the chance to litigate when there's a chance that those stupid, useful idiots in Kuffar Britain can get them out of Gitmo - and at our expense too. This isn't Justice - this is taking the piss on a epic scale.

"Why not just go the whole hog and say there are dying little old grannies whose lives might be saved if it weren't for this filthy towelhead and his money-grubbing lawyer?"

Well I'd remove the nasty invective that you're falsely trying to ascribe to me, but basically yes. Which would of course leave in the 'money grubbing lawyers' bit. ;)

there are dying little old grannies whose lives might be saved if it weren't for this filthy towelhead and his money-grubbing lawyer?

Good idea.

Philip, I'm not trying to ascribe to you any nasty invective that you didn't already imply. Ultimately the comment to which I referred boils down to "them or us", "black or white", "with us or against us".

The suit is not an attempt to get the guy out of Gitmo at our expense, as he is clearly going to face his military tribunal in the States, but an attempt to build a defence to stop the guy being executed on the basis of a confession possibly (nay probably) obtained by torture.

You seem to confuse people's desire to allow him a fair trial as a desire to see him walk free. If he is guilty, as *seems* to be the case, by all means let him be sentenced to death. There is of course the small matter of fact that whatever crimes he /did/ commit were never committed on US soil and that he was deported without even a nod to the Pakistani justice system, but given that the Americans have him in their possession now and won't be letting him go, that is a moot point; one that is made all the more so by the fact that even if he was tried in Pakistan and found guilty of the same crimes then he would be executed there too.

There is more at stake than the life of "a danjerous Jihadist who wants to kill us". If we can't live up to our democratic principles over angry little pissants like this then why even bother fighting for them in the first place?

Just a request, El Reg, if you're going to put in footnotes, why not put them at the foot of the page the reader is currently on instead of having to skip right to the end of the article to find out that it was barely worth an explanation in parenthesis?!

PS To others, re: Philip:

Please stop feeding the troll.

You have not countered any of the points made, making your claims of a lack of logic entirely vacuous.

Feebly bleating 'liberal' as a pejorative is an emotional appeal of the rankest hypocrisy, as is crying foul of a hurtful word or two.

There is no post hoc logic in the use of the conditional - If A, then B (_If_ your views are because he is a darkie, _then_ you are a racist cunt). Your logic, however, stated that B happened because of A (he was tortured because he was a terrorist), ignoring the conditional aspect, and erroneously validating the outcome.

And I would say the same things to your face, although the keyboard warrior comments are always welcome as light entertainment. You suppurating twat.

Further on, you miss the point, yet again, that you cannot be sure that this person is a vile specimen, as he has not been given the benefit of democracy, due process and decency. Anybody put through secret internment camps and sanctioned torture will come out the other with a self signed note of their guilt.

I don't particularly agree with the fact that he is coming back to the UK, I don't agree with non-discriminatory immigration in general, but I do agree with having standards and morals that do not allow us to turn our backs when there is

I (would like to) imagine that better minds that ours have reasoned why an individual would be returned to the last know country of residence. There must have been a reason to have allowed him to stay in the first place.

I don't wish to clasp terrorists to my bosom, collective or otherwise. Those convicted should be locked up and removed from society. But way to go on the attempted straw man.

But neither do I want to live in a society governed by arbitrary rules, exercised without accountability by those with power, and the ability to convict on the strength of suspicion or circumstantial evidence alone.

Addressing some of your later points:

• He _was_ resident in Britain, albeit out of the country for whatever purpose

• His attempt to enter this country by fraudulent means should surely be dealt with by UK authorities, if nothing else just to confirm that he was making a fraudulent attempt.

• We have only your word that he is a dangerous Jihadist that wishes to kill us. I hope that, if you have supporting evidence, you provide it to the relevant authorities.

• Worthless scrotes like this - You really are in possession of far more information than the rest of us. Because, of course, you would never create a fictive bogeyman character to make a point, would you.

• Surely anyone would jump at the chance to litigate if they had been held without due process. Surely anyone has the right to redress if they had been held without due process. This goes back to the crux of the matter - If he was / is such a bad man, and such a threat to grannies and children, and we are so sure of that, we (as with the US government before us) have a plethora of powers to put him away for a long time.