Someone with a megaphone makes the point I’ve been wondering about [thanks London Lad]:

The poison of Guantánamo still courses through ministerial veins http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/06/jenkins-guantanamo-law-liberty

It stressed that "no disclosure of sensitive intelligence matters" was involved. The case had nothing to do with security. It can only have been a capitulation to American pressure to avoid accusations of torture.

Here’s the link to the 4/2/09 High Court Ruling. They include a history of the case and of their decision making process.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/mohamed-judgment4-04022009.pdf

The use of the excuse of “State Secrets” is proliferating throughout the whole process, as is shown above, in Britain, in Italy and in the US:

March 2, 2007 - US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rules against Kahlid El-Masri, who had claimed that he was detained and interrogated [See January 1, 2004] in violation of his rights under the Constitution and international law. The Ruling was in agreement with the US Government which argued that El-Masri's case could not proceed because it posed an unreasonable risk that privileged state secrets would be disclosed. On October 9, 2007, The Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal. [21] For ACLU Petition see May 30, 2007 and [43]. For proposed Senate legislation [S.2533] about State Secrets, see February 22, 2008.

October 9, 2007 - The Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal of Khalid El-Masri, a German citizen who claims that he was tortured in a prison in Afghanistan after being kidnapped by the CIA in Macedonia. [See January 1, 2004] The Court's decision means that a March 2, 2007 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will stand. [21]

***************

June 18, 2007 - “An Italian judge on Monday suspended the kidnapping trial of 25 CIA operatives, a United States military officer and some of Italy’s former top spies in the alleged abduction and rendition of Abu Omar on February 17, 2003. The court is awaiting a ruling on whether prosecutors overstepped their bounds and violated state secrecy laws as they gathered evidence.” See June 8, 2007 [49] See also [53]

**************

February 14, 2008 - A Federal Court dismisses the May 30, 2007 ACLU case against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan. The case alleged that the company provided logistics for CIA “extraordinary rendition” program flights. At the urging of the Bush administration, the court judged that litigation of the case would reveal “state secrets” and harm national security. [44] For proposed Senate legislation about State Secrets [S.2533], see February 22, 2008.

Sources at: http://www.webdsi.com/jebbie/tlpage35.html

And now this case in Britain;

[Falsely claimed] ”State Secrets” and “transparency in government” can not co-exist.

I ask the new administration...which option will win out?

My two cents.

That just struck me as pretty funny...