They apparently did no such thing until the CIA responded in May,

The post from which you're quoting was after the CIA letter had come to light. In fact, that was the whole point of what I wrote:

That definitive evidence came, and it leaves no doubt that these threats to the British government are now being issued every bit as emphatically from Obama. I've obtained a copy of the letter excerpts submitted to the British court (.pdf - see pages 6-9), submitted by the British Government to prove that the U.S., under Obama, is continuing to make these threats. Here are key excerpts from the Obama administration's letter; just marvel at what the U.S. is saying to Britian:

I had obtained a copy of the CIA letter when I wrote that post, linked to it and quoted from it a length. That's what eliminated the doubt about whether the Obama administration was issuing the same threat.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/12/obama/

Is this an example of everyone believing that Obama is in charge, and he's basically a decent fellow? I mean, when Cheney was in charge you could believe his threats. But with this Obama fellow, and Bill Clinton's wife, they probably aren't really going to follow through on any threats.

I don't think anyone believed the Cheney threats either. I know I didn't. The U.S. and the British are two peas in a pod when it comes to torture and the like. I always saw this as collusion between the U.S. and British to manipulate the court into concealing this evidence (British: "We need a threat from you to show the court": -- U.S.: "Here you go") and I think that was as true under Bush as Obama.

The High Court did seize on the fact that Obama had purported to ban torture and himself released American documents detailing torture (the OLC memos) to cast doubt on whether the Obama administration could really be serious about such threats; it also seized on language slightly less definitive ("it could result in a loss of intelligence-sharing" rather than "it WILL") to conclude that the threat wasn't as definitive.

But I think what really happened was that the court got tired of indulging the charade cooked up by these two governments.

I'm reading there's one more appeal hurdle before they are made public. Are we celebrating the reversal of censorship too early?

From the post:

As a result, the British High Court -- pending the results of one final appeal -- will release to the world those seven paragraphs, detailing what the CIA itself told British intelligence agents was done to Binyam Mohamed.

Glenn, you hobnob with the legal and political elite.

I do? I wonder why I block out the memories of my doing that.

Or, rather, is it not the case that there just isn't that much interest or resolve coming from America's legal elite to get these things done? Because I find it hard to believe that a groundswell of litigation coming from across America could be stopped by a thin layer of courts at the top. I find that very hard to believe.

There's this new group called "the ACLU". You should see if you can find an article about them.

Any indication why

the High Court suddenly reversed itself yesterday?

It wasn't sudden. There were motions made by Mohamed's lawyers and various newspapers for disclosure. There was briefing. The British High Court wanted more evidence that the Obama administration was really standing by these threats. More evidence was submitted (the CIA letter, the letter from Jim Jones, the summaries of Clinton's threats, etc.).

There was a hearing held. The court took its time deciding. And yesterday it issued its ruling.

As is true for the U.S., the wheels of justice grind slowly.

might be my favorite ever left on this blog - really awesome:

http://tr.im/BWtE

If they have a history of criminal activity, or are likely agents of a foreign power or an organization formally classified as a terrorist group by the State Department, as is the case with Hamas (who are CAIR's masters) - then YES, WE SHOULD BE WATCHING THEM. HOW DO WE "CONNECT THE DOTS" IF WE'RE AVERTING OUR EYES???

Does that apply to AIPAC?

The same way we watch the mafia and other criminal enterprises. Patiently, professionally, and using the legitimate powers at the government's disposal.

Is there probable cause that CAIR has committed crimes? The Bush administration has been railing against them for years. If there was such evidence, why haven't they been indicted?

I ASKED:

Is AIPAC a front organization for extremists, too?

YOU ANSWERED:

It's not about "extremism," which is a fluid term.

I asked that because someone named WGSalter wrote earlier: "But CAIR is still a front organization for extremists, and to be watched carefully."

Do you suddenly have qualms about surveillance, EVEN WHEN IT'S APPROVED BY A JUDGE ON THE BASIS OF PROBABLE CAUSE?

I don't have problems with the government engaging in surveillance when a court finds probable cause to believe they're involved in criminal acts.

The central fallacy -- other than the one Brian Scheetz keeps pointing out to you about what this investigation seeks to target -- is that you keep implying and suggesting that there is evidence to demonstrate probable cause that CAIR is involved in criminal acts even though you can't point to anything to substantiate that and there's plenty to suggest it's false (leading with the fact that the Bush DOJ never indicted them).

Last question: the Intern memo was obtained because someone working with the CAIR-hating Grabuatz went undercover -- infiltrated -- CAIR in order to gather incriminating evidence.

All they got was this laughably innocuous intern memo. How does that square with your claims that they're some sort of nefarious front for Terrorists?