I would have thought that citing a country with Pakistan's human rights record as a guide for arresting a suspected terrorist a bit off the beam even for your crassness"

Well Jim, common-sense would lead one to the conclusion that as far as arresting someone on suspicion of being an Al-Qaeda terrorist goes, has got a hell of a lot more to do with how much they (the "arresting" authorities) know about Al-Qaeda than it has to do with their human rights record.

"I'm sure we are about to be told that ……..it is all left-wing propaganda, - even though it is well in line with your support for other repressive regimes."

I was not aware that I do support repressive regimes – anything at all to back that up, or is this just your usual scattergun, "lash-out-blindly" approach? Or do you count Israel as a repressive regime?? Rather strange that – apart from Iraq, Israel is the only other democracy in the entire middle-east region. What are there Jim something like 22 Arab States in the world and the only one that actually conducts open, free and fair elections (According to the United Nations) is Iraq – courtesy of George W. Bush.

"but Pakistan is after all an Islamic Republic" suggesting that Islam automatically means repression, I suppose."

See above Jimbo, fancy a list of Islamic States that are undoubtedly governed by repressive regimes?? You'll actually be hard pressed to find one that isn't.

"I have no idea if Binyam Mohammed is a terrorist, though I'm sure if he was the evidence would have been produced by now to prove the case. As it is, he is innocent in the eyes of the law until charged and convicted."

Of course he is innocent until proven guilty, who has said otherwise. But as he was never brought to trial there has never been any opportunity to bring what evidence existed into the public domain, therefore just as you do not know if he was a terrorist, you also do not know what evidence exists.

"Was he tortured? Why not; that is now standard practice with the U.S. in its quaintly termed "War against tourism" (Thanks for that one Dubya)."

Standard practice?? Hardly. But I see that you are fully prepared to condemn on hearsay when it suits your argument – I shouldn't be surprised typical left-wing hypocrisy.

"Was Britain involved? Again, why not; it is well within line with its lickspittle policy of acting like a U.S. poodle, and it explains why Binyam Mohammed was given red-carpet treatment."

Pronounced "Guilty" based on your own biased opinion – more left-wing hypocrisy.

"I find the lynch-mob mentality that surfaces in these cases a terrifying confirmation of the 'Lord of the Flies' philosophy that if you scratch a civilised society you will find barbarism lurking just below the surface. As I said, innocent until conclusively and openly proved guilty."

As Binyam Mohammed is not going to be charged with anything or tried then his "guilt" or "innocence" is a moot point. I wasn't aware that anyone was out to "lynch" anyone.

Facts remain:
•        He is an Ethiopian citizen
•        He is not a British citizen
•        He has no rights of residence in the UK
•        He was a failed asylum seeker whose case was rejected
•        He was arrested by the authorities in Pakistan and handed over to US Custody

Should he be allowed to remain in the UK – most certainly not, he should be put on the next flight to Addis Ababa. That has nothing to do with whether he was a member of Al-Qaeda or not. It has got nothing to do with whether he was a terrorist or not. It has got nothing to do with his religion or politics. It has got everything to do with where he is from.