Well, I think I prefer the views of the Court of Appeal to those of Keith or Teribus.

The identity of Yunus Rahmatullah was ordered to be revealed by the UK courts, and was subsequently revealed, so the pretence that the individual could not be identified was clearly shown to be a mere pretence.

Even the US has conceded under its kangaroo court military jurisdiction that Yunus Rahmatullah poses no threat, and AFAIK have determined that he was not in fact a member of LET.

There has never yet been a question before the court of whether the capture was proper. It is the rendition to a foreign power and then to a lawless place and the failure to observe the processes of justice that are in issue.

Banjoman: AFAIK no application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was made nor has yet been made so it seems to me that the case of Yunus Rahmatullah is no longer sub judice - compare: http://www.headoflegal.com/2011/04/27/john-hemming-sub-judice-and-the-public-interest-no-abuse-of-parliamentary-procedure/.

I believe therefore that your MP is just trying to avoid the issue - what a surprise since he is a conservative.


The present options of the government are: -

1. Seek leave to appeal and appeal if leave is given.

2. Request the US to return Rahmatullah.


If the point was to be taken that Rahmatullah was never in UK control, only that of the US (which I doubt would prevail) it should have been taken by now and I infer that the UK government knows that that argument would not be soundly based.

So far the courts have held that they do have jurisdiction - so it is not solely a matter for governments (there is an area of government discretion within which proceedings will not run).   In general governments should obey the law.

If the UK does make a request of the US will the US abide by its international obligations - or stick two fingers (one, for US readers) up to the rule of law (again)?