Some prize examples of issue dodging.

The report regarding withholding of the name was months out of date and obviously an obfuscation. The revelation of the name was a previous stage and not a requirement of the Court of Appeal judgement - the name had already been revealed - by a different order.

If the suspicion is of involvement in slaughter, then the suspects could be tried. The allegation at this stage - after even the US military "courts" have ruled that Rahmatullah is not a threat - seems odd.

The Pakistani courts have made rulings on what their government is obliged to do. The most obvious possible reason for foot-dragging by the Pakistani government is to preserve at least some benefit from the US. It is not a cause to impute guilt - particularly without trial, of Rahmatullah.

The obligation of the US under international law is to return Rahmatullah to the control of the UK. The obligations of the UK under the writ of habeas corpus then follow.

The Court of Appeal can order - and has ordered - the UK to require the return of Rahmatullah to the control of the UK. I did not say and nor did the court that it had jurisdiction over the US processes. The UK government did try to argue something similar, namely that a request for the return of Rahmatullah would be an exercise in futility, but Neuberger LJ was pretty scathing about that. It was not this court that ordered the revelation of Rahmatullah's name.

It was Teribus who first raised the argument that the UK never had control over Rahmatullah. It appears that the UK government never advanced such a point - which raises the inference that they knew it would not prevail.

I am rather adversely impressed by the attempts of the two hawks above to criticise the court process - in some parts by obvious irrelevancies. They do little to advance the acceptability of their right wing views.