The pasting was itself dishonest in that it was of an obsolete position that the UK government no longer asserts.

If you want to know the government position go and read the transcript - it is that the US will not comply with the memorandum of understanding (itself a somewhat damning view) to that the making of a request under the memorandum of understnding is futile. Secondly it argued that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the courts, and the courts roundly rejected that.

Further reading reveals that the US Supreme court has 3 times accepted that the conditions in Guantanamo are not Geneva Convention compliant - and even so once Guantanamo internees do obtain legal representation 80% are acquitted of any crime.

Baghram is worse than Guantanamo.

It appears that the whole of the evidence against Rahmatullah (who is a Sunni) is that he was in a taxi with Amanatullah. Amanatullah is a Shia (indeed a rice farmer) and therefore cannot have been a member of LeT which is Sunni, anti Shia, and campaigns to dispossess Shi rice farmers. Since Amanatullah cannot have been a member of LeT, the case against Rahmatullah falls.

Frankly, Keith, I would rather that governments did not lie and torture, but that they did obey the rule of law.   It looks as if you think otherwise.