Since, reluctantly and following court order, the UK goverment has confirmed the identity of Yunus Rahmatullah as Yunus Rahmatullah, it seems very probable that he is indeed Yunus Rahmatullah.

The court has not ordered the UK government to do anything beyond its power. It has ordered it to request the return of Yunus Rahmatullah - something the memoranda of understanding oblige the US to do.

There is absolutely no doubt that conditions in Baghram do not comply with the Geneva conventions, and the memoranda of understanding oblige them so to do.

It is also clear that the minister(s) involved have repeatedly at least mislead and more likely lied to Parliament. The "consequences" are subject to a constitutional convention which is not justiciable and which is more honoured in the breach than the observance these days - particularly if the Prime Minister sees no downside for himself in sticking two fingers up to standards.

I am in no doubt that if the UK government thought it could hide behind the assertion that Rahmatullah had never been in their custody it would have run that argument in one at least of the two trials to date. It has not. Read the judgements.   

Your fantasies about what a Sunni and a Shia might have been up to in a taxi are quite irrelevant. No evidence that they were up to anything has been provided. One of the men in the taxi quite simply could not, ever, have been a member of the LET. The argument that the other (Rahmatullah) was in the LET is based on the fact that he was in a taxi with a member of the LET.   It is, therefore, unsupportable as a line of argument. Even the US military kangaroo courts have accepted that Rahmatullah is not a threat.