what about American media coverage???

Keep up the good Truthfinding.

Look what the British Court had to say:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aLo8robcnBo/SYo7gn5nNRI/AAAAAAAAACY/GP8HhaPthd0/s1600-h/court.png

You have to read the two paragraphs in that link!

Having just finished the article in the UK Independent, I came here and found this blog already going.

The Financial Times adds one other little piece that wan not much mentioned in the other articles. A lawyer told the UK Court that the US position on releasing the evidence has not changed under Obama. It also notes the consequences faced by each country. For the US the worst is political embarrassment (according to the article), while the UK is subject to the International Criminal Court.

Can we all imagine the absolute screaming and self-righteous bullshit that would be spewing forth from the right wing if the UK tried to tell US courts what they could and could not release? OMG, hell hath no fury like conservatives afraid of world domination.

Let's take a moment to reflect on what their position will be when it is the US threatening retaliation and dictating to the UK courts. OK - time's up.

If these stories pan out, this is good news (not that torture or blackmail occurred, that it is coming out finally). I'm a bit skeptical and suspect from looking at two articles that they are being made out to be more than they are.

The US asked Britain to not release certain details. Until we know just what details we're speculating as to the import. Some redactions are legit, some aren't.

The UK court formed some kind of opinion re torture, but at least one article leaves it kinda wide open.

"An unprecedented high court ruling yesterday blamed the US, with British connivance, for keeping the "powerful evidence" secret,"

'Powerful evidence' is completely ambiguous.

"there had been no threat by the US to break off intelligence co-operation"

So no blackmail?

What I see is a UK cover-up since "None of the contents at issue could possibly be described as sensitive US intelligence". It is not clear that this is under threat from the US, or even currently solicited by the US. You have to read the State Dept's brevity carefully.

"In their ruling, the British judges disclosed that the secret documents “gave rise to an arguable case of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”. They also disclosed that British intelligence officials were present when Mr Mohamed alleges he was tortured."

Allegations of torture are not evidence of torture.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/05/miliband_torture/

Miliband refuses to release torture documents - Weasel words from weasel
...
The US gives the UK selected pieces of its intelligence findings in exchange, amongst other things, for a permanent US seat on the UK's Joint Intelligence Committee. The supposed exchange is really hopelessly in favour of the US with its enormous intel gathering infrastructure compared to the UK's.

Miliband told the House of Commons today that the US had made no threat to end this exchange of intelligence. Or at least he sort of said that.

Miliband told the House: "For the record, the United States authorities did not threaten to 'break off' intelligence cooperation with the UK. What the United States said, and it appears in the open, public documents of this case, is that the disclosure of these documents by order of our Courts would be 'likely to result in serious damage to US national security and could harm existing intelligence information-sharing between our two governments'." Clear? Serious damage is not the same as "break off".
...

Is this story finished then? Was it successfully obscured or is there something larger at play that will inevitably drive it to the forefront until properly dealt with?