I found the Telegraph article cited by David to be excellent. Having said that, it is up to the people of the UK (and of Canada, since the same issues are present in the case cited by Rex) to decide how they are going to address those issues. Our experiences with similar cases (the good, the bad and the ugly) may be instructive, but the decisions in the end are theirs and not ours.

As to the Rasoul case, we must be aware that the very simple issue was whether he was an unlawful enemy combatant subject to detention - not whether he was guilty of war crimes, or subject to "anti-terrorist" laws. The facts (despite his statement, which was simply not truthful) compelled the first three reviewing panels to conclude that his detention was justified.

The final reviewing panel, and Gordon England, determined (for reasons which were totally redacted) that he should be released. Perhaps, that decision was solely political, perhaps not - the record does not allow us to make that determination. As events have turned out, that decision was a cock up.

As to Rasoul himself, it is easy to call him a lying terrorist. My own take on Rasoul (which to me is more scary) is that he was simply a good soldier in his army, who was aware that he had to survive, evade, resist and escape - and managed to do so.

That was all in accord with his Laws of War - which to him and other AQ and Taliban members are a matter not only of law, but of religion. As KSM stated in his "Islamic Response" (link):

(p.3 .pdf file)
Also, as the prophet has stated: "War is to deceive."
Taking this KSM view into account, the Telegraph article is still correct in this conclusion:

The worldwide campaign against Islamist-inspired militancy is highly complex. But if the West to wants to prevent further terror attacks, we must first distinguish between those who are on our side, and those who are not.
But, as the Rasoul case illustrates, that distinguishment is subject to error - especially if everything said by detainees is taken at face value. And, discernment is also impeded by having to take everything our government says at face value - the redacted decision to release Rasoul is simply one example of too many we have so far seen on this thread.

Common Article 3 of the GCs (along with several other articles in GC III and IV) require that detention status be determined by an impartial tribunal (not necessarily a full-fledged domestic judicial court) - based on evidence. That requirement is making more and more sense to me, where these cases are being "tried and decided" based on statements by government (and "shadow government") officials, the detainees and their lawyers.

Binyam Mohamed (link in David's last post) is a good example - the propaganda circus continues. I have stated before and reiterate that I would have liked to see the BM case tried before a tough impartial judge (military or civilian) to determine (1) whether he should be detained as an unlawful enemy combatant; and (2) whether he was guilty of war crimes, "terrorist" crimes, etc. If that trial reached issues of unlawful rendition and torture, so be it.

It is perfectly conceivable that a judge could have found against BM on issues (1) and (2) - and also could have found that both unlawful rendition and torture occured. If the latter finding was made, the judge's duty would then have been to refer the case for Federal prosecution against the persons responsible for the renditions and torture. That is how our (US) system is supposed to work.

Obviously, political decisions were at work in the BM case (by both the Bush II and Obama administrations). So, here also, we are left with a media "trial".