Why fume over press freedom?

Extra--David Miliband is not happy over today's loss in the Binyam Mohamed case.  He's just vowed a brave battle all the way up to the ramparts of the High Court to save the "inviolable principle" of opacity in intelligence sharing.

For those tuning in, this fuss is over all of seven paragraphs. I haven't read them, but the British Court has been absolutely clear what the paragraphs contain.  They do not out an agent; they do not crack a code.  What they do, apparently, is recite some of the abuse meted out on poor Binyam by US officials, with UK complicity.  That information is embarrassing, granted. But how is it intel?

I'll let Lord Justice Thomas take it from here:

It cannot be suggested that information as to how officials of the US Government admitted treating BM during his interrogation is information that can in any democratic society governed by the rule of law be characterised as ‘secret’ or as ‘intelligence’.

Now, Mr. Miliband insists that if you and I and the BBC can see these seven paragraphs, the well of US intelligence will dry up. Methinks the good Secretary protests too much.  The saga of Binyam's rendition has been told in the world media for years. One has to wonder: is this about protecting the lives of British citizens, or the hides of British (and American) officials?

The Secretary has rushed to point out how open he has been in this process.  His written statement adds that Clive, myself and the rest of Binyam's habeas team were able to see the underlying intelligence documents in a secret setting in the US. (He makes no mention of the fact that he had to be judicially reviewed to force this disclosure.)

Whether the full set of documents actually require hermetically sealed secrecy is, perhaps, a question for another day.  But as today's judgment says, the Court has not brought to light one piece of actual intelligence. There is a "critical distinction between the 42 documents which contain intelligence information and the 7 paragraphs which do not contain anything of an intelligence or secret nature."

There is one sentence in Mr. Miliband's impassioned statement with which I entirely agree: "The issues at stake are simple, but profound." Indeed. There is a vast difference between evidence of criminal acts by our security services and legitimate intelligence collecting efforts.  The latter should be, and is, protected.  The former must be made public each and every time it occurs.  How else are we are we to hold our governments to account?

Thankfully, one need not be a absolutist for press freedom to defend this principle. Lord Justice Thomas made that clear today.  It is a shame Mr. Miliband will not see the sense in this, and abandon this appeal over a few lines of text.