Today in Britain another terror suspect was arrested, bringing back up to 24 the number in custody there. But the most interesting development is this allegation in the Guardian:

Reports from Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable here. In particular Rashid Rauf, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week's arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance. Disturbing reports in Pakistani papers that he had "broken" under interrogation have been echoed by local human rights bodies. The Guardian has quoted one, Asma Jehangir, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, who has no doubt about the meaning of broken. "I don't deduce, I know - torture," she said. "There is simply no doubt about that, no doubt at all." If this is shown to be the case, the prospect of securing convictions in this country on his evidence will be complicated. In 2004 the Court of Appeal ruled - feebly - that evidence obtained using torture would be admissable as long as Britain had not "procured or connived" at it. The law lords rightly dismissed this in December last year, though they disagreed about whether the bar should be the simple "risk" or "probability" of torture."

As I've mentioned before, if the case collapses there would be the most almighty stink in Britain. It would introduce into British politics U.S. style judge-bashing. Calls for Britain to scrap the Human Rights Act would grow ever louder.

The political aftermath would be further complicated by a likely extradition request from the United States. As the Washington Post reported on Saturday:

At the Justice Department, prosecutors have debated and identified possible criminal charges that could be filed against the suspects because they were targeting U.S.-bound flights. One official said they would defer to British prosecutors in the case but wanted backup options for the United States in case their London counterparts encountered problems."

This would leave Tony Blair under attack from all sides. The security hawks would ridicule him for presiding over a situation where Britain cannot prosecute its own citizens for allegedly planning to blow up their fellow citizens. At the same time, civil libertarians and anti-American politicians would scream about Brits being shipped off to face cowboy justice. They'd argue that if the evidence isn't good enough for UK courts, it shouldn't be good enough to convict British nationals anywhere. The whole thing would make the case of the NatWest 3 look like the small beer it really was.