The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has argued in this case that there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or otherwise abused in a U.S. prison abroad.

The four men — Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed and Jamal al-Harith — were captured in late 2001 in Afghanistan and transferred to Guantanamo in early 2002. They were returned to the United Kingdom in 2004.

Represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights and Washington, D.C., lawyer Eric Lewis, the four men sued former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and senior military officers for prolonged arbitrary detention, torture, cruel and unusual punishment, and denial of their religious rights. The former prisoners say they were subjected to repeated beatings, sleep deprivation, extremes of hot and cold, forced nakedness, death threats, interrogations at gun point, menacing with unmuzzled dogs, and religious and racial harassment.

President Karzai has just made an important statement to the people of Afghanistan.

It is vital that the new Afghan Government has legitimacy in the eyes of its people.

I have consistently said that the election must be allowed to run its course and that all concerned should respect the process. There is no doubt that there have been flaws and we will need to apply the lessons of this process.

President Karzai has today make clear that due constitutional process must be followed, and that if the formal certified results require it, then a second ballot will be held. Let me commend his statesmanlike statement – and the international community too will join me in welcoming the leadership he has shown today.

I also congratulate President Karzai on the strong support he has secured from across his nation and from all ethnic groups. And I congratulate Dr Abdullah on achieving a high level of support.

I would like to congratulate the Afghan people on the patience and resilience that they have shown throughout the long election process. The priority now is for all elements of Afghan society to come together to ensure that the democratic process continues as securely as possible.

I assured President Karzai that he and his country would have the full support of Britain and the international community through this process. The international forces will work with the Afghan national security forces to give all Afghans the opportunity to vote in a second round if that is the next step.

As I made clear last week, Britain remains committed to seeing its obligations through in Afghanistan. Our strategy depends on a strong Afghan Government showing the leadership required to gain the trust of its people. This election is the opportunity for them to choose that leadership.

The Afghan government needs effective grass-roots initiatives to offer an alternative to fight or flight for the foot soldiers of the insurgency. Essentially this means a clear route for former insurgents to return to their villages and go back to farming the land, or a role for some of them within the legitimate Afghan security forces. Military pressure has an important role to play, it is complementary, not an alternative – these people must see the danger of remaining insurgents, but also believe that they will be protected from their former allies if they lay down their arms.

For higher-level commanders and their networks, we need to work with the Afghan government to separate the hard-line ideologues, who are essentially irreconcilable and violent and who must be pursued relentlessly, from those who can be drawn into domestic political processes.

So where are these Afghan officials to direct and coordinate distinctions between insurgent elements? What are the formal structures in place for identifying and exploiting divisions, or for inducing them? I can see an argument in place for why this has to wait until after the August presidential election sorts itself out, but the war has been going on for almost eight years.

Second issue:

In the face of this enemy, our ultimate objective in 2001 holds true for 2009: to protect our citizens from terrorist attacks by preventing Al Qaida having a safe haven in the tribal belt –in either Afghanistan or Pakistan.

That’s one of only a handful of times Miliband mentions al-Qaeda. He donates a lot of effort to the question of the Taliban-led insurgent coalition and in drawing his distinctions he makes it clear that a great deal of the insurgency has peripheral connections to the terrorist entity we’re in Afghanistan to confront and defeat. Without a focus on how each step of the strategy contributes to that goal, the Afghanistan war described by the foreign secretary has something of a we’re-here-because-we’re-here-because-we’re-here-because-we’re-here quality.

“It’s good to be humanitarian and all, but still these people … to me are scary,” remarks one Palauan.

The government of Bermuda, where four of the 17 Uighur detainees are now residing, is receiving a mixed response for its decision to take in the detainees. Bermuda, an overseas territory of the United Kingdom, has been criticized by the United Kingdom for unilaterally deciding to accept the detainees without regard for Britain’s concerns on the matter. In a statement issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Bermudan government was chided for potentially overstepping its bounds:

We have underlined to the Bermuda Government that it should have consulted the UK on whether this falls within their competence or is a foreign affairs or security issue for which the Bermuda Government do not have delegated responsibility.

The Bermuda Sun reports that although that country’s Muslim community welcomes the detainees and the Human Rights Commission applauds the decision to host them, one member of Parliament is expressing outrage that he claims is shared by the overwhelming sentiment of the Bermudan people.

But China, the original home of the Uighur detainees, only has a bone to pick with the United States.  According to The New York Times, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang claims that America is ignoring international law by refusing to return the detainees to their home country. The U.S. government declined to return the Uighurs to China out of fear they would face persecution and torture.

Despite the controversy, one relocated Uighur has thanked the Bermudan government for “let[ting] freedom ring.”

Eager to help president Obama close down the prison when he takes over in January — and no doubt hoping to win brownie points with the new American president — British officials are reportedly creating a process for dealing with certain prisoners who could be sent to the U.K., though exactly who would be invited “would be for the home secretary to decide on a case-by-case basis,” according to a Downing Street official quoted by the Times.

Portugal has called on EU member nations to accept some detainees in their countries, and Germany has said it is considering doing so.

As we’ve reported before, some Gitmo detainees, such as the 17 Uighurs and some Yemeni prisoners, have been cleared by the US for release but can’t return to their home countries, where they’d likely face persecution. Although the Bush administration has adamantly refused to allow any of the men to settle in the United States, it has reportedly asked about 100 other countries to take them. Until now, most have refused.

From Nouriel Roubini, famous for having predicted this whole mess:

At this point severe damage is done and one cannot rule out a systemic collapse and a global depression. It will take a significant change in leadership of economic policy and very radical, coordinated policy actions among all advanced and emerging market economies to avoid this economic and financial disaster.

Paul Krugman was equally blunt:

Why do we need international cooperation? Because we have a globalized financial system in which a crisis that began with a bubble in Florida condos and California McMansions has caused monetary catastrophe in Iceland. We’re all in this together, and need a shared solution.

Why this weekend? Because there happen to be two big meetings taking place in Washington: a meeting of top financial officials from the major advanced nations on Friday, then the annual International Monetary Fund/World Bank meeting Saturday and Sunday. If these meetings end without at least an agreement in principle on a global rescue plan — if everyone goes home with nothing more than vague assertions that they intend to stay on top of the situation — a golden opportunity will have been missed, and the downward spiral could easily get even worse.

What should be done? The United States and Europe should just say “Yes, prime minister.” The British plan isn’t perfect, but there’s widespread agreement among economists that it offers by far the best available template for a broader rescue effort.

And the time to act is now. You may think that things can’t get any worse — but they can, and if nothing is done in the next few days, they will.

Here’s British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on the British plan, which calls for injecting money directly into banks.

Don’t look just to Wall Street for developments in this crisis. Watch to see if the Treasury Dept. and the U.S. government take some aggressive steps in the next few days — including coordinating a global response.

If they don’t, yes, it is time to panic.