"Before this ordeal, 'torture' was an abstract word to me. I could never have imagined that I would be its victim. It is still difficult for me to believe that I was abducted, hauled from one country to the next, and tortured in medieval ways — all orchestrated by the US Government."
The Times has an interesting take on the way that they choose to report stories. Later in the article, they include just one sentence stating that he[Binyam Muhammad] will be entitled to NHS treatment.
"As a foreign national, he has been granted temporary admission to the UK but his immigration status will be reviewed. He will be allowed to seek NHS treatment."
I mean how relevant is that to the story? This is where an international story gets tied into the local issues which the British public are groomed with. The NHS is currently wracked with crisis, problems and mismanagement, due to decades of underfunding and poor management, all the fault of the government. Yet we have one man who was at the center of a torture scandal and in a typically English fashion, the Times wants to take out the calculator in the middle of the restaurant and see who is responsible for the extra 20 pence on the food bill and if some people chewed quicker than others. Oh, the fact that the man is brown and foreign is great too, especially since the economy is in recession. Things are going to get a lot worse here once the recession starts claiming more victims.
Still, they are only slightly less flippant in their coverage of this story than the rabidly American CNN. They reported the story as "Torture claim Gitmo detainee back in the UK". Yes oh wise American editors, it is a torture claim, because you are an impartial agency and you don't want to make any assumptions in your reporting. I also like how you affectionately call your governments torture and interrogation centre for Muslims "Gitmo".