Obviously not.
Ok, let’s try to explain:
the heads of our national security having to go public like naughty kids,
No; they’re having to be answerable to the society they are meant to serve. Which is proper and correct. Can’t see why you’d have a problem with that really.
soldiers doing their job, in court for doing so,
Murdering someone and acting in breach of the Geneva convention is definitely not part of a member of the armed forces job.
and a on the run terrorist suing us for being tortured in Somaliland
Interesting case this one. As a British citizen, he has every right to sue, and I’d doubt he’d be doing so unless his lawyers believed he had a strong case. Remember that this is someone who has not, as yet, actually been charged let alone convicted of any actual terrorist offences; innocent until proven guilty, no?
TPims restrict the movements of people thought to pose a risk to the public, but who cannot be tried for reasons of national security and who cannot be deported.
Roughly translated means; ‘we can’t actually do anything to you, as we don’t have any evidence against you, but we don’t like you because you look a bit shifty’. Often applied to brown people.
TPIMs go against the British traditions of justice and liberty. They undermine the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/terrorism/control-orders/index.php
Getting it yet?