Guantánamo four still a threat, says US

snip>
Following the release last night without charge of Moazzam Begg, Feroz Abbasi, Martin Mubanga and Richard Belmar from police custody, Pentagon officials put out an apparently contradictory statement saying the men posed a "significant threat".
...
"I have heard from my son that they have taken more than 300 interviews and interrogators came down to his cell. Everything has been done and nothing has been proved," he said.
"No evidence is there of anything but if the United States want to say things it's up to the United States.
...
Mr Clarke was non-committal when asked if the four men would have been subject to the anti-terrorism control orders he announced yesterday if the proposals - which range from de facto house arrest to a limit on internet communications - were already law....

"...I could use the word 'could' because we would then have a regime in which that assessment could be made, but I can't tell you that is what would have happened in the case of these individuals because the precise assessments haven't been carried through."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1399824,00.html

Is it normal for the Brit Home Sec to refer to the govt as a regime?

no other reason.

Not that I really care mind you.. but it's not how he's using the word.

He doesn't mean the government. He means an analytical system in the management sense - a bunch of people who can assess data, as opposed to no one having a darn clue what they're doing.

The reason I don't care is because I don't see that they know what they're doing even with this regime.

I was altogether unfamiliar with that particular definition!

I only speak American :) but now I see that "mode of rule or management" precedes "a form of government" in the dictionary.