Just to clear up a minor issue in my review. That the chapters concerning Moazzam Begg and Binyan Mohammed are heavily redacted does not hide Ali Soufan's opinion on either because the gist of it is presented across several un-redacted chapters.
All of the following information below can be gleaned from the book despite the heavy (and in my opinion, clumsy and self serving) redactions by the CIA:
The CIA was incorrectly given the interrogation function (a function they have no expertise in - they are the information gathering part of US intelligence, not the prosecutor), and they overruled the FBI (who traditionally do have this expertise and are the prosecutor). The CIA elected to use EITs (Enahanced Interrogation Techniques) which are now generally accepted to be neither effective for intelligence gathering nor usable in a western court (including military courts).
As well as using EITs, the CIA also covered their tracks on the issue, and locked out the FBI from interrogation so that effective, prosecutable and humane interrogation techniques were also prevented.
The problem now is that people like Begg and Mohammed can go to court claiming not that they are innocent, but that they were tortured, and have a 100% chance of winning their case because there is little evidence to show against them, not least because to show what is available would embarrass the US government regarding the out-of-control actions of the CIA, the illegal sidelining of the FBI, and the inhumane treatment that resulted.
It is Soufan's belief (and after reading his book, my belief) that although Begg was not a frontline operative, he did help fund a training camp, and that Mohammed was involved in the so called `dirty bomb' operation (quotes because the cylinder of radioactive material Al-Queada thought they had was in fact red mercury, which was not useful to Al-Queada because they did not have the required expertise to use it). Begg/Mohamed have or are in the process of winning compensation not because they are proven innocent, but because they were tortured using inadmissible (and frankly, illegal) means.
The US has its hands tied because it cannot easily talk about EITs in court, so cannot by implication allow itself to differentiate between humane, informed interrogation and EITs. Thus, Beg/Mohammed are now free in the UK depite their terrorist links being not disproven.
Being a leftie Guardian reader type, it surprises me that I reach this conclusion but you cannot argue around the (now well documented) story presented in The Black Banners.
I should also note that the comments about the Arab spring and 'this doesn't look good' are my opinion, and not Soufans's: he thinks that the Islamic step change from blaming the west to realising their own governments are a problem is a good thing, and leaves it at that.