As Murray points out, it appears the key tip-off was obtained under conditions of torture, which would hamper prosecution in Britain even if the confession turned out to be true:

Reports from Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable here. In particular Rashid Rauf, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week's arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance. Disturbing reports in Pakistani papers that he had "broken" under interrogat...

As Murray points out, it appears the key tip-off was obtained under conditions of torture, which would hamper prosecution in Britain even if the confession turned out to be true:

Reports from Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable here. In particular Rashid Rauf, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week's arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance. Disturbing reports in Pakistani papers that he had "broken" under interrogation have been echoed by local human rights bodies. The Guardian has quoted one, Asma Jehangir, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, who has no doubt about the meaning of broken. "I don't deduce, I know - torture," she said. "There is simply no doubt about that, no doubt at all." If this is shown to be the case, the prospect of securing convictions in this country on his evidence will be complicated.

I'm with Murray:

Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.

So far, as more news dribbles out of Britain about the supposed foiled plot, the threat posed by the suspects keeps looking less serious.

Home Secretary John Reid, Britain's chief law-and-order official, acknowledged that some of the suspects would likely not be charged with major criminal offenses, but said there was mounting evidence of a "substantial nature" to back the allegations.

So already Britain is admitting some of those arrested are likely innocent...will they all turn out to be innocent? Apparently, there was no solid evidence before the arrest...nor even ...

So far, as more news dribbles out of Britain about the supposed foiled plot, the threat posed by the suspects keeps looking less serious.

Home Secretary John Reid, Britain's chief law-and-order official, acknowledged that some of the suspects would likely not be charged with major criminal offenses, but said there was mounting evidence of a "substantial nature" to back the allegations.

So already Britain is admitting some of those arrested are likely innocent...will they all turn out to be innocent? Apparently, there was no solid evidence before the arrest...nor even after...though it is reassuringly "mounting" now. What's going on?

The investigators better hurry up with that evidence of a bomb plot because the clock is ticking before the suspects must be released:

Scotland Yard said that 21 of the suspects could be detained for questioning through Aug. 23, while another two could be detained until Aug. 21.

At least we'll know sooner rather than later just what transpired.

Also, pointed commentary today from James Galbraith:

Here is a checklist of some things we should shortly be hearing about. Bombs. Chemicals. Detonators. Labs. A testing ground. Airline tickets. Passports. Witnesses. Suspicious neighbors. Suspicious parents. Suspicious friends. Threats. Confessions. Let me spell this out: By definition, you cannot bomb an aircraft unless you have a bomb. In this case, we are told that there were no bombs; rather, the conspirators planned to bring on board the makings of a bomb: chemicals and a detonator. These would be mixed on board.

Apparently none of the suspects had tickets. And ...

Also, pointed commentary today from James Galbraith:

Here is a checklist of some things we should shortly be hearing about. Bombs. Chemicals. Detonators. Labs. A testing ground. Airline tickets. Passports. Witnesses. Suspicious neighbors. Suspicious parents. Suspicious friends. Threats. Confessions. Let me spell this out: By definition, you cannot bomb an aircraft unless you have a bomb. In this case, we are told that there were no bombs; rather, the conspirators planned to bring on board the makings of a bomb: chemicals and a detonator. These would be mixed on board.

Apparently none of the suspects had tickets. And at least some didn't even have passports. All of which are quite necessary to board planes....