(If you've Googled your way in here looking for "leak soup", you've misspelled "leek" and should go here for a real recipe.)
The document shows that the government has been aware of secret interrogation centres, despite ministers' denials. It admits that the government has no idea whether individuals seized by British troops in Iraq or Afghanistan have been sent to the secret centres.
In addition, the documents indicate that the U.K. is a-okay with the U.S. doing its dirty work, since the threshold for defining torture is lower here than in the U.S.:
The document says that in the most common use of the term - namely, involving real risk of torture - rendition could never be legal. It also says that the US emphasised torture but not "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment", which binds Britain under the European convention on human rights. British courts have adopted a lower threshold of what constitutes torture than the US has.
It appears the Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs will pursue the matter in Parliament. Meanwhile, we have the British blogosphere:
Curious Hamster and Ringverse and Bloggerheads with a nice round-up of commentary. Finally, Craig Murray, who knows a thing or two about leaking, has made this the Leak of the Week. (Last week's Leak was a Swiss leak, which indicates all of Europe is aleak over this rendition issue. Wonder why that could be?)