So too is their attempt, when they are facing hundreds if not thousands of claims of torture and abuse from Iraqi civilians, to prevent foreign nationals getting legal aid.
The mendacious claims that it is being prevented from properly defending cases because of national security considerations and fears that the US will withdraw intelligence sharing are frankly risible.
It has not been able to present even a shred of evidence to support this claim simply because there isn't any.
It should be patently obvious to even the most gullible that this is purely an attempt to spare the government's blushes and, in effect, allow the spooks at MI5 and MI6 carte blanche to carry on their appalling practices with total impunity.
This column would like to propose a solution to the problem. If you don't want to be sued for complicity in rendition and torture ... don't do it in the first place.
It's a radical idea I'll admit but it might just work.
When you have the country's most senior judges, lawyers and legal experts and even those well-known liberals in the House of Lords all telling you you're wrong and yet you still persist with the proposals it's because you know full well it's wrong but you're desperate to cover your arse.
Bizarrely, defending the secret courts plans in an opinion piece this week Tory MP Malcolm Rifkind started off by boasting how he, or rather, he clarified, Ralph Fiennes playing his role as chair of the intelligence and security committee, features in the new Bond movie.
Because when you're attempting to justify measures that would allow the spooks to get away with torture and murder claiming it will make them more accountable, I find it's always a good idea to use as an example a fictional figure who answers to no-one and spends most of his time when he's not gambling and womanising doing just that.
Labour's attitude to the Justice and Security Bill has been particularly pathetic and it's not difficult to divine why.
During this week's debate former home and foreign secretary Jack Straw claimed amendments put forward by his own front bench risked deterring agents working for the secret and intelligence services from passing on vital information.
Such agents, he said, would be in danger of being identified under Labour's amendments.
"Let's remind ourselves, and this isn't scaremongering," he said - doing exactly that - "it happens to be true [that without such intelligence] there would have been scores of really serious atrocities killing your constituents and many others."
Well thank you for that reasoned and in no way self-serving assessment.
You wouldn't want him to read your kids a bedtime story would you? "We're all going to die, sleep tight!"
This would be the same Jack Straw who is currently facing allegations that he signed off on the rendition of a Libyan dissident who was handed over to Gadaffi to be tortured and who, repeatedly, lied about the use of the British territory of Diego Garcia for stop-offs by CIA torture flights.
Now why would he be so keen on a bill which would mean evidence can be heard in secret do you think?
Half the Blair cabinet would be in chokey or winging their unwilling way to The Hague if justice was properly served.
The Bill doesn't need amending - it needs to be scrapped, which was initially what the Lib Dem conference instructed their party to do.
Still, after witnessing the spectacular car crash that was the Huhne/Pryce trial in recent weeks, you can see why the Lib Dems may prefer to see embarrassing evidence given behind closed doors.
If you appreciated this article then please consider donating to the Morning Star's Fighting Fund to ensure we can keep developing your paper.