Back Towards The Locus

Gary Slapper – a Professor of Law at the Open University – has a superb guest column in the Times today, which, cooly and meticulously, takes Jack Straw to pieces over his nauseating decision to block the release of the minutes of cabinet discussions that preceded the invasion of Iraq…

“Jack Straw, in ruling against the release of cabinet minutes relating to the UK’s going to war in Iraq, has violated a key principle of the British constitution. That principle is nemo judex in sua causa: no-one should be a judge in his own case. Mr Straw stands personally to gain by the continuing secrecy of the cabinet papers.

The war in Iraq has been described by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the former senior law lord, as “a serious violation of international law”. The British public has a legitimate interest in knowing how its government came to have entered it. Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary at the key time.

If there was something unlawful taking place how can one of the possible culprits be the person who makes a quasi-judicial decision that the evidence must remain secret? That is the equivalent of a police suspect telling the police there will be no investigation as there is nothing to worry about.

The point is not narrow and academic. The war in Iraq has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, massive social upheaval and has been condemned as unlawful by many eminent international lawyers and senior judges.”

Guano – the best blog commenter around, though, I think, blogless – concisely details why these minutes are so relevant…

“At these two meetings the Cabinet changed its line from “we will get a second resolution” to “we will be involved in the invasion of Iraq without a second resolution”. This should mean that these two meetings deal with all the implications of that change in policy, including the legality of invading without UN authority. There is a clear public interest in knowing how this reversal came about.”

The psychology of this decision is quite interesting.

The perceptions of all people are shaped by their circumstances, and ours reflect the fact that we live in a fairly peaceful, prosperous society. This doesn’t mean that we need to get all relativistic, but to identify situations where our attitudes become unpleasantly skewed. At times I’ve particularly failed to do this, prizing the effectiveness of rhetoric over the quality of opinion – tribalism over common humanity, vanity over compassion. Without wanting to paint y’all with a broad brush, I’m sure that most people have been also been suspectible to that (to varying, probably lesser, extents). Yet, when directly confronted with suffering, we still react to it, and we still recognise the direct consequences of our own actions.

Thus, our and Jack Straw’s conceptions of ethics just don’t align. He holds direct, personal responsibility for a war that’s killed, wounded or displaced millions of people, and one that he’s watched unfold over six years. He’s chosen to block this release – just as when he lied over torture – purely so that his role, and that of others, can remain obscured. What a terrifying mindset. What an iron will towards self-preservation. Never mind Justice Secretary, I wouldn’t this guy to be within fifty-metres of me. I can’t think of anything he wouldn’t be capable of.

Update: And yet, when I read an interview with him, he comes across as a decent, if stupid, man and I feel a sort of reflexive “should I be so nathty to him?” The answer, I think, is “Yes, ya soppy bastard, and stop getting tribalistic about people who come across as affable“.