They told us that it
would be so different. After the chaos and confusion of a series of Tory PMs
who all seemed to think, to a greater or lesser degree, that compliance with
the law was optional (especially in the case of Johnson) the new Labour PM was
a completely different animal. A man with a long and honourable background as a
human rights lawyer, a man for whom the rule of law was part of the very
essence of his being. The promise didn’t age well.
When it came to
denying power, water and food to the people of Gaza, his initial response was
that Israel had a right to self-defence, and he swatted away any suggestions
that that right did not extend to mass killings of non-combatants, including
children. Perhaps it stems from that other attribute of an experienced lawyer,
obliged by the rules of his profession to take on either side in any case, and
find the way of prosecuting or defending which gives his client the best chance
of winning. From that perspective, whether or not what Israel is doing in Gaza amounts
to genocide or not is a matter of opinion which can only be settled by a court
case; whether bombing of hospitals was deliberate or not (and therefore whether
it amounts to a war crime) is just an allegation until proven at a trial which
is unlikely to happen any time soon. For a good lawyer, there is almost always
some wiggle room in law, even if not in morality.
When we come to the
bombing of nuclear installations in Iran, however, it’s difficult to see how
any reputable lawyer could find a way to argue the case in favour of Trump and the
US. The prohibition on attacking nuclear installations is there, in clear
terms, and the miscreants have actively boasted that the targeting was entirely
deliberate. There simply is no wiggle room; it’s a war crime, pure and simple.
The government’s attempt
to avoid answering the question as to whether they believe it to be a criminal act
or not is shameful. The statements by Sir Warmonger after the event, claiming
that the outcome (preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, even though
there was no real evidence that they were trying to do so) is a good thing is
not so much a legal argument as an ‘end-justifies-the-means’ argument.
Even if it were true
that preventing one insane man from joining the club of other insane men who
already possess such weapons is such a good outcome that it justifies a blatant
breach of international law, we don’t know – and won’t for some time to come –
what the real outcome of Trump’s decision is. The destruction of the bombed
facilities, even if it’s as complete as is being claimed (and the history of previous
military adventures suggests that might turn out to be a dubious claim at best)
is only one, short-term outcome. Nobody knows what comes next, but the idea
that a single military attack can be considered and judged in isolation from
both what went before and what will come after is just another form of madness.
It seems that even a
long career upholding the rule of law doesn’t prevent a lawyer who transitions
into politics abandoning that commitment in pursuit of the simplistic goal of
not upsetting His Orangeness. The rule of law turns out to be considered
optional after all.
2 comments:
Brave Sir K knows his Thucydides, that's for sure.
You state ‘it’s difficult to see how any reputable lawyer could find a way to argue the case’ , you are wrong there are no ‘reputable lawyers’, they are all ‘a gun for hire.’ You give them a brief and like a clockwork soldier ,off they go.
The question to ask is , do lawyers make good politicians? Famously, Dick the Butcher in Henry V1 stated ‘now let’s kill all the lawyers ’. I am not with Dick on this one, as they are brilliant at the job, but you must never let them believe, that we are interested in their opinions. If you do, they will run you ragged.
History has an extensive list of lawyers from Abraham Lincoln – who was all over the place when it came to his position on slavery, to a past leader of Plaid Cymru and to the present HMG with Keir Rodney and that very clever Mr Lammy. They all are trained to read from a brief and if that contradicts what was said last week, so be it.
Post a Comment