Comments on: Jack Straw’s apocalypse of interest http://www.chickyog.net/2009/02/25/jack-straws-apocalypse-of-interest/ The weblog of Brighton-based writer Justin McKeating Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:40:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Carl Gardner http://www.chickyog.net/2009/02/25/jack-straws-apocalypse-of-interest/comment-page-1/#comment-44108 Carl Gardner Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:38:55 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=4588#comment-44108 But we already know what that Cabinet discussed about the legality - it just saw Goldsmith's short advice. And you simply assert there's a public interest in seeing the minutes because policy changed. It follows there's a public interest in seeing Cabinet minutes about every deployment of new troops to Afghanistan, or reduction in troops, every policy change on Northern Ireland, the policy change on a Lisbon referendum, the proposed policy change on tackling extremist Islamism, nationalising Northern Rock and so on and so on. I don't see on what basis you "keep those secret" if you want to publish the Iraq minutes. But we already know what that Cabinet discussed about the legality – it just saw Goldsmith’s short advice. And you simply assert there’s a public interest in seeing the minutes because policy changed. It follows there’s a public interest in seeing Cabinet minutes about every deployment of new troops to Afghanistan, or reduction in troops, every policy change on Northern Ireland, the policy change on a Lisbon referendum, the proposed policy change on tackling extremist Islamism, nationalising Northern Rock and so on and so on. I don’t see on what basis you “keep those secret” if you want to publish the Iraq minutes.

]]> By: Carl Gardner http://www.chickyog.net/2009/02/25/jack-straws-apocalypse-of-interest/comment-page-1/#comment-44106 Carl Gardner Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:32:36 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=4588#comment-44106 But we do know Lord Goldsmith's original position, don't we? His 7 March advice was published <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ico.gov.uk%2Fupload%2Fdocuments%2Flibrary%2Ffreedom_of_information%2Fnotices%2Fannex_a_-_attorney_general%2527s_advice_070303.pdf&ei=0oqmSYSqFdnHjAfE-4TXDw&usg=AFQjCNFN2m80dM9C4b1GZyGCkb8HwCcj5g&sig2=ot6OpzCAJjOeBU7XTABjaA" rel="nofollow">here</a>. It's so often been said, including by Clare Short and in the Tribunal, that the only advice seen by that Cabinet is the short version of his advice that's it's quite obvious no other, more secret, legal advice is going to emerge from these minutes. But we do know Lord Goldsmith’s original position, don’t we? His 7 March advice was published
here. It’s so often been said, including by Clare Short and in the Tribunal, that the only advice seen by that Cabinet is the short version of his advice that’s it’s quite obvious no other, more secret, legal advice is going to emerge from these minutes.

]]> By: Our Leaders Are Sociopathic… « Back Towards The Locus http://www.chickyog.net/2009/02/25/jack-straws-apocalypse-of-interest/comment-page-1/#comment-44105 Our Leaders Are Sociopathic… « Back Towards The Locus Thu, 26 Feb 2009 02:53:01 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=4588#comment-44105 [...] - 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 [...] [...] – 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 [...]

]]> By: Guano http://www.chickyog.net/2009/02/25/jack-straws-apocalypse-of-interest/comment-page-1/#comment-44101 Guano Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:43:49 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=4588#comment-44101 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. 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.

]]> By: Dunc http://www.chickyog.net/2009/02/25/jack-straws-apocalypse-of-interest/comment-page-1/#comment-44100 Dunc Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:19:30 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=4588#comment-44100 <blockquote>But if you already know this stuff about ministers being complicit or supine, what more are you going to find out by reading the minutes?</blockquote> Well, it would be quite nice to know what Lord Goldsmith's <i>original</i> position on the legality of the war was, what advice he gave to the Cabinet, whether it subsequently changed, and if so, what changed it. That's rather the central issue about these particular minutes. From the linked BBC article: <blockquote>But after long-running reports that he had changed his mind as the planned invasion approached, his initial lengthy advice given to Mr Blair on 7 March was leaked and then published in 2005. This advice raised a number of questions and concerns about the possible legality of military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution and was never shown to the cabinet. Mr Blair defended his decision not to show the cabinet the full advice, saying Lord Goldsmith had attended the cabinet in person and was able to answer any legal questions and explain his view. </blockquote> So yes, there is a reason to be interested in <i>exactly</i> what was said at that <i>particular</i> meeting. I must say, I do like the way they always manage to sneak an "unless we really want to" clause into legislation of this type. It really shows the depth of their commitment.

But if you already know this stuff about ministers being complicit or supine, what more are you going to find out by reading the minutes?

Well, it would be quite nice to know what Lord Goldsmith’s original position on the legality of the war was, what advice he gave to the Cabinet, whether it subsequently changed, and if so, what changed it. That’s rather the central issue about these particular minutes. From the linked BBC article:

But after long-running reports that he had changed his mind as the planned invasion approached, his initial lengthy advice given to Mr Blair on 7 March was leaked and then published in 2005.

This advice raised a number of questions and concerns about the possible legality of military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution and was never shown to the cabinet.

Mr Blair defended his decision not to show the cabinet the full advice, saying Lord Goldsmith had attended the cabinet in person and was able to answer any legal questions and explain his view.

So yes, there is a reason to be interested in exactly what was said at that particular meeting.

I must say, I do like the way they always manage to sneak an “unless we really want to” clause into legislation of this type. It really shows the depth of their commitment.

]]> By: Carl Gardner http://www.chickyog.net/2009/02/25/jack-straws-apocalypse-of-interest/comment-page-1/#comment-44099 Carl Gardner Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:40:51 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=4588#comment-44099 I agree with you about the conflict, or apocalypse, of interest - I'm arguing that the veto should be done away with. But if you already know this stuff about ministers being complicit or supine, what more are you going to find out by reading the minutes? I agree with you about the conflict, or apocalypse, of interest – I’m arguing that the veto should be done away with. But if you already know this stuff about ministers being complicit or supine, what more are you going to find out by reading the minutes?

]]> By: Guano http://www.chickyog.net/2009/02/25/jack-straws-apocalypse-of-interest/comment-page-1/#comment-44098 Guano Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:13:30 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=4588#comment-44098 Am I the only one to find absurd the excuse of "we cannot publish the minutes because the no-one will ask questions in Cabinet"? 1) Isn't the problem here that no-one did ask any questions even though they thought the minutes wouldn't be published for 100 years? 2) Why are these people in politics at all if they are inhibited by the thought of being seen to ask questions in Cabinet? Am I the only one to find absurd the excuse of “we cannot publish the minutes because the no-one will ask questions in Cabinet”?

1) Isn’t the problem here that no-one did ask any questions even though they thought the minutes wouldn’t be published for 100 years?

2) Why are these people in politics at all if they are inhibited by the thought of being seen to ask questions in Cabinet?

]]> By: Dungeekin http://www.chickyog.net/2009/02/25/jack-straws-apocalypse-of-interest/comment-page-1/#comment-44097 Dungeekin Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:19:45 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=4588#comment-44097 Sickening. I'm surprised he didn't try to tell us they'd been <a href="http://dungeekin.blogspot.com/2009/02/no-release-of-iraq-invasion-minutes.html" rel="nofollow">eaten by Blunkett's guide dog</a>. Still, this gives them plenty of time either to rewrite the minutes, or (more likely) to ensure anyone that *should* be held to account is long-dead by the time their crimes are made public. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear..... D Sickening. I’m surprised he didn’t try to tell us they’d been eaten by Blunkett’s guide dog.

Still, this gives them plenty of time either to rewrite the minutes, or (more likely) to ensure anyone that *should* be held to account is long-dead by the time their crimes are made public.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear…..

D

]]>