Talking of intelligent life, it seems to have gone missing in the composition of today's Guardian editorial on the rule of law. Observe. Step one:
Yesterday's remarkable sessions at the Chilcot inquiry did not prove that the Iraq war was illegal. The inquiry is not a court and, since no judge has ever ruled on the invasion, there will always be room for dispute.
Step two: say that, in any case, an 'abuse of process' has been exposed, because Tony Blair and Jack Straw had had advice that the war would not be legal, but pressed on anyway in trying to find a way around this.
Summary so far: the war may or may not have had a basis in law, but Blair and Straw are to be condemned anyway, for not taking seriously the advice that it didn't; trying, rather, to manoeuvre around this advice.
You're going to love step three. Step three:
The Iraqi regime was overthrown because of its defiance of international order, but interÂnational law had to be sidelined in order to do it. One crime was committed to stop another.
You see? Blair guilty of a crime. And the 'room for dispute' all of... ooh... one paragraph back? Forgotten.
Summary of this summary: Blair and Straw may or may not be guilty under international law, but they're responsible for an 'abuse of process'. Oh, and they're guilty of a crime under international law.
Rave on.
