Tehran's nuclear glue | Meir Javedanfar

Efforts to boost uranium stockpiles are aimed at internal and external challenges to the regime

Iran's nuclear programme was started under the Shah. He wanted the bomb to transform Iran into a Middle East superpower. For many Iranians, however, the real need for nuclear armament was most keenly felt after Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and civilians during the eight-year war between the two countries in the 1980s. Iranians felt helpless, at the mercy of the Butcher of Baghdad and without any way to deter him – with barely a whimper of criticism heard from the west against his abuses of international law. As someone who lived then in Iran, I remember those days vividly. One of my Muslim friends however, saw me, his Jewish neighbour, as his protector. Why? As far as he was concerned, Saddam did not care about killing Muslims. But Saddam would think twice before risking the death of thousands of Jews by dropping chemical weapons on Tehran, my friend reasoned, because Israel could obliterate him in response. The sense of irony and pride that my Shia Muslim friend felt protected because my family were living near him in a Tehran neighbourhood has never left me.

Today, numerous Iranians are all for nuclear technology in order to produce electricity to meet their country's 8% annual increase in demand for energy. Although their country has abundant gas and oil supplies, they would prefer to export it and use the income to develop their country's infrastructure.

But do not imagine that thinking underpins the Iranian leadership's latest call, on Sunday, to accelerate enrichment of its uranium stockpile. Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's main motivation for following the current nuclear policy is to keep Iran isolated. The thinking among Tehran ultra-conservatives is that by raising the ire of the west and keeping Iran isolated from the rest of the international community, it will be easier for them to crack down against opposition at home. Khamenei's second priority is his hope that, once Iran becomes a nuclear power, nobody would dare attempt regime change from the outside.

With the leadership sensing mounting pressure, more than ever it wants to pursue the nuclear programme. To Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this programme is one of the only examples of progress made under the revolution. As the 31st anniversary approaches, and Iranians look at their country, they see that in a majority of cases it has gone backwards. It is a poorer country. Corruption is more common. Increasing numbers of educated Iranians prefer to leave their country. They carry the third most worthless currency in the world, while getting foreign visas with an Iranian passport has become an even more miserable experience. The nuclear programme remains the one area where the government believes it can show progress. With everything else in such a sorry state, trumpeting its success has become an important tool in claiming support and legitimacy.

There is also the question of longevity of the revolution. Iran's refusal to accept the terms of the recent deal offered by the international community – which called for Iran to first ship 75% of its ­uranium abroad, and then to receive it back in the form of nuclear fuel – has more to do with domestic politics. Khamenei is worried that such a deal would boost Obama's image in Iran.

The reality of a black US president with the middle name Hossein has ­neutralised years of claims by the post-revolution Iranian government that America is a racist, anti-Islamic state. Unhelpfully for Khamenei, the name Obama can also be pronounced as oo–ba–ma, meaning "he is with us" in Farsi. All these factors have endeared the US more than ever to the people of Iran. The last thing Khamenei wants is to boost America's image by reaching a deal; in doing so his regime could lose the anti-American glue that it ­increasingly relies on to hold it together.

Sunday's announcement is unlikely to be the last; many more such ­provocative policies should be expected from Tehran in the coming months. The more threatened the regime feels ­internally the more it will try to provoke the west.

Although the west, especially Israel, has every right to feel threatened, it would also do well to remember that it faces a weakened regime, which is losing legitimacy every day, and is beset with infighting on an unprecedented scale.

The response, where possible, should be measured. Although sanctions seem inevitable, they should target the regime. And if President Obama is ­looking for a double blow, he should also remove sanctions against the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran, which are making life very difficult for ­Iranians. Improving the image of the west among ordinary people, while singling out the rulers, is a double punch which the regime could find extremely difficult to recover from. Perhaps more so than a military attack.

• Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
• Nuclear weapons
• Iran
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Cabinet did not need to hear legal doubts over Iraq invasion, says Straw

Chilcot inquiry told that the 'problem of leaks' was used to stop attorney general Lord Goldsmith addressing ministers

Jack Straw made clear in evidence to the Iraq inquiry today that he believed there was absolutely no need for the cabinet to be told of the attorney general's doubts about the legality of the invasion.

The inquiry has heard that a week before the invasion, on 13 March 2003, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, told Straw that he might need to tell the cabinet that "the legal issues were finely balanced", documents released by the inquiry today reveal.

Straw, then foreign secretary, advised Goldsmith not to do so, warning of "the problem of leaks from the cabinet". The inquiry has heard that the cabinet was never told of Goldsmith's doubts.

Summoned back to the inquiry today, Straw said the cabinet knew there was an intense debate about the legal and moral issues involved.

"It was impossible to open a newspaper without being fully aware the arguments were finely balanced," he said.

He said that the cabinet included a number of "strong-minded people" – among them Gordon Brown, John Prescott, David Blunkett, Charles Clarke and Margaret Beckett. "None of them were wilting violets; their judgment was that it was not necessary to go into the process by which Peter Goldsmith came to his view," he said.

"I don't recall cabinet as a whole receiving legal advice on the matter," Straw told the inquiry. "All [the cabinet] wanted to know was: is it lawful or is it not lawful?" What was required in the end was "essentially a yes or no decision" from the attorney general, he added.

The inquiry has heard how Sir Michael Wood, the Foreign Office's chief legal adviser, and his deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, both said an attack on Iraq was unlawful without a fresh UN security council resolution. In one memo to Straw, Wood warned: "To use force without security council authority would amount to a crime of aggression." Straw, now justice secretary, replied: "I note your advice but I do not accept it."

Goldsmith was persuaded that an invasion was lawful only after discussions with Straw and with Bush administration lawyers, the inquiry has heard. That was even though the US interpretation of international law was different from the British interpretation, it was told.

Straw said today he took the view that a new UN resolution was not necessary because of his intimate knowledge of diplomatic negotiations leading up to the last resolution, number 1441, unanimously agreed in November 2002.

The Bush administration had made clear, Straw said, that it would not go back to the UN for a decision. The president had decided to invade Iraq "come what may" by early 2003, the inquiry heard.

Panel member Sir Lawrence Freedman told Straw he "might want to check" notes of his conversations with then US secretary of state Colin Powell to confirm this account. Freedman indicated that documents seen by the inquiry – but not made public – showed that Bush planned to attack Iraq even if chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said Saddam Hussein was complying with resolution 1441.

In sometimes testy exchanges over the key issue of why the US insisted on an invasion in March 2003, and why the Blair government went along with it,, Straw made clear it was essentially for political reasons.

"A big problem with the US was from the neocons," he said, referring in particular to the American defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

Asked whether Iraq was the UK's "choice of targets" because it was America's, Straw said it was the target of both countries. He denied newspaper reports that he had written a last-minute letter to Tony Blair suggesting alternatives to an invasion of Iraq.

He said he understood the "grief and anger" of families of British soldiers killed in Iraq, though he added that despite the bloodshed there were few in Iraq who wanted to go back to the situation before 20 March 2003, the date of the invasion.

After questioning Gordon Brown, David Miliband, and international development secretary Douglas Alexander in a few weeks from now, the inquiry expects to hear evidence from Bush administration officials and Iraq veterans during a break in public hearings, Chilcot told the inquiry at the end of today's hearing.

• Iraq war inquiry
• Iraq
• Politics and Iraq
• George Bush
• Jack Straw
• Tony Blair

UK's Iraq inquiry turns focus to Bush officials (AP)

AP - Britain's inquiry into the Iraq war will seek meetings with former members of the Bush administration after taking evidence from Tony Blair and other key British officials, the panel's chairman said Monday.

Straw denies ignoring Iraq advice

Former UK foreign minister says legal adviser gave him contradictory opinion on war.
Read more [Al Jazeera]

Monday: 9 Iraqis Killed, 6 Wounded

Although attacks were light today, the controversial election ban that could spur sectarian violence on continues to dominate the headlines. Overall, at least nine Iraqis were killed and six more were wounded.
Read more [AntiWar]

Israel in Africa | Josh Kron

In Rwanda, 'Jewish' has mysteriously ended up becoming shorthand for 'Tutsi'

Much of the world came to learn of Rwanda in 1994, when the majority Hutu people went on a three-month killing spree against the minority Tutsi.

The genocide ended with the victory of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, formed by Tutsi refugees who grew up in Uganda. With the conquest came drastic change. A great many members of the English-speaking diaspora flowed in; mostly from Uganda, but also from Africa, Europe and America. The two words that had seemingly started it all, Hutu and Tutsi, were banned from public use.

It is how the country lives now, nearly 16 years later; with a heavy burden upon each individual to suppress at almost any cost the impulse to identify him or herself by ethnicity, or for that matter – because the two are so tied – recent history.

Other than historical references to the genocide and testimony heard in controversial local Gacaca courts, ethnic labels are unheard of. The government acknowledges that identities still exist, but an overarching nationalism is always played up.

So I was surprised when, at the tender age of 22, I arrived in this emerald-green country to find people treating me like a brother. I was greeted with a fist-pound and a touch to the heart by the money changer, who called me a fellow Jew. I took up dinner conversations with newspaper colleagues who loved me for being American.

But what caught my attention most were the references to Israel, the references to the Jews. At first it seemed obvious; as historical cousins of genocide Israel and Rwanda had a special bond. Like Israel, Rwanda had escaped genocide to become a shining example in a troublesome part of the world.

But the reference and affirmation was much more than historical contingency; it was, according to them, true blood. According to some historians and Tutsi scholars, the group originally came to Rwanda from Ethiopia in the 15th century. Although played down by the current government, the belief persists. To Tutsis, the genealogical lineage to Ethiopia connects them to a greater constellation including ancient Hebrews.

For people like Claude Bizimana, a former soldier who fought alongside President Paul Kagame, the link has become a useful shorthand.

"That's where the Jews lived," he says , pointing to a shadowy suburban Kigali home in the dark starry night. "Those were all non-Jews," he says, moving his finger all around. When he introduces me to his friends he begins with a familiar greeting. "He is also a Jew," Claude says to me. "Josh is an Israelite too," he says to his friend.

Genealogical proof of Tutsi descent from Israelites is impossible to find, but among the diaspora, survivors, and even at times the government, the association to ancient Abyssnia is common. The first person to remark on it – John Speke in 1860s Uganda – was also the first European to visit the Great Lakes Region.

That ethnicity remains hugely sensitive is clear from the reaction to presidential hopeful Victoire Ingabire's candidacy in this year's elections. After claiming that many Hutu were also killed during the time of the genocide and are not being remembered, she has been accused in the media of being an ideological descendent of the racist post-independence Hutu regimes that caused thousands of Tutsis to flee the country.

To a degree, the current administration's strict rules on expression seem to be working. Rwanda's economy was one of the fastest-growing in the world last year. It is one of the few countries meeting targets for the United Nations millennium development goals; it is one of the safest countries in the world and President Kgame has become a poster-boy for the developing world.

Most people who speak confidentially about the security situation in the country say the public ban on ethnicity is a necessary evil, but that it doesn't stop people from knowing who they are.

• Religion
• Judaism
• Rwanda

Straw claims Iraq war legal advice was inconsistent

Minister insists he carefully considered Sir Michael Wood's 'contradictory' guidance but did not accept it

Jack Straw today hit back at claims he had willfully ignored legal advice ahead of the Iraq war, insisting he had considered it with "great care" but had good reasons for taking another view.

Addressing the Iraq inquiry for the second time, to answer specific questions on how he dealt with legal advice, Straw said that the guidance he received from his legal adviser of the time, Sir Michael Wood, had been inconsistent.

"The legal advice he offered, frankly, was contradictory and I think I was entitled to raise that," Straw, the foreign secretary at the time of the 2003 invasion, told the panel.

Since Straw's initial appearance at the inquiry, two and a half weeks ago, the panel has heard that Wood and his deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, both believed invading Iraq would be illegal without a specific UN security council resolution authorising it. Wood told the inquiry that Straw had been "very dogmatic" in rejecting this.

Ahead of his appearance today, Straw released a statement to the inquiry rebutting criticisms that he prevented the cabinet from hearing doubts about the legality of the invasion.

In the six-page memorandum put on the inquiry website today, Straw recalled his response to a telegram on the subject sent to him by Wood when the then-foreign secretary was in Washington meeting US officials in January 2003.

"Far from 'ignoring' this advice, as has been suggested publicly, I read Sir Michael's minute with great care, and gave it the serious attention it deserved. So much so that I thought I owed him a formal and personal written response, rather than simply having a conversation with him," Straw said.

This response – which began "I note your advice, but I do not accept it" – told Wood that his "categorical" tone to Straw was different from the "balanced and detailed advice" previously given to the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.

Straw quoted the advice from Wood as saying there was "no doubt in anyone's mind" that in the absence of a new UN resolution an invasion would be illegal.

This was wrong, Straw said: "There was of course no doubt about the illegality of self-defence, overwhelming humanitarian necessity, or regime change per se, as a basis for military action and no one was suggesting the contrary. But there was doubt about the position, in so far as two views were set out in Sir Michael's letter of 9 December to the attorney general's office, in considerable detail. This was at the heart of the debate on lawfulness."

Answering questions from the inquiry panel, chaired by Sir John Chilcot, on this point, Straw responded to criticism from Wilmshurst that he had contradicted the advice without proper knowledge.

"Yes, I am not an international lawyer but I was able to bring something to the party, which was an intense knowledge of the negotiating history," he said. "My view from having been involved in the negotiations line-by-line, word-by-word, comma-by-comma, was that there was an overwhelming argument that [UN resolution] 1441 required a second stage but not a second resolution."

Separately, Straw said that he did not accept an argument made by some – including Tony Blair – before the war that the UK could ignore an "unreasonable veto" by one nation at the UN security council.

Later, he said denied allegations by the former international development secretary, Clare Short, who appeared before the inquiry last week, that she had been "jeered at" in cabinet when she said ministers should discuss the legal advice.

• Iraq war inquiry
• Jack Straw
• Iraq

Israeli court releases pro-Palestinian activists (AP)

AP - A pro-Palestinian organization says Israel's Supreme Court has ordered the release of two of its activists who were arrested in a West Bank raid.
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Israeli forces raid West Bank camp

Hamas and Fatah supporters among scores arrested following raid on Shuafat camp.
Read more [Al Jazeera]

Jack Straw at the Iraq war inquiry - live

Live coverage as the justice secretary returns to give evidence to the Chilcot panel for a second time

2.25pm: Sir Roderic Lyne steps in. He suggests that Wood, in his January memo, was pointing out that Straw said something in private to Dick Cheney that contradicted the government's official position at the time.

Straw had told Cheney that if Britain tried and failed to get a second resolution, that "would be okay ... (a la Kosovo)".

Lyne says this contradicted the government's position because at that point Goldsmith was saying a second resolution was required.

Straw says it was a long conversation with Cheney. He used the Kosovo example as a "parallel, albeit a loose one".

Lyne repeats the point about Goldsmith believing in January that a second resolution was necessary.

Straw says he does not accept this. In January Goldsmith had not made a final decision. The view he held was a "preliminary view". There was not a single government position.

2.19pm: Straw says Wood was entitled to send his note. Straw did not ignore the advice. He gave it "careful attention".

Straw says he had no input into what Wood told the attorney general.

(Wood sent a note to Goldsmith in December 2002 setting out the arguments for and against UN security council resolution authorising war without a second resolution.)

Straw says this document, the December document, shows that when Wood told him in Janaury that there was "no doubt" about the position (ie, no doubt that war without a second resolution would be illegal), Wood was wrong. The fact that Wood had been able to explain the case for the second resolution not being necessary showed there was doubt about this.

2.16pm: Prashar is asking Straw about his letter to Wood. She says that when Straw told Wood he was rejecting Wood's advice (in January 2003), Goldsmith's view was the same as Wood's: that war would be illegal without a second resolution.

Straw says that at that point Goldsmith had not given a final view.

My view was ... that there was an overwhelming argument that 1441 required a second stage, but not a second resolution.

2.11pm: The Straw memo is only 22 paragraphs long. Most of it is an explanation as to why Straw felt entitled to reject the advice he received from Michael Wood, the senior Foreign Office legal adviser, about the war being illegal. Wood wrote to Straw on January 24 2003 setting out his views. Straw responded on January 29 2003, telling Wood he noted his advice, but did not accept it.

2.07pm: I'm just reading the Straw note. At one point he responds to the pointed assertion from Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the deputy legal adviser in the Foreign Office, about Straw not being an international lawyer.

I am not, famously, an international lawyer, but I had lived and breathed the negotiation of 1441, and therefore had an intense appreciation of its negotiating history.

2.02pm: They're starting. Lady Prashar asks about Straw's relationship with his legal advisers. She says Michael Wood, Straw's main legal adviser, was concerned that Straw had made public comments contradicting the legal adviser Straw had been given.

Straw says the ultimate decision about the legality of the war was for Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, "and him alone".

He says that in early 2002 he told Tony Blair that Britain had to go down the UN route. But, in his public comments, he wanted to keep the government's negotiating position open.

2.00pm: The hearing has not started yet, but on its website the inquiry has published a new memo from Jack Straw.

1.33pm: Jack Straw, the justice secretary, has already given evidence to the Iraq inquiry about the foreign policy aspects of the decision to go to war.

But, as foreign secretary in 2003, he also took a close interest in the legality of the conflict and today he is appearing to discuss the legal issues.

The Liberal Democrats have accused him of trying to "hide the truth" about the legal advice he received, and Ed Davey, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, has highlighted three questions he believes that Straw has to answer.

Straw will get his chance to respond when the hearing starts at 2pm.

• Politics and Iraq
• Iraq war inquiry
• Iraq
• Jack Straw
• Tony Blair

Building a peaceful future | Seth Freedman

Plans for a mixed Arab and Jewish neighbourhood in Jerusalem could be a step towards eradicating decades of hostility

For all that Jerusalem is perpetually mired in clashes between rival groups of Arab and Jewish residents, there appears to be a glimmer of hope. Plans were announced recently for a fully integrated mixed neighbourhood on the outskirts of the city, in a move which could herald a change in the way Jews and Arabs coexist in the Holy City.

Elsewhere in Israel, many communities have embraced the idea of mixed living – such as in Nazareth and Jaffa – but Jerusalem has long remained a divided city, and the ostracism and isolation has done nothing to promote harmony between those on either side of the divide. When it comes to Jerusalem's set-up, east is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet – until now, that is. If the proposal for Tantur comes to fruition, a town of 800 housing units would be constructed, and further plans are slated for a similar community in the northern part of Jerusalem.

While the mayor of Jerusalem has not vetoed the idea, he is said to prefer it to be sited elsewhere in the city, and those behind the project rate their chances of success as being 60% at best. However, several key Jewish and Palestinian academics and civil servants are backing the plan, and the scheme has won approval from Middle East envoy Tony Blair as well, which serves as a ringing endorsement, despite general scepticism about his role.

While there are many hurdles in the path of the project, it would be a major disappointment were it to founder at this point, because mixed communities represent one of the best methods of bridging the gulf between the majority of Jews and Arabs in Israel and Palestine. I have experienced both sides of Israeli living during my five years in the country, and have seen first-hand the wildly differing effects of segregated and integrated neighbourhoods.

My first four years were spent in the ultra-homogenous, insular German colony in West Jerusalem, which styles itself as a bastion of well-off, conservative Jewish suburbia. Located only a few miles from Bethlehem, the residents are nevertheless totally cut off from their Arab neighbours, thanks to the separation wall and checkpoints which hermetically seal south Jerusalem. The same divisions exist between west and east Jerusalem, where despite relatively free access between the two sides of the city, Arabs and Jews stick to their own territory (apart from the continually encroaching settlers in Silwan, Sheikh Jarrah and beyond).

The upshot of such separation is a perpetual air of suspicion and distrust from both sides towards the other. In such a climate, it is little wonder that rapprochement remains so elusive. However, in parts of the country where Jews and Arabs live side by side, conditions are far more clement.

Jaffa, where I have lived for the last year, is a case in point. The city is by no means a bed of roses, and tensions still abound over a variety of issues. However, for all that the set-up isn't perfect, it is the closest thing there is at present to a model of co-existence. Everyday contact with members of "the other side" is key to breaking down stereotypes and overcoming prejudices, and as such there is no substitute for first-hand experience of living in the same apartment blocks, shopping in the same supermarkets and walking the same streets.

Coming from London, one of the most ethnically mixed cities on earth, cities like Jaffa and Haifa are nothing new, and certainly nothing of which to be apprehensive. However, for the average Jew or Arab in Israel, the level of scepticism that exists when it comes to such living arrangements speaks volumes about the historical segregation between the two groups. Cab drivers routinely turn down fares from Tel Aviv to Jaffa, fast food companies refuse to deliver south of the Tel Aviv-Jaffa border, and as soon as a non-resident hears I live in Jaffa, nine times out of 10 times I'm met with the shocked response: "But aren't you scared living with all those Arabs?"

For all the downside of Jaffa's continuing gentrification, one positive aspect is the amount of exposure that Tel Aviv Jews get to the mixed city on their doorstep now that Jaffa has become a magnet for diners, revellers and tourists alike. Likewise, Jaffa's Arab residents know far better than residents of Palestinian cities such as Ramallah and Jenin that not all Israelis are marauding settlers or gun-toting soldiers, and as such are far better placed to see the nuances in Israeli Jewish society.

It would be over-simplistic and over-optimistic to assume that as soon as Jews and Arabs begin living together across the country, peace will automatically follow. Decades of each side mistreating the other and the inevitable resulting hostility and tension will not disappear overnight. But given that neither the Jews nor the Arabs will disappear either, there has to be a concerted effort to push past the current status quo and learn to live in some degree of harmony with each other.

Proposed communities such as Tantur, and existing models such as Jaffa, must be given every opportunity to thrive; to do otherwise is to condemn yet another generation to a lifetime of division and distrust.

• Comments on this article will remain open for 24 hours from the time of publication but may be closed overnight

• Middle East
• Palestinian territories
• Israel

In Compromise, Iraq Court Will Review Candidates

Iraq staggered toward a resolution of its election crisis as its leaders gave a court time to reconsider a ban on certain candidates.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

Iraq war was illegal, says former lord chief justice

But, says Lord Bingham, any legal redress is unlikely

The Guardian once ­described Lord "call me Tom" Bingham as "the radical who is leading a new English revolution". That would not ­necessarily be your impression on meeting the gentlemanly, old-school 76-year-old who, when I arrive at his tall-ceilinged, book-lined, art-filled mansion flat in Notting Hill, west ­London, immediately makes me ­ coffee, served in a silver pot. If this is ­revolution, it will not be instant.

Bingham – Baron Bingham of Cornhill to give him his proper title – was the first person ever to manage the judicial triple-whammy: master of the rolls from 1992-96, lord chief justice from 1996-2000, and senior law lord from 2000-2008. He retired in 2008 – at 75, an age when I'd assumed judges were just getting into their stride – and has now written a book called The Rule of Law, which he chose as a subject "because [though] the expression was constantly on people's lips, I was not quite sure what it meant". It is not untypical of Bingham that he would admit to not understanding the meaning of the phrase "rule of law" after a lifetime spent applying it.

The book is pleasingly short and essayistic but also heavily footnoted; he says it is for the general reader but perhaps wants to keep his legal peers onside too. He has a serious purpose – to try to establish what this totemic phrase means – but, happily, his natural quirkiness sometimes intrudes. "So, if you maltreat a penguin in the London Zoo, you do not escape prosecution because you are Archbishop of Canterbury," he writes when seeking to establish that no one is above the law. He is also good at rooting out legal nonsense, such as this sentence in an adjunct to the 1979 Banking Act: "Any reference in these regulations to a regulation is a reference to a regulation contained in these regulations." He has spent 50 years going through this stuff, and appears to have kept his sanity.

I have a problem with the book, but, worried about locking horns with the person the Times called "the pre-eminent lawyer of his generation", I begin instead by asking him about retirement. It must be odd to be Britain's senior law lord one day, and a retired, slightly deaf former judge the next. Especially when, as Bingham admits, work and getting to the top in the ultra-competitive legal world have been at the core of his life. Is he missing the power? "I don't think one ever thought of oneself as exercising huge power," he says. "One had a lot of questions and one's answered them as fairly and accurately as one could." He's very keen on "one", but don't see it as a sign of pomposity; it's a generational thing, an establishment tic.

There are, I point out, few statues to judges, even ones of his eminence. "They've always been non-people ­really," he says without regret. "Very few people in this country could name any judges, whereas any American could name several – perhaps even all nine – of the judges in the supreme court. You wouldn't find anybody here who could name the justices of our supreme court. They have not been public figures, and I think that's rather a good thing. There's an old saying that the best judge is someone whose name is completely unknown to readers of the Daily Mail."

It's time to bite the bullet. My problem with The Rule of Law is that it's good on the process and principles – the law should be clear, intelligible, accessible, fair, applicable to all – but doesn't answer the question that to me seems blindingly obvious. What if the law is rubbish? I might have got a fair trial for not paying my poll tax, but that didn't make the poll tax fair. Is there some supra-morality that can override the rule of law? "That's not the way I address the point," he says. "What I say is that the rule of law requires that the legal system should afford this protection, not that you can defy the law if it doesn't."

This sounds rather circular to me. Bad, unworkable, pernicious laws do get enacted. Why didn't he write a book that attempted to set out a more complete basis for "good" law? "Well, you'd really be prescribing a view of the world, wouldn't you," he says. "You would then be painting your own utopia." So how can I oppose laws I don't like? "By exercising your vote in a constructive way and being an actively concerned citizen," says ­Bingham, who has a touching faith in the British electorate.

He has less faith in the system under which those voters are currently exercising their choices, and advocates a wholesale rethink: the introduction of proportional representation, reform of the House of Lords and a "serious and unhurried constitutional convention". "There is a sense of alienation from politics," he says, "and I don't just think it's expenses." He believes there is too much legislation – "there have been occasions when I have almost despaired of finding my way through the jungle to get to the answer" – and too many laws that are passed without proper scrutiny.

The most powerful parts of the book are the chapters dealing with the international legal order and ­terrorism. He condemns the Iraq war of 2003 as illegal. His language in the book is ­considered, but the force of his conclusion inescapable. "It is not at all clear to me what, if any, legal justification of its action the US government relied on . . . If I am right and the invasion of Iraq . . . was unauthorised by the security council, there was a serious violation of international law and the rule of law . . . It is, as has been said, 'the difference ­between the role of world policeman and world vigilante.' "

"I took the view which Michael Wood and Elizabeth Wilmshurst [legal advisers to the Foreign Office in 2003] took – that it simply wasn't authorised," he tells me. "The whole of the Foreign Office thought this." Did he express that view to the government at the time, in his position as senior law lord? "No, it would have been quite improper for me to do that. I wouldn't have dreamed of making this statement at a time when I could still have found myself in a position to rule on this question judicially, which seemed a possibility."

Should Michael Wood, the chief legal adviser, have resigned when the government ignored his advice, as Elizabeth Wilmshurst, his deputy, did? "I think he has behaved with ­extraordinary dignity and correctness," says Bingham. "He says he was never called on to defend the advice, and has maintained total discretion and silence at the time and since. I know him quite well and he never breathed a word. No one knew what his position had been. I wouldn't criticise him. After all, the senior legal adviser at the Foreign Office at the time of the Suez expedition was totally against it, and he didn't resign."

Was he surprised that Jack Straw ­appeared to boast to the Chilcot ­inquiry that he often went against the legal advice he was given, as home ­secretary as well as foreign secretary? "I did find that slightly surprising." You have to imagine the drawled, characteristically English ­understatement here. "Michael Wood drew attention to the fact that the ministerial code obliges ministers to act in accordance with national and international law, so it isn't really good enough to say I don't take the advice of law officers."

Can we rectify the damage done to our reputation? "The whole Chilcot process is turning out to be a washing of not very wholesome linen in public," he says, "though it's odd there's no lawyer on the team. If the ultimate view is taken that the war was illegal, I think an acknowledgment of that fact [would be desirable]." He is, however, doubtful whether any legal redress is possible. The obvious forum would be the International Criminal Court in The Hague, but he believes its remit and ambition are too limited. "The crime of making aggressive war is not within its jurisdiction, nor is it within our domestic jurisdiction. You wouldn't want a charge as serious as that to be spattered around, so I would want quite a lot of control over who was prosecuting whom. But the International Criminal Court at the moment seems to be concentrating on the easy ones." The losers in other words, rather than the winners.

Bingham is equally forthright on the way in which the government is using the threat of terrorism to erode fundamental freedoms. He quotes with approval Benjamin Franklin's dictum that "he who would put security before liberty deserves neither", and the judgment that led the Guardian to hymn his radicalism was the so-called Belmarsh ruling in 2004 which said that the ­indefinite detention without trial of foreign "terrorist suspects" was incompatible with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. When I ask him which case was his most important, this is the one he cites. "It was the first serious challenge under the Human Rights Act, and one felt the stakes were quite high."

Bingham believes we are getting the delicate balance between liberty and security wrong. "Liberty is losing out at the moment. Extraordinary inroads are being made into principles that would once have been regarded as completely inviolate, such as the growing practice of putting material before some decision-making tribunal or judge that the defendant never sees." He worries that the culture of the law, and indeed society, is changing. "When I talk to the young, I'm struck by how, even when they have impeccably liberal instincts on things like torture and the death penalty, they tend to make an exception for terrorists. They've grown up in a world post-9/11 in which terrorism has been seen as this colossally potent threat." The danger is real, but so is the threat to hard-won liberties.

Just before we met, the story that the police were considering the use of unmanned drones had been in the press. He is not a fan. "We are already plotted almost every single inch of our lives. I have a rather bolshie approach to this. Why is it necessary? I was ­going through customs at Heathrow the other day, presented a perfectly ­innocent British passport, the lady takes it and puts it into a machine to photograph it. I said to her, 'What ­happens to the photograph you've just made?' She said, 'You're not allowed to know.' Why should the citizen not be allowed to know? We have a very noble tradition, and have to battle to protect our rights."

He would happily go on ­discussing that noble tradition all afternoon, but his wife Elizabeth has arrived and makes us lunch, very simple, pizza, ­lettuce, beer for me, water for him. They have been married for almost 50 years and have three children – a scientist, a writer and a headhunter; science, art and business, all bases ­covered. Over lunch, Elizabeth describes the work she does for a charity in north Africa committed to replanting trees to reverse desertification. There is an old-world sense of public duty, underpinned by their Christian beliefs, about both the Binghams. We had talked earlier about salaries: when he was lord chief justice, the head of the judiciary in England and Wales, he had earned around £170,000, one-fifth of the present salary of the director-general of the BBC. He had been offered what amounted to merit-related pay, but turned it down, feeling it was inconsistent with his independence.

Bingham is a throwback to another age, but in a good way. His hero, he tells me, is Dr Johnson, the 18th-century literary critic whose independence of mind clearly appeals to him. "I'm very keen on Johnson; many of his views I would share," he says. "He was a hugely liberal figure in a lot of ways. His views on penal reform, for example, were very enlightened. He said it was absurd to sentence a burglar to the same fate as a murderer, because who would stop short of murder if he's going to get the same penalty as a burglar? He was really very enlightened. Everybody in this country gets furious when children commit very nasty crimes, but Johnson has a very good passage about 'pity is not ­natural to man'. Children are cruel, and greater tolerance is a product of ­civilisation." Johnson was an arch-Tory, but at a time when Toryism implied radicalism and anti-statism. Bingham notes the conflict within Conservative ­philosophy between authoritarianism and ­libertarianism, and claims Johnson as an ally in opposing overweening government. "Power," he says, "needs to be controlled and constrained."

The question of what happens if a morally unacceptable government is elected – always remember Hitler was originally voted in – is still bugging me. Surely then the rule of law would have no validity? "We have to have faith in the democratic process," he says. But if the gas chambers are being erected and the railway tracks to them built – what then? "Ultimately, and this is a very extreme situation, rebellion. Supposing a government came into power that wanted to introduce a whole lot of measures borrowed from the statute book of Nazi Germany, we would be justified in rebelling, just as we were against Charles I. Over time the good sense of the people asserts itself." It is not the job of good judges to thwart bad governments, but of good people, the inner Dr Johnson in all of us.

• The Rule of Law is published by Allen Lane (£20). Lord Bingham will be in conversation with Shami Chakrabarti at 1pm on 11 February at the RSA, 8 John Adam Street, London WC2 (details: 020-7930 5115).

• Law
• Iraq
• Iraq war inquiry

Lib Dems accuse Jack Straw of hoodwinking public on Iraq

Justice secretary misled parliament and breached ministerial code over handling of legal advice on war, say Lib Dems

Jack Straw returns to the Iraq inquiry on Monday facing allegations that he misled parliament and breached the ministerial code over his handling of the legal advice about the war in 2003.

The Liberal Democrats accuse the justice secretary of "hoodwinking" the British public when he prevented the cabinet from hearing doubts about the legality of the invasion.

As the war continues to cast a shadow over Labour, Alastair Campbell almost broke down on television today when questioned about Tony Blair's claim that it was "beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Asked whether the former prime minister had misled parliament, Campbell, the former No 10 communications chief, stumbled as he said on the Andrew Marr Show: "I've been through a lot of this, Andrew, and I've been through a lot of that inquiry ... You did it again this morning, which is probably why I'm a bit upset – this constant sort of vilification."

Since Straw's previous testimony, the Iraq inquiry has heard that a week before the invasion, on 13 March 2003, the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, told Straw, then foreign secretary, that he might need to tell the cabinet the legal issues were "finely balanced". Goldsmith was advised by Straw not to do so, warning of "the problem of leaks from the cabinet". The inquiry has heard that the cabinet was never told of Goldsmith's concerns.

The Lib Dems have outlined a three-point charge sheet against Straw, claiming that he:

• Knowingly misled parliament on the legality of the war. On 17 March, a day before MPs voted to authorise British involvement in the war, Straw told them: "There is no question about the legality of the action that we propose to take." The inquiry has heard that the two most senior Foreign Office legal advisers, Sir Michael Wood and his deputy, Elizabeth Wilmhurst, believed the war was illegal.

• Breached the ministerial code by preventing the cabinet from seeing Goldsmith's full legal advice. At paragraph 2.12 the code says: "When advice from the law officers is included in correspondence between ministers, or in papers for the cabinet or ministerial committees, the conclusions may if necessary be summarised but, if this is done, the complete text of the advice should be attached."

• Abused his powers and failed to declare a confict of interest when he vetoed a freedom of information request to release the minutes of the cabinet discussion about Iraq on 17 March 2003. The Lib Dems believe Straw gave a misleading account when, as justice secretary, he vetoed the FoI request last year. He described the cabinet as "the forum in which debates on the issues of greatest significance and complexity are conducted".

Ed Davey, the Lib Dems' foreign affairs spokesman, said: "Jack Straw has tried to hoodwink the cabinet, parliament and then the British people in his cover-up."

Straw should resign if he fails to provide adequate answers, Davey said. "How can any judge or lawyer, let alone the British people, have confidence in the minister in charge of our legal system when he has apparently shown such reckless disregard for the legal advice he's given, the ministerial code he's supposed to keep to and the demands of the freedom of information act he piloted through parliament."Straw is expected to be asked by the inquiry to explain why he dismissed legal advice and to explain his evidence last month, when he said he had agonised about the decision to go to war. Subsequent evidence has shown that he swept aside the unanimous view of his top legal advisers that an invasion of Iraq was unlawful without a fresh UN resolution.

• Iraq war inquiry
• Jack Straw
• Liberal Democrats
• Politics and Iraq
• Iraq

Iraq MPs delay debate on vote row

Discussion on poll participation of candidates with alleged links to Baath party put off.
Read more [Al Jazeera]

Palestinian leader visits Hiroshima (AFP)

AFP - Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas kicked off his Asian tour on Sunday in the Japanese city of Hiroshima ahead of a meeting with Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama.

Israeli forces detain pro-Palestinian activists (AP)

AP - Israeli troops broke down the door of an apartment in the Palestinian-ruled West Bank town of Ramallah on Sunday and arrested two pro-Palestinian activists from Spain and Australia, their roommate said.

Sunday: 3 Iraqis Killed, 11 Wounded

An armed group that claims to have kidnapped an American contractor in January may be holding a second American citizen. Also, an Iraqi appeals court has reversed its own decision allowing over 500 people on an election blacklist to run in March elections. While attacks were light today, at least three Iraqis were killed and eleven more were wounded in new violence.
Read more [AntiWar]

Lebanese Commandos Retrieve Airliner's Black Box

Lebanon’s marine commandos recovered the black box of the Ethiopian Airlines jet that crashed into the Mediterranean last month, the army said.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

Actor in Israel's Oscar nominated movie detained (AP)

AP - Police say an actor in "Ajami," the Israeli movie just nominated for an Oscar, was detained briefly for attacking police in the neighborhood where the story was filmed.
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Lebanese commandos retrieve airliner's black box (AP)

AP - Lebanon's marine commandos on Sunday recovered the black box of the Ethiopian Airlines jet that crashed into the Mediterranean last month, the Lebanese army said in a statement.

Protests held in Iraq ahead of parliament session (AP)

AP - Hundreds of protesters gathered Sunday in Baghdad and the southern city of Basra to denounce Iraqis still loyal to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

Rules Do Little to Hinder Iraq Parliament Race

On the streets and online, candidates are trying to sway a vote that will define the political landscape for four years.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

Rights group faults Israel's Gaza war crimes probe (AP)

AP - Israel has failed to show it will conduct an impartial investigation of allegations that it committed war crimes during its Gaza offensive last winter, an international human rights group said Sunday.

Iraqi court pushed to rule on banned candidates (AP)

AP - Iraqi leaders on Saturday pushed the country's highest court to issue a quick ruling on hundreds of candidates who have been banned from running in March elections, warning that parliament will settle the controversy if the judges don't.

Palestinians question US on reviving peace talks (AP)

AP - The Palestinians have asked the Obama administration to clarify a U.S. envoy's proposal to restart long-stalled peace talks with Israel indirectly by shuttling between the two sides, the Palestinian president said Saturday.

Shiite militants kidnap American in Iraq (AP)

AP - A missing Iraqi-American contractor was kidnapped by Shiite militiamen who lured him into central Baghdad by promising to help him find distant relatives, an Iraqi defense official said Saturday.

Iraqi Group Says It Captured American

An Iraqi militant group said it had abducted an American contractor, a day after the United States military reported that a contractor had been missing.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

Saturday: 8 Iraqis Killed, 3 Wounded

Updated at 5:11 p.m. EST, Feb. 6, 2010 At least eight Iraqis were killed and three more were wounded in light violence. One Egyptian man was also killed. Millions of Arbaeen pilgrims are on their way home, but no attacks on the worshippers were reported today. Meanwhile, the League of the Righteous released a video containing footage of a new hostage.
Read more [AntiWar]

Lebanon: Black box of Ethiopian jet located (AP)

AP - Search crews have located the black box under parts of the tail of the Ethiopian Airlines jet that crashed into the Mediterranean Sea last month, Lebanon's transportation minister said Saturday.

US contractor 'abducted in Iraq'

Armed group releases video believed to show American missing since last month.
Read more [Al Jazeera]

Lebanese fear stall in tribunal on Hariri slaying (AP)

AP - The head of the international tribunal on the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister sought to reassure Lebanese this week that the investigation is on track, but there are growing concerns here that work is languishing in the case.

Pakistan: Funerals set for Karachi bomb victims (AP)

AP - Hundreds of minority Shiite Muslims have gathered in Pakistan's largest city amid tight security for a mass funeral for those killed in a pair of bombings.

Deadly blasts hit Iraq Karbala city

At least 40 people killed and 140 others injured in attacks on Shia pilgrims.
Read more [Al Jazeera]

Twin blasts kill 40 Shiite pilgrims in Iraq (AP)

AP - A car bomb ripped through a crowd of Shiite pilgrims outside the holy city of Karbala Friday, sending many fleeing into the path of a suicide attacker who detonated a second bomb in coordinated blasts that killed at least 40 people and wounded 150.