It was of course uncomfortable… but I believe it was the right decision to take, in the public interest, in order to prevent terrorism.
I’m still trying to figure out what the hell we’re doing selling arms to the Saudi’s in the first place, let alone dealing in bribery and corruption, whilst protecting the interests of a private company.
It would have been a dereliction of duty to have taken that view and it would have been absolutely no comfort to people who, heaven forbid, had been injured or lost loved ones in a terrorist attack to say ‘we’re terribly sorry but we thought we ought to wait 18 months to see if this case could go ahead
This really is taking playing the terrorism card to a whole new low. The argument is essentially saying that the Saudi’s threatened to stop feeding us information on terrorist activity if the fraud investigation into the BAE affair carried on, ergo people will die in terrorist attacks. What a load of bollocks.
Goldsmith is getting a bit too ready to leap in to defend the government’s highly unethical and frequently illegal foreign policy. It was Goldsmith who re-wrote his legal advice to suite Labour’s unstoppable lust for a war in Iraq; even though it would appear that he originally noted that it would, in fact, be illegal under international law. He’s never had his legal judgement on that matter tried in court. He has, however, had his legal judgement on the SFO investigation into BAe tested, and he was wrong.
I strongly suspect he was wrong about Iraq too. Everyone else in Blair’s government was.