This fierce piece by Sam Leith weighs into the British Government’s handling of the Al-Yamamah fraud enquiry:

There was enough evidence of corruption in the Al-Yamamah deal to warrant an independent investigation. That investigation … was stopped after an explicit threat to withdraw a big arms contract, and an implicit threat that "lives would be put at risk" were the Saudis to withdraw their co-operation with our counter-terrorism operations. That is to announce that we’re willing to do business with people who promise to connive in the murder of our citizens unless they get their way. Nice.

Iain Dale puts it another way:

We have so far not heard a squeak from Number Ten in response to the Saudi Arms deal judgement in the High Court. We still don’t know whether Gordon Brown will side with Tony Blair or do what’s right. What we do know from this morning’s papers is that the Conservatives are siding with the Government (despite not knowing what the government’s position actually is). I am sorry they felt the need to say anything yet … As a country we are supposed to believe in freedom under the rule of law. Without the rule of law there can never be complete freedom. If the government decides that it will sidestep the rule of law on a big issue like this, it is open season for others to follow suit.

According to the Guardian, the Conservatives agree that there needs to be available a ‘national interest’ brake on prosecutions:

[S]hadow attorney general, Dominic Gieve, said: "We believe the existing system, by which the attorney is responsible for the public interest in deciding whether or not a prosecution should be discontinued because of national security issues, should continue. The attorney is accountable to parliament for her actions and her decision can be challenged in the courts if made unreasonably or capriciously."

Hmm.

Imagine this discussion:

S Arabia: 

"Look, this corruption prosecution is just too much. Cut it out or all deals are off."

UK:           

"You must be crazy. How can we stop it?"

S Arabia:  

"You’ll find a way. To be clear: the aircraft deal worth a gazillion dollars goes, plus we’ll stop cooperating on terrorism"

UK:          

"Look, if we do stop this we’ll take an enormous domestic and international hit. Your venality got us into this mess. You need to deliver something serious too."

S Arabia:  

(Thinks: "Phew. I’ve established the principle – now what’s the price?")  "OK, OK. We can do more on terrorism. We’ll give you some cracking evidence to use against Osama Bin Liner whom you arrested recently."

UK:         

"Not enough. We know that you have good stuff on Obama Bin Syko and Orama Bin Killin too. Let’s have that as well."

S Arabia:  

"If I hand all that over do we have a deal?"

UK:         

"Yes. Why not quietly dispose of Odama Bin Nutta when he is your part of the world next week – we’ll send you the flight details. But next time don’t overdo the greed thing…"

S Arabia: 

"Sorted. Oh, and we’ll see you right on that Zappo fighter aircraft contract."

UK:

"I think that goes without saying."

S Arabia:

"Did I say anything ..?"

And imagine that as a result of this new information handed over by the Saudis the British police secure convictions against a group of deranged Islamists planning terrorist attacks across the UK, plus find out about and arrest four more groups planning similar outrages which could have cost several hundred British lives. Meanwhile the Saudis lift their game too for a while and quietly if vigorously take out several big gangs of terrorists.

Squalid? Revolting? Utterly Lacking Principle?

Probably. But several hundred lives and maybe more are saved. So are a few thousand jobs, and hundreds of millions of pounds in potential benefits claims.

Is all that such a ruinous outcome, given the way the world works?

You say, "Piffle. Specious. It is too high a price. We do not allow ourselves to be pushed around."

But you like me are unlikely to be one of the rescue workers digging bits of bodies from hellish Tube tunnels after the next bomb goes off. High Court judges are not often see doing this work either.

If the government has reason to think that cutting a deal with the Saudis will stop terrorist outrages in the UK, are they open to a mass lawsuit under some or other ‘human rights’ heading from the eventual victims’ families if they refuse to cut it?

My point is that for all the rightful furore over this highly damaging series of government decisions, Life is not organised in neat legal categories. It puts forward Hard Choices. 

And insofar as the UK government did try to weigh up how best to deal with this mess, perhaps the best, even winning arguments for why it did what it did have to stay very deeply hidden so as to protect agents and other sources. Which is not to say that it did a good job in this case. Maybe PM Blair really was weak and did not cut as hard a deal as he might have done.

All that said, the original decision to stop the prosecution was demoralising on many levels. We looked at each other aghast in the Embassy in Warsaw when the news broke. Embassies are instructed to report to London even the whiff of corruption involving British firms. Why bother if an obnoxious enough bully can get a big case shut down?

Bottom Line.

When we go shopping in Covent Garden or take a flight, we take for granted that we will come home safe and sound, and not be blown to pieces by some or other psychotic terrorist.

But these people are out there in non-trivial numbers, plotting mayhem. Keeping an eye on them is hard work.

Maybe now and again the Government need to cut some dirty deals for our safety and wider benefit?

Do we want to outsource these grim decisions about the National Interest to elected politicians whom we can kick out if we feel they got it totally wrong?

Or to unelected judges?