[ssf] Freedom of what now?

[Chris Malins]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1398492,00.html

Justification from the attorney general's chambers for not releasing the 
legal advice about the war on Iraq under Freedom of Information

	- "It reflects a strong public interest in protecting the 		 
confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their 			clients."

Now, for starters one might hope that the world at large could tell the 
difference between a government and an individual. And whereas it is 
clear that in the middle of a legal dispute, it would be inappropriate 
and prejudicial to the public good that the government should always 
have to publish its legal advice and intent to the parties being 
prosecuted/defended against, this hardly applies once a decision has 
been taken and acted through. and perhaps crucially, I am not aware that 
the agreement to release information of this sort could be held as a 
precedent for future requests, therefore even if there were grounds to 
withold information of this sort again, it would remain quite possible 
to do so. From which we might easily draw the conclusion that the reason 
that the governement has not published this information is that they 
don't want to do so and intend to treat FoI like everything else, as a 
nuisance to be worked around in the letter rather than the spirit of the 
law. Perhaps not even the letter.

Chris