Today in court,

the good people of www.gk2003.dk lost the first round in court. The case against primeminister Anders Fogh Rasmussen for bending the danish constitution by sending Denmark in a one-front war was rejected by the second highest authority in the danish legal system, The Country Court (landsretten). The next natural step is of course to try and get it before the High Court, but the perspectives of a definitive verdict then is postponed to 2010.

The verdict today however leaves a series of dilemmas, which to me points out a serious conflation between state and court.

Firstly:

The prime argument for going to war in Iraq, was that the terror threat had its prime-source in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meaning, that the world in general post 9.11 was a more insecure place, why Operation Enduring Freedom (yes!) was the mean to annihilate the terror threat, also meaning: we are all living under an increased terror threat.

The accuser (gk2003) argued in court that this was in fact the case. That not only had 9.11 and the war that foolowed meant an increased terror threat, but it had also changed and affected the life`s of the accusers, among these, the parents of a young danish soldier killed by a roadside-bomb in Iraq.

The court ruled today, this in not the case.

The accusers could not be said to be more affected by the war in Iraq, than any other average citizen, so that argument was neglected. And thats the dilemma: The same argument that send Denmark into war (the general terror-threat) is the same argument that the court ruled out.

In other words: if there is no terror threat, there should no engagement in Iraq. But alas...

Secondly:

The accounts of day-to-day changes in the ordinary lifes of the 26 accusers, the f e e l i n g s, and more rational experience's of the consequences of the war in Iraq was totally neglected. Meaning: 26 people ( and 3000 supporters) now has a court verdict stating, that their inner life, their emotions and personal freedom to act rational upon a threat they experience, is considered bogus and.

To me, that's unheard off. Basically the verdict rules: You - as a person - suck!

Then theres all the facts and figures leading up to the decision leading Denmark into war, which is getting more and more blurred. But generally you could say, that the righteousness exposed by the danish government, the "we know whats best attitude" should contain a fearless approach towards a high court ruling. But they are fighting with arms and legs to avoid it, which in my book, and in the book of nearly every legal expert in this country, points to one of the greatest political blundres since WWII, and that it is of the outmost importance to place responsibility and to define whether or not the Constitution was bend. If not by the governments own work, then why a Constitution?

Minister means servant but instead we are seeing the dawn of a new and untouchable political upper class.