A dutiful man

CW: Contains themes of government-sanctioned violence, mass graves, torture, and systemic abuse.

The Interview

I do now find myself to be lacking in friendly social interaction. This is not a complaint, nor a cause for alarm. Before, I was not one for an active social life. But the common daily interactions of courtesy and custom were known to me, and have disappeared of late.

You have asked about my childhood years. I had friends. Not too many, as I recall. But there were boys whose company I kept and with whom I could enjoy a game, a laugh or an adventure of sorts. There are, I believe, those in any school who are elevated above others. For reasons of beauty, physical prowess, wit or sheer confidence, they are placed upon pedestals and granted a kind of worship. My friends and I, of course, were not among these young gods. This was not to our disadvantage. I have seen that the light gracing those risen, can sharply transform into such a harsh and revealing spotlight that it forces them to cringe away and take shelter in shadows. It is best, I feel, to steer one's paths clear away from such pedestals, even if the journey is consequently dull, and less direct.

Fortunately, my little group of companions lacked any aspects of character or appearance that - for reasons often lacking in logic - might trigger the attention of the gods. Gods seem not to like a world of imperfections and uncertainty, such as are familiar and even comforting to the rest of us. We were, I assume, a bland clutch of boys, and the paths we walked were safe and steady.

My parents were teachers both. I did not suffer them as a pupil in their classrooms, a coincidence we all felt was a blessing. They were both of serious dispositions and would have been cruelly conscious of the need to avoid accusations of favouritism. For my part, I should not have liked to have such a spotlight upon me as would fall upon the son of the teacher at the head of the classroom.

Neither mother nor father rose beyond the classrooms of the local primary school. I understand they were regarded well enough, but lacked the drive and certitude to become principals or even deputies to a principal. As to the challenge of educating high school adolescents, even the suggestion thereof would have frozen them to inaction, and may even have provoked an unprecedented refusal. Thankfully, no offer of higher standing was ever made to them, so such an alarming act of rebellion was never set in motion.

As for myself, I inherited sufficient wit from both to form adequate ability. I developed an interest in the law, and towards it envisioned a path both straight and sturdy. I approached the subject with my parents, anticipating not their disapproval, but assuredly their concern. For the path to a qualification in law is strenuous, and the application of law is likely to encounter an unwanted share of conflict. To my surprise, they supported my choice. They did, however, qualify their support with the strongest admonition that I should direct my career to those practices of law in the service of businesses or governments. Under no circumstance should I let my attentions be turned to that basest of fields, criminal law.

I do believe I may have chuckled at my parent's warning. The idea of criminal law was as naturally abhorrent to me as was the thuggery of high school youths to them. No, the allure of law to me was to be found in its exploration of detail and the diligence of application; in the knowledge of precedents and principles buried deep in thousands of tomes, so that my discoveries should always be valuable but equally self rewarding.

My first two years of practice as a qualified professional were made from a small desk in the pinched legal department of a modest corporation. I found the work unimaginative and too easy to be interesting. Thankfully, I was offered a role in government service. In my thirty and more years of this service, I have accommodated myself well, as evidenced by a steady series of advancements in position and status.

It is to my good fortune that I have found these thirty years consistently satisfying. In fact, I may even be so bold as to suggest they have given me contentment.

My part in the theatre of law is not on the courtroom stage, nor board rooms where deals are struck. There belong the quick-witted, eloquent practitioners - the salespeople of my profession. My service to the law is one of hard labour; of research, interpretation, comparison and rigorous testing. It is the work of backrooms and long hours.

As I once veered into government service, not long after I veered within that service, this time to the particular office of immigration -an office that even then was gaining increasing attention. The mundane processing of applications for immigration or deportation is not my concern. My role - that has become my specialty - is to construct the irrefutable legal framework that will underpin or undermine an application. Whether my expertise is lent to the underpinning or the undermining is determined by those who then govern, from whom I take my instruction.

I have no political bias. I do not take part in the voting ritual. I have no concern for which party holds power or for how long. All that concerns me is the simple fact that the elected will take office, and henceforth have my services at their disposal.

I have been tasked with ensuring immigration status for individuals and groups my superiors have chosen to favour. I have been tasked to ensure successful deportations of individuals and groups my superiors have chosen to disfavour. It is not my place to question the favour or disfavour, but only to see it done.

Now, I come to the events that I am sure have brought you here. Nine months ago, I was summonsed to the office of my superior, the head of legal affairs for the Home Office. On arrival at his office, I was surprised to note the presence of the Minister herself. A conversation ensued, in which the excellence of my reputation was paid particular attention. My two superiors flitted around my reputation as if they were bees and I, the purveyor of nectar. I said little during this conversation, as is my wont. But I will allow that it was not unpleasant to hear the complimentary contributions of my superiors aired unimpeded.

In due course, they brought themselves to the grave point of the discussion. This government, newly elected with broad popular support, was to declare a state of emergency. This declaration was in response to the immigration crisis. Would I agree that the synopsis that illegal immigration, no-go districts, and refugee overflow had reached a crisis point? To that question, I replied that the word crisis was for the political lexicon. For one such as myself, it had little use. If, however, the government of the day determined that any situation merited the implementation of national emergency laws, then my job was no more or less than to support that implementation to a successful conclusion.

Upon delivering my response, both offered me a smile. The minister herself did something for which I was not prepared at all. She reached over and put her hand over mine, which was resting on my knee. She said in the softest voice, "well said, well said." I hid my disquiet and controlled an urge to raise an eyebrow.

They proceeded to elaborate. The emergency declaration was to be accompanied by a major change in immigration policy, constructed on two pillars. For the first part, to be called Correction; all illegal immigrants - including those claiming refugee status - were to be discovered and deported. For the second part, to be titled Integration; assimilation would henceforth be adopted as the official immigration philosophy and practice. Any individual or groups seeking immigrant status would be required to demonstrate a commitment to adapt to the culture and norms of this country. Any individual or groups who demonstrated a preference to cling to and propagate their own culture and norms to this country would have their status revoked and reclassified as illegal, subjected to the conditions of the first part of this policy.

Upon this announcement being delivered to me, I immediately understood why I had been summoned. A man of my legal background and experience in such matters must recognise that such significant new policies would be subject to numerous legal challenges. I prepared myself to insist upon a significant increase in budget and staffing, and readied myself to be as obdurate as needed in the face of any reluctance on their part.

I had not anticipated their actual proposal, however. The new government was determined to see the new policy carried out speedily, and to such an extent as would transform the social landscape of the country. As such, alongside the legislation to introduce a state of emergency, they proposed to codify into law the formation of an emergency task force. This task force would draw committed resources from the armed forces, the police, foreign affairs, social services, MI5, and home affairs. The task force would lack effectiveness if caught up in the bureaucracy and obfuscation rampant in the public service. Consequently, the task force would be granted wide-ranging authority and operational independence, obviating accountability to any established departments and procedures.

That the legislation would also exempt the task force from the requirement of habeas corpus was, I confess, an aspect that caused me a moment of concerned reflection. I inquired about the structure, governance and accountability of the task force.

The minister's swift smile revealed that she had anticipated the question and was rather eager to address it. The force would be run by a triumvirate of directors, reporting directly to the minster herself. The three members of the triumvirate would direct operations, legal affairs, and administration, respectively.

The purpose of their meeting with me was finally revealed, when they announced, to my surprise and honour, that they wished me to accept the position of director of legal affairs on that very triumvirate.

And so it is thus. Now, shall I address the questions in the order in which you submitted them.

Do I consider the project to have been a success? I am unqualified to answer the question. Success or failure is a function of the goals established by the architects of the project. I do not know, or need to know, whether the government set targets. From the outset, I rejected the premise that the triumvirate itself should operate to a set of goals. My view, which has remained unchanged, is that our mandate was abundantly clear, and our mission was simply to pursue that mandate with all our energies and skill until it is complete. It is not yet complete, but that implies neither success nor failure, merely a state of continuance.

Have I experienced any personal consequences from taking on the role? I have alluded to a change I have perceived in my degree of social acceptance. I am to conclude that my very public role in such a controversial project has alienated me to some extent. This does not affect my life, and is such is trivia. I have received many threats, some directed at my very life. But such threats are the concern of security and I trust they will do their job as I do mine.

Do I have any regrets? I find it hard to understand the premise of this question. Regret implies a pivotal decision or choice, and a subsequent illumination as to the error of the option chosen. Accepting the offer to become a director was a perfectly linear decision - hardly a choice at all. My government initiated action that, while not universally popular, was legal. I did my duty to support that action. Had our country been invaded by a foreign power and our government introduced conscription, should I have carried a gun to battle or no? Should I have had regrets at doing so?

Do I defend the complex and controversial legal frameworks that have facilitated the implementation of the task force's work? In response, I find the question lazy and somewhat insulting. In short, yes I do.

Do I suffer any struggles of conscience? I suppose this is meant to reference the emotional imagery shown across media nightly, until the government passed its media control laws? My government has directed me to accomplish an objective. Should there be dissonance as a consequence of their objectives, that is a matter between the government and its voting public. I am quite clear and purposeful about my duty, as I have already made clear.

You have a new question? That is not what I had agreed, but... do I have any comment regarding the arrest of the director of operations and the minister of home affairs? I do not understand. I am unaware of this. This cannot be. The legal framework is sound and unimpeachable. Arrested on what charges? Manslaughter? I... I.... this is not possible. I would know of this. When? This past half hour? What is behind their arrest? The discovery of an undeclared detention centre with evidence of mass graves, torture, and starvation? Oh my. Oh my.

Another question? I am not sure I can.... Has my success at supporting the initiative with an impenetrable legal buttress, combined with my apathy towards policy and intent, contributed to the minister's and director's apparent sense of omnipotence and immunity from civil accountability?

I do not follow. Excuse me. I feel a little distracted and my concentration wavers. Could you rephrase that?

Have I not, in fact, aided and abetted the execution of a horrendous crime?

I...