War on Law (aka The Long Arm of Dubya)
I was cc'ed on a powerful email this morning from my brother, a barrister in the U.K., to a number of his fellow lawyers. It's worthy of an even wider audience, I think:
Regardless of your views on the war are you not, as lawyers, perturbed by this, from the BBC website, reporting on RAF Fairford, the B 52 base near Gloucester:
"On Wednesday, signs were attached to the perimeter fence which warned: Use of deadly force authorised"
This means: trespassers may be shot dead.
Hello? Did I miss something? Has martial law been declared? Under what circumstances can anyone "authorise" in advance the use of deadly force?
Don't bother to look it up. The answer is: under no circumstances. Nice to see that the game of "let's suspend the Constitution" is now played in the U.K. as well as the U.S.
Lord Atkin, thou should be living at this hour.
Note for non-lawyers: Lord Atkin, Law Lord, famous author of dissenting Judgement in Liversidge v Anderson, famous emergency powers case from WW2, now widely regarded as one of greatest judgments of C20:
"In this country amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed but they speak the same language in war as in peace." (reversing Cicero's observation "inter armes silent leges")
[27/3 updated - corrected typo]
