It used to be that wars were planned by generals and executed by soldiers with the national leaders as their chief commander. Not anymore now. Over the years, it is increasingly evident that members of the legal fraternity play an ever-important central role in the targeting and other military operations. They are known as war lawyers.
Since after World War 2, the world started looking at how badly humans treat each other in the name of defence of ideology. They realised the dire need to dictate how to act 'humanely' in the face of conflict; how to behave with civility looking at the mouth of impending death! Law was applied for this purpose.
The War Lawyers interpreted and examined the laws of war in and out. They applied these laws in aerial targeting operations carried out by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Israel military in Gaza. They justified their attacks, quoting prevailing laws to plan carnage whilst escaping subsequent legal scrutiny or percussions. They define who legitimate targets are. War is no longer confined to combatant. It legitimised violence against civilians. The net effect of all these is the progressive rise in the number of civilians being caught in the line of fire. They are given names like plain-clothes combatants, human shields and decoy to cover their faux pas. Sometimes we wonder whether there is any truth in these allegations of the contrary as the machines of destruction become increasingly precise to the dot.
I did come into a friendly conversation with a senior lawyer friend about defending a person who had actually committed a particular crime. In some many words that he had explained, my understanding was that it was the onus of the prosecuting officer to prove his client's guilt. It was not up to him to expose his client's misdeed. He was mentioning things like solicitor-client confidentiality and the need for everyone to have adequate representation, but not once was the question of morality or doing the right thing did come up.
I guess the purpose of the court is to uphold the law, not mete justice. Money can buy watertight defence and maybe witnesses too. To add on to Shaw's proposition, one should get the right solicitor when one is accused of a crime. It does not matter whether he actually carried the act. The adage that 'the truth will prevail' is outdated.
