Using Law as a weapon of war: The Lawfare Project

The Lawfare Project met last week for the first time to lay down the foundations of fighting terrorism in the court room. Terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism (over 95% of all terrorist attacks are Islamic Muslim fueled and or involve Muslims) is waged on different levels. I have often talked about stealth jihad, soft and hard jihad. Legal jihad is another battle ground in the war against Islamic terrorism. It works almost interchangeably with stealth jihad. The IPT has a very good essay on the Lawfare Project. The essay is long so I only posted part of here. The rest can be found by just following the links at the end of what I have posted.

---

Combating Lawfare

Federal courts are slowly becoming a new battlefield in the war on terror, with combatants setting aside traditional weapons and arming themselves instead with domestic and international laws. Responding to this phenomenon, the inaugural meeting of The Lawfare Project convened last week in New York to discuss The Use of the Law as a Weapon of War.

Major General Charles Dunlap coined the term lawfare, identifying it as:

"a cynical manipulation of the rule of law and the humanitarian values it represents. Rather than seeking battlefield victories, per se, challengers try to destroy the will to fight by undermining the public support that is indispensable when democracies like the U.S. conduct military interventions."

Dunlap recognized some time ago, as Supreme Court Attorney (France) Francois-Henri Briard said at the conference, "the law may be a weapon, and litigation a battlefield."

The day-long conference brought together diverse panels of experts from around the world. Their discussions focused on the ever-growing threat from Islamists' exploitation of international and domestic legal systems to intimidate and silence their critics. In particular, as the organizers explained, the conference focused on the manipulation of the legal system for three strategic purposes:

1. To thwart free speech on issues of national security and public concern.
2. To delegitimize and diminish the sovereignty of democratic states.
3. To inhibit the right and ability of democracies to defend themselves against terrorism.

Setting the stage, the participants identified the scope of lawfare, providing some context for the issue. In 400 B.C. Chinese General Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War, that in fighting a stronger foe, "success begins by seizing something which your opponents hold dear; then he will be amenable to your will." As the panel discussions demonstrated, America and the West hold dear the rule of law, and so our enemies have met with some success in attempting to hijack Western legal and moral principles to turn international media and public opinion against us.

Think being the victim of a frivolous lawsuit simply for speaking out against terrorism sounds crazy? Think again. Discussing this very issue on radio, Executive Director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation (MASF) Mahdi Bray explained:

"Folks, that's got to be the next horizon for our community. In order to deal with these haters, these bashers, these Islamophobes, we've got to be willing to spend our money in a court of law. And not necessarily because we don't look for money, but we need to be able to say we need to spend our money and make you spend your money, and you're gonna stop doing this to us." Continue reading

Investigative Project On Terrorism