A Few Lawfare Links

Note: I have been hording these, so they are not all current.


The problem with Israel’s High Court of Justice applying standards of international law to Israel is that, at best, international law embodies noble sounding but ultimately empty slogans, at worst, it is actively hostile to Israel’s existence.

When Israel’s High Court co-opts these standards it is not elevating itself, but rather co-opting the views of Israel’s enemies. It is, in fact, forcing to abide by standards that are meant to be inimical to Israel’s interests. There is nothing enlightened by such an approach.


Since Europeans are now setting themselves as prosecutors of oppression worldwide, when do you suppose we can expect Russian boss Vladimir Putin, ex-KGB thug, to get dragged into an Italian court on charges of complicity with the Soviet gulag machinery? When will Castro be indicted for running prison camps? How about China’s leaders, between forced abortions and quashing all varieties of dissent far more effectively than right-wing Latin American caudillos ever dreamed?

Right. To do that would be to put on trial the entire socialist enterprise and the oppression that is intrinsic to it, that is part of its very makeup. Fat chance.


The failure of the Bush administration to reverse its predecessors’ drastic shrinkage of our armed services is notorious. Yet, because our fighters are the greatest in human history, the most pernicious fall-out of our parsimony remains unnoticed. The peerless but thinly stretched U.S. military, it turns out, has an Achilles’ heel: it cannot combat lawfare waged against the private partners on whom it is ever more dependent.


It is against this backdrop we find yet another attempt to introduce the unelected judicial branch into matters which have long been properly held to be strictly questions for the elected officials of the executive and legislative branches who are themselves accountable to voters in questions of policy. In this case, the intrusion comes in the form of a paper which presents a “modest” proposal to hold the war-making powers of the elected branches hostage to an adversarial court process, in which the case to be presented will be composed from intelligence take. We initially would have thought this a jest in very poor taste indeed, but we unfortunately see it was seriously argued.


David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey are back in the Wall Street Journal with another worth-reading look at the latest in the anti-anti-terrorist strategy: threatening the lawyers who helped in the war against the Islamists.
So the lawyers who won this are under attack from the lawyers for the Americans who don’t like it.

One Response

  1. Thanks for posting these. A very interesting subject.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: