Talk:Lawfare/Archives/2013

Neutrality of article

The claim that the term is used as "propaganda used by American Neoconservatives" etc. is uncited, and reads like an attempt to poison the well (for example, it uses the term neoconservative but doesn't differentiate between traditional conservatism and neoconservatism's position on these issues). Andjam 00:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has since been edited to address the above criticism. Socratesreplies 20:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)socratesreplies

edits

I deleted an uncited section that appears to do nothing save insult American conservatives and is a clear violation of NPOV, OR and other restrictions. Also, if the Hague referance to "lawfare" is not cited, it should be deleted. So far as I can tell, this sounds more like a an arms control treaty than an instance of "lawfare." (RookZERO 18:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

Can we remove this tag "The neutrality of this article or section is disputed."?--Purpleslog 18:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Sorry to disappoint the users above, but this article still has POV issues - particularly the 'Examples' section. It basically implies that the attempted prosecutions listed were not carried out for reasons of justice, but as a form of malicious, non-military attack against the United States. That strikes me as highly POV. (Yes, this section has references, but as far as I have seen they don't actually use the word 'lawfare'.) I would suggest that specific examples should be avoided on this page, unless many reliable sources exist discussing them in the context of 'lawfare'. Robofish (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually Robofish I must gently disagree. It is precisely the specific examples that let the reader decide for himself whether 'lawfare' is really a weapon of asymetrical war as asserted, or merely self-serving right wing propaganda trying to duck responsibility for war crimes. Kissinger compares actual tyranny-- kidnappings, torture and political murder, with what he calls 'judicial tyranny," his own possible prosecution for involvement in kidnappings, torture, and murders--an absurdity which speaks volumes.

Perhaps any government official would deride as "lawfare" his own prosecution for acts assertedly serving his nation: torturing dissidents, say. The word "lawfare" seems a variation on the theme of "patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels." Questionable and self-serving as the word may be in the mouths of a Kissinger or Rumsfeld, its use is gaining currency and so it is Wiki-worthy. There are copious references to "lawfare" in Goldsmith's book about the Bush administration torture policies (which one might construe as an admission that at the time they knew--THEY KNEW--what they were doing broke the law).

The more difficult and more interesting question is whether justice can ever cross jurisdictional lines? Are we so sure there is such a thing as universal right and wrong? Would you want to be hauled before a court in Iran, held to the standards of Islamic Sharia law? Should President Obama be prosecuted in Belgium for ordering drone rockets to kill people in Pakistan, a nation with which we are not at war? For that matter was Nuremburg--where a cobbled together military tribunal prosecuted officials on made-up crimes, for doing what was not only legal but required at the time, and had they failed to do it they could themselves have been shot--was Nuremburg about justice, or victors' vengeance? ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

i am removing the template regarding neutrality - it seems that the article has been edited dozens of times since it was posted 18 months ago and is in better shape then before. if anyone disagrees, just click 'undo'..... thanks. Soosim (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Capitalized words - too many & inconsistent

The main article has too many ordinary words capitalized, and the word lawfare appears inconsistently in mid-sentence as Lawfare. Needs a tidy up. DFH (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Go right ahead and fix it.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Deciding what is Lawfare

Reliable secondary sources are required to show that something pertains to 'Lawfare', the subject of this article, and can therefore be included. I removed this content because there is no mention of 'Lawfare'. There's an article on universal jurisdiction and perhaps this content is suitable as an example of organizations trying to employ it but only the Amnesty source, section 9, addresses the universal jurisdiction aspect explicitly. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree. It is interesting that Bush may have cancelled his visit because he feared arrest (and not to forestall protests as the official line had it) but that belongs in a different article.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

sean.....i am baffled again! a few days ago you told me that amnesty international is a reliable secondary source, and you left their quote and reference in place in a different article. but now...on the topic of lawfare, in an article they published saying that bush should be arrested for war crimes (which is the EXACT definition of warfare), you don't agree with it. if you noticed, i had put this under the NGO effect with lawfare. NOT in the general section, or anywhere as an example, but rather, to the specific showing that amnesty (the ngo you said was well respected and acceptable based on many a discussion on wikipedia) calls for lawfare. and no, they will never call it lawfare - they just call it something else (which is actually the point....). so, please help me understand. Soosim (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Soosin. I agree with Sean that the source does not call what happened "lawfare." A whole separate question from whether they are reliable. On that score I would say that citing the original Amnesty International report is a poor choice for being OR. Wikipedia properly cites only secondary sources, like newspaper articles DESCRIBING the report. If somebody at MSNBC or the Atlantic calls this lawfare, then that would be properly cited. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Amnesty International is a reliable source with attribution in Wikipedia. I did not say they were respected. That was someone else and it wasn't pertinent to the argument. In the other article, Ameer Makhoul, the AI source (and another secondary source that discussed the AI statement) specifically addressed the subject of the article by name. The pertinence of the sources to the topic could not possibly be any clearer. In this case, the pertinence of the AI source to the topic depends not on the term Lawfare being in the source, not on a secondary source describing AI actions as Lawfare, but on your personal assessment that this is Lawfare. While I find your use of capitals in 'the EXACT definition' a compelling argument :), whether it's an example of Lawfare and can therefore be included in this article is something that reliable secondary sources have to decide, not us. We can't decide that it is Lawfare. Everything in it has to be related to Lawfare by a reliable secondary source. It's the same for any article. I seriously doubt whether you want someone adding instances of IDF actions in the Gaza Strip to the war crimes article because they think it's the exact definition of a war crime. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Understood about not deciding for ourselves. and sean, btw, if someone wants to put up that IDF actions anywhere are war crimes and use amnesty, et al as a source, that's fine. (it can just be another example of NGOs and their use of the durban strategy, etc.). thanks. Soosim (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Lawfare Project" attempts to hijack the article for propaganda

Dear Soosim: thanks for your revision, but I must gently disagree. The authors of that Daily News piece are not journalists. They are not staffers. They do do not work for the Daily News. According to the identifying blurb at the end: "Lancman is an assemblyman from Queens and an advisory board member of the Lawfare Project. Ehrenfeld is the director of the American Center for Democracy." Both, in other words, pushing an agenda, and what the Daily News published is a kind of op ed piece. Though I understand the confusion as the Daily News to its discredit often does not rigorously separate opinion from news reporting. As you want to include this in the example section I am leaving it with the cite for now, but modifying the footnote to clarify this is an assertion of opinion. I'll revisit it later.

Meantime, you folks from the Lawfare Project: sign up for a Wikipedia account so you aren't just an I.P. address. And try editing an article about which you have no strong opinion, like say daffodils on Long Island. That will give you needed understanding of NPOV.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wordfare by jilted bloggers

The last sentence of the lede may look a little odd. That is because it is dangling bait. Its blogger authors (who are in fact distinguished academics) want us to fool with it, so they can vindicate their complaint that Wikipedia is out to get bloggers. The article in the footnote says so. I do have a question about whether the word "appropriate" is appropriate. But let's leave the sentence as it is for now. Oh, as I was writing this I saw somebody else took it out. Ah well. May I suggest we discuss the credibility of this particular blog here on the talk page? ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've trimmed some of the recent addition from Sleutert21 that seemed to be promoting the Lawfare Blog without offering much insight into the meaning of the term itself. The article by Wittes and Leutert seems to be a belated reaction to having their previous edits reverted in June 2012. I note that the reinserted text is pretty much identical to what was placed in the article before. I didn't remove the 'Positive Connotations of Lawfare' section, but question whether its presence is of much value to readers. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 19:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gobonobo. I wonder whether there might have been three conjoined objectives in that Sleutert21 edit? The first was not so much to discuss the word "lawfare," as to point to academics who are discussing whether it is a good word or a bad word or both. The second purpose closely aligned to that, as you suggest, was promotional. Those two purposes are so similar as to be hard to tell apart, but the third was quite distinct: to complain about Wikipedia policy on blogs as sources. I agree with the current lede version, which was (at least as of this writing) to delete the peculiar "bait" sentence but to keep the useful article citation, adding it to the sentence previous. As to the rest of the article, I will wait until the bruises from my beating in the Harvard National Security Journal have healed. Always wise to wait a while, I find. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I just added the sentence on the blog (that Gobonobo removed from the intro) to the positive connotations paragraph. If there is no reference to the blog than the sentence about the "name Lawfare" in that paragraph doesn't make sense. Happy to work with you both to edit if you think better way to write that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleutert21 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes--I see, that looks like a good place for it. I do have reservations about whether the word 'appropriated' is appropriate. But that stylistic judgment I'll leave to others. May I say also welcome to a relatively fresh editor, and congratulations on the congenial spirit of this post. Typing four tildas ~~~~ will produce a signature (I often forget to do that too). I am taking the liberty also of posting on your Talk page.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)