top of page
  • crowsden


Updated: Jan 19


Thursday January 18, 2024 10:45 AM

Edition # 120


“The flak only gets heavy when you’re over the target.” ~ Anonymous WWII Bomber Pilot


It's funny when mostly unaware people discover a term and then go about believing they INVENTED IT.

One such term is: "Lawfare".

Lawfare is the use of "legal" systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual's exercise of their legal rights.

The fact that LAWFARE is used often on virtually EVERYBODY who has ever been outspoken or defiantly exercises their God given natural rights is mostly lost on the "unwashed".... When those rights and protections afforded every individual are ignored to exact retribution because of the agenda of a "protagonist"; that's even more repugnant.

In ancient Greece, Protagoras met with a potential law student Euatle to offer his teaching services but Euatle said: "but I have no money to pay you". Protagoras assured the young student that "one day after you become a successful lawyer and won your first case, you can pay me then". With that Euatle accepted his offer.

Years had passed but Euatle had not paid Protagoras for the education. And so, Protagoras threatened to sue him but Euatle explained that since he had never tried a case, he was exempt from paying for the lessons. Who is right, Euatle or Protagoras? Herein lies the paradox of Lawfare.

✳️ Trust me. Just go read about it. 📜 😎

The word LAWFARE can be traced back to the 1950's but as noted above, the activity was used long before it got it's "modern" namesake.

The term is a portmanteau of the words law and warfare. Some scholarly tracings claim the first use of the term "lawfare" was in the 1975 manuscript Whither Goeth the Law, which argues that the Western legal system has become overly contentious and utilitarian.

A more frequently cited use of the term was Charles J. Dunlap, Jr.'s 2001 essay authored for Harvard's Carr Center.

In that essay, Dunlap defines lawfare as "the use of law as a weapon of war". He later expanded on the definition, explaining lawfare was "the exploitation of real, perceived, or even orchestrated incidents of law-of-war violations being employed as an unconventional means of confronting" a superior military power. But don't let THAT be the definition that gets stuck in your Dunlap "purloined" the word and fashioned it to explain his own world-view thesis as it related to war. At that moment, the bridge was built that forever merged the words: "law" and "war".

It came up again when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was concerned with the possibility of lawfare waged against Bush administration officials, and that Rumsfeld "could expect to be on top of the list". Rumsfeld addresses the effects of lawfare in his memoir "Known and Unknown", 23 years ago.

Least we forget Lawfare's humble beginnings.....

The strategic or even abusive use of law, the use of law as a weapon, is as old as law itself; shocking as it may be to the idealists who are simply comforted by another bowl of "pudding".... Alex, I'll take "Adam & Eve" for eternity.

Today, examples of this abound: false allegations and accusations, unfounded or excessive punishments, undue or fraudulent procedural delays, convictions for uncorroborated facts.....these have become the tools of tyrants and the powerful.

(That'd be anyone other than YOU).

It's what Franz Kafka described in his novel The Trial as "the process". (written in 1914 and 1915 and published posthumously on April 26, 1925). The intricate world of law and justice can turn, in bad hands, into an indecipherable dead-end trap, an immense nonsense that quickly turns into a nightmare of terrible consequences.

In 1985 the German criminalist Günther Jakobs explained that criminal systems sometimes treated defendants not as citizens, subjects of fundamental rights, but as enemies of the social order.

Jakobs developed one of the most influential and controversial criminal doctrines in recent times: the criminal law of the enemy (or Feindstrafrecht). He held that Rights and guarantees are to be respected ONLY when it comes to our fellow citizens.

✅ He directed that using certain terminology (words), we were then free to pursue "any means" (legal or illegal) to satisfy our objectives.

✅ He counseled that authorities (people in power) should speak using terminology such as "terrorists, or enemies of society who threaten our national security".

✅ He promoted the idea that afterward we can start using law simply as an instrument of defence, that is, as a weapon of war. The purpose of protecting the security of society would apparently justify the means of cancellation or restriction of fundamental rights for some people, as well as the indiscriminate use of forms of legal coercion such as arbitrary detention; the extension of pre-trial custody; the initiation of lawsuits without a truly solid basis; the forced or extensive application of criminal types that do not quite fit the facts; and even legislative reforms to toughen the penalties for certain “enemy crimes” and the drafting and execution of forceful and exemplary sentences that defend society from the threat posed by the enemy.

Jakobs himself gave the best synthesis that we have become all to comfortable with today: “the enemy has fewer rights”. So by making individuals "the enemy" individual rights UNDER THE LAW are abolished.

That's fine and dandy at your little political fundraisers until the "collective" declares YOU the enemy only because YOU challenge the mob's popular narrative.


........and don't get me started on the abuse of process using our severely compromised Judiciary. 🤔

Thomas Jefferson warned, "law can become a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

.........The enlightened see that playing out now on a daily basis.

DONT FORGET that under the cover of "law", those rabid dogs of war gave birth to the Patriot Act, then "COVID", the permit to assassinate anyone, anywhere on Earth simply by naming them: "the Enemy".... and in the end, it's Pastor Martin Niemöller, all over again when THEY COME FOR YOU.

(the Morning Flak ©)

24 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page