These are just some thoughts.

1. Legal actions vs funding sources - basically following the Alien Property Custodian process of WWII. Since these are civil actions, you can engage in discovery - almost limitless discovery. Yes, they can take the 5th, but that will eventually lead to a judgment against them.

2. Right now, there are a number of civil actions brought vs the USG and/or officials. Defense tactics have largely involved motions to dismiss (failure to state a claim, etc.), where the facts alleged are assumed to be true for purposes of the motion. So, bad publicity - Mr X was tortured Y times, etc., etc. Again, full discovery is available - again maybe multiple 5th assertions with the same result as #1.

3. Getting ahead of the enemy's agitprop machine - Schmedlap's talked about this in Lawfare (a "bumper sticker" term we are probably stuck with) - punch this and the following posts (including a few LawVols). PS - LawVol; in the linked post, Schmedlap asked some questions that are AF stuff - if within your areas of expertise and whether something you can talk about here ?

4. Long term strategic lawfare - which LawVol mentioned here. We just avoided being snookered on the 1977 Additional Protocals to the GCs. Since the 80s, some of those concepts have been sneaking in the back door via "customary international law". It's really amazing how much of that punditry is based on a mid-80s conference speech by a DoS Deputy Legal Advisor (a new source of law-making ! ).

The point is that we should revisit the Laws of War with the goal of adopting as positive law those principles which are to our advantage - and which fit our operational considerations. And, I am not talking John Yoo et al stuff.