on the subject of Lawfare, the 2001 article cited by me in another thread; and the 2009 article cited by you in another thread.

He started off the 2001 article with these questions:

Is lawfare turning warfare into unfair? In other words, is international law undercutting the ability of the U.S. to conduct effective military interventions? Is it becoming a vehicle to exploit American values in ways that actually increase risks to civilians? In short, is law becoming more of the problem in modern war instead of part of the solution?
He started off the 2009 article with this Q & A:

If anyone doubts the role of law in 21stcentury conflicts, one need only pose the following question: what was the U.S. military’s most serious setback since 9/11? Few knowledgable experts would say anything other than the detainee abuse scandal known as “Abu Ghraib.” That this strategic military disaster did not involve force of arms, but rather centered on illegalities, indicates how law has evolved to become a decisive element—and sometimes the decisive element—of contemporary conflicts.
I think this a bit hyperbolic, but no doubt that opponents will use the advice of the two Chinese colonels (of "Unrestricted Warfare" fame) to assert that the US breaks its own rules.

------------------------------
Here is an example of Lawfare brought in an individual civil (non-criminal) action against the US.

Analysis: Secrets and “need to know”
Saturday, May 30th, 2009 11:05 am | Lyle Denniston

Analysis

NOTE: Nearly a quarter-century ago, in Navy Department v. Egan, the Supreme Court ruled that the President has broad constitutional power — even apart from any grant of power by Congress — to decide who gets access to classified secrets. The Obama Administration, continuing efforts begun in the Bush Administration, has been maneuvering toward a new test — very likely aiming at the Supreme Court – of the authority to decide who has a “need to know” secret data. A filing late Friday night before a federal judge in California intensified that effort.

———————-

The Justice Department, facing an impatient federal judge’s threat to rule summarily that the federal government has engaged in illegal electronic wiretrapping on a Muslim organization within the U.S., asked the judge Friday night to issue a direct order to disclose secret data over the government’s objections that would then set the stage for an appeal on issues “of extraordinary constitutional significance.”

Among those issues is whether a court has any authority to order disclosure of “state secrets” for use by a private party in a damages lawsuit, whether a law allowing such damages lawsuits overrides the government’s claim of a “state secrets” privilege against disclosing classified information, and whether a judge, not the government, can decide what a private party “needs to know” from secret government data for use in a lawsuit. [much more in the article]
In general, I am not a strong proponent of the "state secrets" defense (classified evidence may be safely handled and protected in a number of ways - as the habeas and espionage cases illustrate).

However, the DoJ's filing last nite suggests that some gaming (Lawfare) is going on here:

(p.8)
Plaintiffs are the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation of Oregon (“AHIF-Oregon”), an entity designated by the United States as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist,” and two U.S. citizens who aver that they have “business and other relationships” with AHIF-Oregon. See Complaint ¶¶ 4-6, 22 (Dkt. 1, Item #1 (07-cv-109-VRW)). Plaintiffs filed this action in February 2006 and allege that, in March and April 2004, they were subject to warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance authorized by the President, see id. ¶¶ 18, 19, and they seek to pursue various causes of action related to that alleged surveillance. ....
You can decide whether this case is a form of Lawfare - the named plaintiff cannot be classed as a "useful idiot on a parallel path".

There are similar cases pending. I haven't done much with this kind of case in War Crimes since they involve neither war crimes nor detainees.

Maybe we need a Lawfare thread - possibly in Futurists.