Lawfare - the Legal Warfare

Islam is at war with the West, using unconventional weapons that keep Europe and America in ignorance or denial. These were the WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) that Islam had all along, but that we failed to recognize.

Islam and its destruction of the many cultures that once existed in the Middle East began in earnest, with uncompromising hostility and justification for violence, when Mohammad’s religious righteousness was repudiated by the Jews and Christians of Mecca and Medina in the 7th century. Islam’s jihad activities continue their brutality to this day, with terrorist activities worldwide. THEY ARE COMMANDED to conquer non-Muslims, usurp land, destroy antiquities, remove all remnants of the indigenous history, and slaughter rampantly. Where their violence would not succeed, Muslims have invaded by emigration as though to live harmoniously with their hosts, and have conquered by shunning assimilation and demanding special accommodations. Their sophisticated propaganda machine accuses their innocent hosts of a variety of offenses, using “Islamophobia,” a politically manipulative accusation designed to intimidate critics into silence, curbing the very terminology needed to report their activities.

---

Islam has grown due to its appeal to the socialists and communists who take on their cause and perpetrate anti-democratic and anti-Semitic ideologies in schools and universities, and the work of chaplains who infiltrate the armed forces and prisons to convert the vulnerable minds. Muslims have instituted BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) worldwide to inspire hate and financial and business disengagement from the target culture. Most dire are the Islamists found in our administration, severely affecting the manner in which our government attends to America’s business of foreign and domestic policies. A more recent phenomenon, Lawfare, is a “soft jihad,” a negative force that operates within our government and court system. It is defined as the manipulation of the rule of law, and the humanitarianism thus represented, to achieve a military advantage, such as 1) the use of mosques as armories, command and control centers, and launching pads, and then using protections accorded religious sites under the laws of armed conflict, and 2) when militants hide among noncombatants in order to shield themselves from attack, or if attacked, use the civilian losses as accusations against the opponent’s military defense, also known as “disproportionate warfare.” Lawfare’s purpose is to silence free speech important to our national security and public concern; to delegitimize the sovereignty of democratic states (Israel); to hinder democracies from fighting and defeating terrorism; to confuse laws of armed conflict with those of human rights; and to prevent the application of human rights laws where they are most needed. Lawfare is “a revolution in military legal affairs.” The lawsuits, implemented with bias and inconsistency within our democracy, are a means of intimidating, demoralizing, and bankrupting defendants; they are weapons of war to muzzle all criticism of Islam or exposure of its true nature and violence. The first conference of The Lawfare Project, led by Brooke Goldstein, director, met in New York just months ago, to address the abuse of Western laws and judicial systems to achieve strategic military or political ends, where violence won’t work. It drew experts from around the world to focus on the increasing threat from Islamists’ exploitation of our mutual legal systems. The constituents agreed that Lawfare must be opposed in accordance with the tenets of democracy, and discussed the legal limits placed on those fighting terrorism and the rights granted to terrorists. Particular attention was paid to the lawsuits that thwart our freedom of speech on issues of national security and public concern that attempt to delegitimize the sovereignty of democratic states (Israel), and their efforts to inhibit the right and ability of democracies to defend themselves against terrorism. The members concurred that they must question the intention behind the legal action, to see if it was created to pursue justice or to undermine and manipulate our very system of laws. Citing tedious and expensive defenses, the attendees agreed to a proactive approach – to file suits against the supporters of terrorism so that they, too, might be bankrupted. Among the issues under consideration are:

• the power of the state and an international court;
• incitement to violence and legitimate criticism of religion;
• legalities of hate speech;
• bias in international tribunals;
• limits of universal jurisdiction of our national security interests;
• the power of the UN ( non-democratic members) to dictate international human rights norms;
• flawed documents masquerading as legitimate analyses;
• classified material obtained from terrorists;
• laws and “Miranda rights” governing terrorists and unlawful combatants.

President Obama addressed the nation about the Ground Zero mosque, saying, “This is America and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.” But Islam promotes religious tyranny, which is not an inalienable right; freedom from religious tyranny is. Religious tolerance is why we have religious freedom; we must never tolerate religious tyranny. The Lawfare Project agreed that our resolutions must uphold respect for universal human rights, promote interfaith harmony, combat discrimination against individuals on the basis of religion or belief, and promote respect for universal religious diversity, but we must never permit religion to rule. Under our Constitution, any religious law that supports violence or the overthrow of our governent for blasphemy is a criminal act, ranging from a felony to an act of treason. Our US Constitution must be used as our guideline to define the enemy and its (mis)use of our laws. The Lawfare Project must assure that our Constitution is diligently upheld and protected from Islamic assault.