Talk:Lawfare

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2013; 2014; 2015; 2016; 2018; 2019;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations: Law Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Wittes, Benjamin; Leutert, Stephanie (May 12, 2013). "On Wikipedia, Lawfare, Blogs, and Sources". Harvard National Security Journal.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lawfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110807201635/http://www.case.edu/orgs/jil/vol.43.1.2/43_Lawfare_Report.pdf to http://www.case.edu/orgs/jil/vol.43.1.2/43_Lawfare_Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

source 16 and 17 are the same[edit]

Footnotes #16 goes to the full report, #17 goes to the summary. Mcdruid (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump vs New York[edit]

The WSJ had an article recently where it made the case that New York AG lawsuits against trump like the one attempting to seize DJT properties constitutes "lawfare". Can we include this? I know DJT is like super controversial and bad but at the same time New York kind of really is doing lawfare against him. By posting a bond so high that even a billionaire can't afford it effectively denies him due process since he can't appeal without posting bond. Thoughts?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-price-of-anti-trump-lawfare-eroding-public-trust-politicized-prosecutions-7bba71d8

https://www.wsj.com/articles/letitia-james-donald-trump-464-million-bond-new-york-arthur-engoron-fbf1c6dd 47.232.91.253 (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first is an opinion column by Daniel Henninger, who appears to be sheerly a commentator and I don't see relevant expertise. The second is an editorial. Neither is using this as an example in a larger discussion of lawfare.

(The amount of the bond is not something set to punish DJT; it's the standard method that one cannot appeal without posting a bond to cover the amount owed as a result of the ruling.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True. Both are opinion. But I found the argument compelling. There is actually a better source I found earlier that I cannot find now which was a breakdown by some lawyer. Still searching for this one and will post once I find it. But Lawfare is most pertinent when against somebody universally reviled. One of tenets of justice in our system is protection for minority rights against majoritarian mobs. DJT is universally the modern day "hitler" in how he is reviled. Given that a victimless crime is being used to seize all his properties based on various legal instruments/proceedings in addition to a bond so high (or perhaps politically risky) that he cannot get an underwriter within 30 days of judgment, this effectively denies him justice because he effectively cannot appeal the decision. He asked for more time or a smaller bond and both requests were denied by the AG. I think it would provide an excellent example of domestic lawfare. Of course, I only really have a USA perspective on the matter. I don't know how rule of law works outside of USA (e.g. russia, etc).

We will have to wait and see if an appeals court will grant one of the two requests though. If they do, then this entire argument is moot because justice was allowed to progress. But unlikely given tomorrow is the deadline. 47.232.91.253 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so they extended his deadline and reduced his bond. So never mind. Justice, surprisingly, was allowed to proceed. Argument is moot. 47.232.91.253 (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archives (Index)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2018 2019
This page is archived by ClueBot III.