"Lawfare" in the war on Terrorism: A Reclamation Project (Symposium: Lawfare‪)‬

In the nine years since Major General Charles Dunlap first coined the term, "lawfare" has strayed considerably from its non-partisan, ideologically neutral origins. Nowhere is this clearer than in the war on terror, where the term is often used as a pejorative label by political pundits who decry as "lawfare" virtually any attempt to apply the rule of law to the conduct of the United States' war on terror. This essay considers the prospects for reclaiming "lawfare" as a useful term in the war on terror. It explores various conceptions of the term, noting that a more ideologically neutral usage--lawfare as "critical self-reflection "' on the relationship between law and war--is gaining ground in both the scholarly and public spheres. It also argues that American lawyers and judges have a critical role to play in reclaiming the rhetorical high ground from pundits who attempt to equate the work of those involved in adjudicating terror cases with a shadowy form of "lawfare" engaged in by America's terrorist enemies. I. INTRODUCTION