Academics Who Criticize War on Terror Are ‘Lawful Targets,’ West Point Professor Says

Legal scholars who criticize U.S. tactics against terrorists are committing treasonous acts in support of an enemy, and they and the law schools that employ them should be regarded as “lawful targets” for military attacks, a law professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point argued in an article published recently by a student-edited law journal.

The article, “Trahison des Professeurs: The Critical Law of Armed Conflict / Academy as an Islamist Fifth Column,” appeared in the Spring/Summer 2015 issue of the National Security Law Journal, based at George Mason University, in Virginia. The journal has since repudiated the article and apologized to readers for publishing it.

The article’s author, William C. Bradford, has been an assistant professor of law at West Point for about a month, the British newspaper The Guardian reported on Saturday. A West Point spokesman said in a statement to The Guardian that the article had been written and accepted for publication before Mr. Bradford was employed at the military academy, and that the views expressed in the article were solely the professor’s and do not reflect those of the university.

Robert M. Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who is a co-founder and contributor to the blog Lawfare, a respected source of analysis and commentary relating to law and national security, is the author of a paper criticized in Mr. Bradford’s article. “It’s very hard to take this seriously,” Mr. Chesney told The Guardian, “except insofar as he may actually be teaching nonsense like this to cadets at West Point.”

Mr. Bradford did not respond to the newspaper’s requests for comment.

This is not the first time the professor has been at the center of a controversy. In 2005 he resigned from the School of Law at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, where he said a political climate hostile to his conservative views had poisoned his chances of earning tenure. Mr. Bradford said at the time that he had applied for tenure but that the university had never acted on his application. University officials, however, said Mr. Bradford had notified them, via email, only of his intent to apply for tenure but had never actually applied.

 Orlanth wrote:
Copied from the Onion?

 whembly wrote:
Uh... no.

It's a pretty danged high bar to be charged and convicted of "aiding and abetting the enemy"... for good reason over "speech".

That answer to "bad speech" is more speech... not MOABs.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Only the worst regimes in history use the military to kill their own citizens in response to them disagreeing with the government.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Bad title is bad. Nobody in the Pentagon is saying anything of this sort. Its one professor at West Point saying some stupid gak, when professors everywhere say stupid gak all the time.

 d-usa wrote:
Professor with history of saying stupid gak says stupid gak?

Shocking.

The article’s author, William C. Bradford, has been an assistant professor of law at West Point for about a month

 Grey Templar wrote:
Bad title is bad. Nobody in the Pentagon is saying anything of this sort. Its one professor at West Point saying some stupid gak, when professors everywhere say stupid gak all the time.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Uh... no.

It's a pretty danged high bar to be charged and convicted of "aiding and abetting the enemy"... for good reason over "speech".

That answer to "bad speech" is more speech... not MOABs.

WWGRD?

What Would General Ripper Do?

"Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake? Children's ice cream!...You know when fluoridation began?...1946. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works. I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love...Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I-I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women, er, women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake...but I do deny them my essence."
-General Ripper.

 CptJake wrote:
There is an article on Lawfare in this issue of the Special Warfare Magazine that is worth reading, and presents a much more realistic look at some of the actual issues of 'lawfare' and how it is used against us:

https://www.dvidshub.net/publication/issues/8252

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
There is an article on Lawfare in this issue of the Special Warfare Magazine that is worth reading, and presents a much more realistic look at some of the actual issues of 'lawfare' and how it is used against us:

https://www.dvidshub.net/publication/issues/8252

Lawfare? Seriously? that makes the military look...stupid and nuts.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
So West Point is the source of the Army's 'bad idea faries' after all. I wonder if it is a mandatory class there?

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
So West Point is the source of the Army's 'bad idea faries' after all. I wonder if it is a mandatory class there?

 CptJake wrote:
What ever Fraz.

A bit of research into 'contracting with the enemy' and 'malign vendors' coupled with some of what that article talks about, and very concrete examples of bad guy TTP (using Korans in detention centers to pass info for example) we are seeing points to the fact the bad guys consider it an important part of fighting us. To ignore that would be the path of rabid nuckleheads.

 Alpharius wrote:
Title changed to make things less inflammatory/misleading.

Because really, the OT Forum certainly needs less of those things...