Posted on 08/29/2015 12:04:11 PM PDT by Steelfish
West Point Professor Calls On US Military To Target Legal Critics Of War On Terror US military academy official William Bradford argues that attacks on scholars’ home offices and media outlets – along with Islamic holy sites – are legitimate
Spencer Ackerman. 29 August 2015 An assistant professor in the law department of the US Military Academy at West Point has argued that legal scholars critical of the war on terrorism represent a “treasonous” fifth column that should be attacked as enemy combatants.
In a lengthy academic paper, the professor, William C Bradford, proposes to threaten “Islamic holy sites” as part of a war against undifferentiated Islamic radicalism. That war ought to be prosecuted vigorously, he wrote, “even if it means great destruction, innumerable enemy casualties, and civilian collateral damage”.
Other “lawful targets” for the US military in its war on terrorism, Bradford argues, include “law school facilities, scholars’ home offices and media outlets where they give interviews” – all civilian areas, but places where a “causal connection between the content disseminated and Islamist crimes incited” exist.
“Shocking and extreme as this option might seem, [dissenting] scholars, and the law schools that employ them, are – at least in theory – targetable so long as attacks are proportional, distinguish noncombatants from combatants, employ nonprohibited weapons, and contribute to the defeat of Islamism,” Bradford wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Slippery slope.
Dead men walking?
Bye Bye professor.
I agree 100% if he is talking overseas IN those pestholes.
It should be a B-52 arclight over such places. Nuremberg and Munich got plastered for good reason. And it wasn’t the rail junction.
Is this the same guy? If so, how is he teaching at West Point?
The problem is that the current liberal-secular government sees conservatives and Christians as the enemy, not the Islamo-fascists who are killing people across the planet.
According to his Linkein page, that is the same person. So now I’m really curious about how he got hired at West Point.
Who is the commander in chief?
Barrack Obama.
Where did he study?
Harvard Law School.
So is he likely to order the military to attack Harvard Law School?
Q.E.D.
He was hired on 1 August. I am guessing from his history and the content of this paper, that a little digging will find enough to fire him.
Have to destroy your freedom to save it?
He has a point.
The US Armed Forces do very well in the field, but have their ability to fight to a decisive victory curtailed and undermined by the politicians and electorate at home.
You win a war by destroying the enemy’s will to resist. If media and lawfare are undermining our nation’s will to resist, the people implementing those methods to undermine that will should be considered enemy combatants.
Something about a 1st Amendment... hmm
Do enemy combatants have first amendment rights?
“Do enemy combatants have first amendment rights?”
Now, you know I did not refer to “enemy combatants.”
Americans have first amendment rights. If you believe they do not, you must be a member of the GOPe.
We know now that the Islamists that have infiltrated the Government, including the DOD and Homeland inSecurity (not to mention the State Dept. and White Hut, would simply turn this up-side-down and go after American Vets and Christians and all their other political and social enemies who speak out about Patriot Act government abuses of AMERICANS.
No thanks, professor. We can trust our government no more with such power. We were stupid to trust the government with any new powers at all. Why has Obama shipped in so many Islamists into the US and left the border wide open for Isis? Why are they and Obama not on Homeland inSecurity’s terrorist list, along with the Vets and Christians?
This poor fool thinks there is really a war on Islamists. Where has he been? Doesn’t get out much.
Agree - but it is also turning the tables. Some critics need to be slapped down and made ineffectual in their efforts. When it comes to direct aggression against the terrorists, I fully agree that they need to be taken out with overwhelming force even if it results in a lot of collateral damage. Right now their shields live in fear of them - if they live in more fear of those who come after the terrorists, they might end up becoming helpful in eradicating them...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.