There is a truly bizarre story this week involving a former Indiana University law professor who resigned from West Point Military Academy’s law department as a disturbing article was published where he denounces other scholars who exhibit “pernicious pacifism” as aiding and abetting terrorists. The case raises free speech and academic freedom issues in handling controversial writings of academics. However, it also raises the poor standards for selecting faculty at West Point, a concern that I have had in the past with regard to its legal studies as well as those at other military educational programs. Not only does Bradford have extremist and disturbing views but he has been previously accused of exaggerating his credentials.
Bradford published the article below in the National Security Law Journal where he rails against the historic threat of Islamic domination and the role of law professors as a type of fifth column, comparing them to the treacherous nobles who passed along intelligence to the Muslim armies seeking to destroy Charlemagne and the Christian Frankish army. Indeed, he starts his long work with a chilling quote from Orriana Fallaci that “[B]ehind every event of Good or Evil there is a piece of writing. A book, an article, a manifesto, a poem, a song.” It is clear that Bradford views writings as a form of subversion by those opposing the means or basis for the war on terror.
Bradford uses the acronym CLOACA to refer to “counter-law-of-armed-conflict academy.” It is based on the more common acronym Law of Armed Conflict. Cloaca is the word for “the body cavity into which the intestinal, urinary, and genital canals empty” in animals. It is a gratuitous insult achieved through a largely unexplained acronym. However, Bradford apparently has a list of those in the fifth column — noting that “The exact number is hard to fix, but perhaps two hundred U.S. professors who regularly publish or teach in LOAC, and another thirty from allied nations—Israel, EU, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Japan—constitute LOACA.” He makes clear that they are the enemy and should be treated as such by the military: “Shocking and extreme as this option might seem, CLOACA 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.” This is who the military at West Point selected out of thousands of legal scholars to treat future military leaders on the law and constitutional protections?
There is obviously a deep, deep bitterness expressed toward the legal academy reflected in these pages. Bradford has had a less than stellar career after he reportedly was forced to resign after claims in 2005 that he exaggerated his military service. In his recent work, he states worked as an associate law professor at National Defense University before West Point. However, the National Defense University says Bradford was a contractor and “never an NDU employee nor an NDU professor.” That latter distinction can be somewhat precious as adjuncts and instructors routinely refer to themselves as faculty members at law schools. However, the question remains why would the National Defense University (like West Point) be drawn to Bradford when they are in markets saturated with top legal experts?
The “stolen valor” charge in 2005 leading to his resignation from Indiana was a bit more serious. Local reporters found that Bradford claimed to have served in the Army infantry from 1990 to 2001 and said that he received a Silver Star for his service. Indeed, the Indianapolis Star reported that he would often wear the medal around campus at the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis. However, the newspaper found that he served in the Army Reserve from 1995 to 2001 and was not in the infantry and was never on active duty. He was discharged as a second lieutenant and his record did not indicate any medals. That would seem a difficult issue to get over during an interview at West Point Military Academy or the National Defense University.
At the time of the Indiana controversy, the Star reported that Bradford blamed two left-leaning professors for targeting him due to his military service. He was defended at the time by Professor Henry C. Karlson, who said that Bradford was awarded the Silver Star and a major in the Special Forces. Bradford reportedly said that he served in both the infantry and military intelligence and fought in Desert Storm and Bosnia. The article reported that “[Bradford] wore a Silver Star lapel pin around campus. He had a major’s gold-leaf insignia plate on his vehicle.”
Bradford’s view of the work of other academics as “treasonous” hardly makes him an attractive figure to defend. However, free speech advocates are often finding themselves in defense of the least redeeming characters. This may be such a case. Bradford in this piece presents a disturbing and in my view fundamentally wrong view of this country, its constitution, and its values. However, he is an academic who is entitled to express views that are controversial. His work is well-researched even if his analysis is terribly, if not grotesquely, flawed. Why should he be forced to resign for expressing his views so long as he is not teaching such extremist concepts at West Point. While I would never have hired Bradford, he presents the same type of problem that we saw recently with Professor Grundy at Boston University with her racist ravings. She did not even make those statements in an academic forum but we allowed her to keep her job. Bradford published a long and heavily cited piece on why he views legal academics as constituting threats to the nation’s security and can be legitimate targets. I find it completely chilling and sad but there are a wide array of opinions that have been viewed in that fashion through history.
I do not miss the irony of course. Bradford is the voice of intolerance. He appears to want to see professors targeted for expressing their views. Yet, many of those same traitors that he identifies are the most likely to defend him now.
On the merits, Bradford’s article, “Trahison des Professeurs: The Critical Law of Armed Conflict Academy” is a screed against other legal experts who disagree with Bradford and the war on terror. They are denounced as an Islamist Fifth Column and little more than traitors. Indeed, while filled with citations and a wide array of influences, the article comes across as paranoid and fascistic. He rails against the insidious work of the GMAC or “government-media-academic complex.” He denounced these professors as “useful idiots” who use such concepts of “the dignity of all human beings” to undermine our resolve and ultimately “tilt the battlefield against US forces [and] contribute to timorousness and lethargy in US military commanders”.
The National Security Law Journal is student run publication at George Mason University and the editor-in-chief now calls the publication of the article’s publication a “mistake” and an “egregious breach of professional decorum”. Editor-in-chief, Rick Myers added “We cannot ‘unpublish’ it, of course, but we can and do acknowledge that the article was not presentable for publication when we published it, and that we therefore repudiate it with sincere apologies to our readers.”
Lieutenant colonel Christopher Kasker is quoted in telling the Guardian “Dr William Bradford was hired on 1 August 2015 at the US Military Academy. His article in the National Security Law Journal titled ‘Trahison des Professeurs: The Critical Law of Armed Conflict Academy as an Islamist Fifth Column’ was written and accepted for publication prior to his employment at West Point. The views in the article are solely those of Dr Bradford and do not reflect those of the Department of Defense, the United States army, the United States Military Academy.” Once again, I feel uncomfortable with the article being the focus of the questions for West Point. The question should be why West Point would select this particular scholar. I have seen such controversial choices in the past by military institutions, including West Point, in legal academics. It is the commitment (or lack thereof) to academic excellence at West Point that is thrown into question by such appointments.
Here is the article: Bradford article
““[B]ehind every event of Good or Evil there is a piece of writing. A book, an article, a manifesto, a poem, a song.” It is clear that Bradford views writings as a form of subversion by those opposing the means or basis for the war on terror.”
Of course, history is nothing but the actions of individuals acting on ideas. The writing is nothing but the philosophy/thinking of the writer in a concrete form. The idea is the thing, the writing is nothing but a messenger.
I like John Locke’s view on war, you kill your enemy when he attacks you and you put him down like the deranged beast he is. Had Bush adhered to this philosophy instead of the one that says that delivering meals ready to eat to the civilian population is part of just war, this war would’ve been over years ago with little loss of life and very little money spent.
So yes, pacifist philosophy has severely harmed our country. And Bradford is right to point it out.
.
The very diversity found in the posts of this blog illustrate why guys like Bradford should be an integral part of higher education in subjects such as the law, history, philosophy, etc.
I remember listening to young student members of the Communist Party of Canada in 1969. They were right about Vietnam and a few other things and wrong about almost everything else. It is not about one side or the other but when one identifies with one side or the other that creates the closed mind and as the world progresses one regresses by simply standing still.
I wonder if Mr. Bradford can possibly comprehend that by obeying humane laws of war, we distinguish ourselves from the terrorists? And further, when the US kills or maims innocent people or tortures, it actually help recruit more terrorists? Mr. Bradford seems to have only the most simple-minded and brutal instincts of conflict, and sounds like a basic right-wing crank.
Bradford’s hero?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tB9kjKHmTKA/TzHV1tvm4uI/AAAAAAAACsg/aRHV-lXTJLA/s1600/Seven-Days-In-May-14.JPG
Professor Turley is one of the good guys and has a good understanding of the Constitutional intent of our founding fathers. What most people do not understand is that the Constitutional provisions were well thought out and still apply to day. Some argue that for instance the military should have arms greater than that of the Citizens such as Citizens should not own tanks. Neither should the military than and I will explain latter. Of course the military industrial complex wouldn’t like this. If you saw and read thoroughly what happened at Waco, a flame throwing tank breached one of the walls, hit an oil lamp used as lighting and the fire killed everyone inside. The Government bulldozed the _______ scene two days later. If it were not for the local Sheriff this truth would have been covered up of the entire event. As I’ve noted many times, the governments of the world have killed approximately 262 million of their own Citizens in the 20th century alone. Our own civil war may have allegedly saved the country but it also killed 600,000 and injured many people. 1 in 5 males were either killed or injured because the northern states were attempting to increase tariffs, limit states rights and provide greater corporate welfare to especially the railroad companies. The very same Republican politicians enacted the fugitive slave laws so Lincoln and his Party accomplished what they has set out to do; greater centralized power. The one good thing is that slavery was finally abolished however it was many years before they were really free. Centralized government has slowly changed the slaves from physical slavery to economic slavery with the military industrial complex playing a huge role.
Would reducing the arms the military can have, still allow for a good defense system?. We are supposed to have a well regulated militia and not a constant standing army. If this would be true the Citizens would be the military defense and thus could purchase what ever arms they thought necessary for proper security. Had it not been for such militia groups and privateers, we most likely would not have won the revolutionary war. Something that many of the history books failed to thoroughly detail. I know this from studying the economic history and knowing such thinks that the Battle of Bennington and other northern battles were won by both the Continental Army and the famed Green Mountain Boys, of which my grandfather and his five brothers belonged. In fact the armory that both where the Continental Army and the Green Mountain Boys had their supplies, which the British where trying to overtake, was my 7x grandfathers barn along with on of his brothers. The British has run out of ammunition and arms and needed resupplying. Most of the British literally ran to Canada in retreat.
I am very much in favor of the 2nd amendment, both of the right to bear arms but also of maintaining a well regulated militia because it does two thinks. It decentralizing military defense, coopting the ability of defense contractors to influence politicians who would increase corporate welfare for that purpose and it regulates primarily the men of all communities into a delegated role of helping to support and defend their neighborhoods, community and country. The Swiss have a similar system whereby most men serve one month a year during their prime years at the expense of their employer where they receive the necessary training. They are allowed to take their automatic rifles home with them the rest of the year and perhaps is one of the reasons the Swiss have not been evaded in the last 400 years. The other is private banking which I am also in favor of. Of course the military industrial complex wouldn’t like that either.
Our founding father were not stupid. They actually understood the true nature of government and that nature has not changed.
No discussion.
He committed #WrongThink, and so must be destroyed.
His arguments must not be discussed or debated, but dismissed out of hand, his career ended, and his personal life eliminated forever.
he must be made an unperson.
Disagreement with the SJW Narrative must not be permitted even to breathe for one second in our Universities, lest the infection yield doubt among the indoctrinated students.
Notably, some of the stories about him may be only partially true, or may reflect outright lies.
The latter are clearly preferred, indeed, the more outrageous the better.
And you’ll never know the difference.
By the way, if you are following along at home, this is a classic example of the eighth stage of the SJW attack sequence:
I do love a parade.
Congratulations, fellow SJWs. Another #BadWhiteMale crushed!
FROWARD!
*Day, Vox (2015-08-25). SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police (Kindle Locations 569-572). Castalia House. Kindle Edition.
The problem is that Bradford is correct. Units have to get authority from the JAG officers to fire on insurgents these days. Yet, Obama can order a drone attack from his office.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/09/west-point-also-apparently-a-fifth-column-in-the-war-on-terror
Quoting:
You may remember William C. Bradford for such articles as “there are too many academics who disagree with me, please arbitrarily detain and execute 40 of them,I am not a crackpot.” He has now resigned from West Point, and apparently he’s not just a crank but a serial liar about his credentials:
Bradford had represented himself in academic papers as an “assistant professor” at the Defense Department-run National Defense University. But he was not a professor there, nor even a staff employee, according to NDU representatives. He is said to have worked for a Waynesboro, Virginia-based translations and business consultant, Translang, which had a contract with the university.
Before referring further comment to an attorney, Beatrice Boutros, Translang’s president, told the Guardian Bradford was not an employee of NDU.
Bradford has had a checkered academic career. In 2004, he quit a job teaching at the Indiana University School of Law after allegations emerged that he had exaggerated his military service, portraying himself inaccurately as a Gulf War veteran, an infantryman and a recipient of the prestigious Silver Star, an award for gallantry in action.
The army provided Bradford’s releasable service history to the Guardian on Monday. Bradford was commissioned into the army as a second lieutenant – the same rank West Point cadets hold upon commissioning – in 1995 and served the majority of his six-year service in military intelligence in the army reserve. He neither deployed nor earned any awards.
In 2005, the Guardian has learned, Bradford took a visiting professorship at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, teaching property law. A former student who wished to remain anonymous said Bradford’s behavior included “doing push-ups in class [and] making students stand and give answers in a military-like manner”.
Bradford, the former student said, ended up leaving his class – and ultimately the college – without grading the final exam.
The story behind his getting the West Point job would also be interesting. -lawyersgunsmoneyblog
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/09/west-point-professor-who-contemplated-coup/119993/
“Perhaps even more troublingly, this article may not be the most provocative thing Bradford has written. Since 2014, according to what is apparently his LinkedIn page, he has been circulating an article for publication entitled, “Alea Iacta Est: The U.S. Coup of 2017.” The abstract is strewn with thinly-veiled references to President Obama, asking, for example, “What conditions precedent would be required before the American military would be justified in using or threatening force to oust a U.S. president attempting to ‘fundamentally transform the United States of America’?” Although describing it simply as a “heuristic test of a proferred theory,” it also wonders aloud, “Is such a duty incumbent upon the U.S. armed forces at present?” That’s a disquieting question for a faculty member to pose, when he’s charged with instructing the nation’s officer corps.
*****************
Advocating a coup? Who is the “traitor”? Law professors and law schools or this extremist?
http://abovethelaw.com/2015/08/law-journal-apologizes-for-article-about-executing-law-professors-he-resigns/
“Let’s focus on this sentence, “Further, the infrastructure used to create and disseminate CLOACA propaganda — law school facilities, scholars’ home offices, and media outlets where they give interviews — are also lawful targets.” Yes, he actually thinks SWAT units need to storm the offices of law professors like, specifically, Robert Chesney of the University of Texas. Bear in mind, Chesney thinks drone attacks on Americans are totally cool, so if he’s on Bradford’s hit list who the hell is safe?”
What Isaac said!!
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/09/01/west-point-professor-william-bradford/71530668/
“Bradford claimed some well-respected legal scholars who criticize U.S. tactics targeting Islamic extremists are helping the Islamic State group undermine America. He argued that these academics should be considered enemy combatants and charged with treason and supporting terrorism.
Bradford said critics, like those who say the president should share power with Congress and the Supreme Court or who question the military’s broad authority to strike targets overseas, could be subject to prosecution — or be considered “legitimate” military targets themselves.
[Bradford said] “Law professors and others who criticize the military in that context are “unlawful combatants for failure to wear the distinctive insignia of a party” and “like all other combatants, can be targeted at any time and place and captured and detained until termination of hostilities.””
Dr. Bradford also goes after Obama:
“The abstract is strewn with thinly-veiled references to President Obama, asking, for example, ‘What conditions precedent would be required before the American military
would be justified in using or threatening force to oust a U.S. president attempting to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”?’
Although describing it simply as a ‘heuristic test of a preferred theory,’ it also wonders aloud, ‘Is such a duty incumbent upon the U.S. armed forces at present?’
Wonder if the cadets liked his classes?
Reblogged this on Scoop Feed.
I remember in the sixties and seventies when I attended universities in Canada and France. In the philosophy department of the University of Victoria, BC the faculty hired a professor from Berkeley. With his long hair, work boots, work shirt, and work boots he spouted all the freedoms and mind expanding for the students. He was among a diverse group of professors that ranged from his far left to the far right. This seems to me the ideal environment for the student, military or otherwise. This was the same at the University of Nice where the extreme right wing government of Nice often clashed, sometimes violently, with student and professor led protests. A higher place of learning should be in a manageable state of turmoil or chaos.
This guy is the polar opposite of our ‘hippie’ professor from Berkeley. The ultimate quality then and forever was and should be the opportunity and indeed the necessity to engage in discussions to arguments structured on scholastic format and careful interaction. That Bradford is way out there could be a positive ingredient as long as he is not permitted to express his bias through his assessment of the work of his students. If they engage well academically and excel in the structure of the law then regardless of what Bradford believes he may serve a purpose more valuable than if the whole experience was homogenized.
If he made false statements regarding his credentials, then that is another matter.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/west-point-william-bradford/403009/
“On Monday, West Point law professor William C. Bradford resigned after The Guardian reported that he had allegedly inflated his academic credentials. Bradford made headlines last week, when the editors of the National Security Law Journal denounced a controversial article by him in their own summer issue:
As the incoming Editorial Board, we want to address concerns regarding Mr. Bradford’s contention that some scholars in legal academia could be considered as constituting a fifth column in the war against terror;his interpretation is that those scholars could be targeted as unlawful combatants. The substance of Mr. Bradford’s article cannot fairly be considered apart from the egregious breach of professional decorum that it exhibits. We cannot “unpublish” it, of course, but we can and do acknowledge that the article was not presentable for publication when we published it, and that we therefore repudiate it with sincere apologies to our readers.
Among those cited are: Gabriella Blum of the Harvard Law School, a former military lawyer for the Israel Defense Force; Ryan Goodman of NYU Law School, now serving as a senior policy adviser at the Department of Defense; Michael Scharf, a professor at Case Western Law School, who served as a legal advisor to the Iraqi government for the trial of Saddam Hussein and before that in the Legal Advisor’s office at the State Department; and Michael Walzer of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, whose book on the ethics of war has been assigned at U.S. military academies for decades.”
*******************
I’d love to see his entire list of enemy law professors, makes me wonder if Professor Turley is on that list.
JT definitely is setting out bait for the left commenters today.
“This guy’s extreme opinions are as destructive to freedom as ISIS.” The fascinating aspect is that was not said as hyperbole. Bookmarked.
This is the story Max-1 linked to on another thread last Sunday. I’m glad that Professor Turley decided to highlight it on his blog as it’s disturbing indeed that we have a person teaching our future military officers. Calling law professors traitors, calling them a fifth column, indicating that they should be silenced, imprisoned or worse killed? This anti Islamic wave washing over the US might be understandable when considering what ISIS has done, but ISIS doesn’t represent the mainstream of Islam. Billions of Muslims live and worship peacefully throughout the world. This man who has the honored position of teaching our future military leaders deserves to be dismissed post haste. This guy’s extreme opinions are as destructive to freedom as are ISIS’.