Online: | |
Visits: | |
Stories: |
The 2015 graduating class of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point during their commencement in May. (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff / (CC BY 2.0))
An assistant professor of law at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point has argued that legal scholars critical of the war on terrorism should be attacked as “treasonous” enemy combatants.
The Guardian reports:
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. …
The West Point faculty member urges the US to wage “total war” on “Islamism”, using “conventional and nuclear force and [psychological operations]”, in order to “leave them prepared to coexist with the West or be utterly eradicated”. He suggests in a footnote that “threatening Islamic holy sites might create deterrence, discredit Islamism, and falsify the assumption that decadence renders Western restraint inevitable”.
It may reasonably be assumed that others in the military, federal government and elsewhere silently agree with what the outspoken professor Bradford has said.
Read more here.
—Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly.
Related Entries