Professor argues that legal critics of war on terror are legitimate targets

William Bradford is an assistant professor in the department of law at the US military academy at West Point. Bradford claims legal scholars critical of the war on terror are a "treasonous" fifth column to be classified as enemy combatants.

+ Add Image

As enemy combatants, the scholars are legitimate targets who can be attacked using drones or other methods. Bradford argues other lawful targets include "law school facilities, scholar's home offices and media outlets where they give interviews." Even though these are civilian areas, they are areas where there is a "causal connection between the content disseminated and Islamist crimes incited." Bradford also suggests that "Islamic holy sites" should be threatened in the war against Islamic radicalism. The war should be prosecuted vigorously, he argues, "even if it means great destruction, innumerable enemy casualties and civilian collateral damage."

Perhaps you think the article was published in the satirical outlet The Onion, but not so, it was published in the National Security Law Journal, a journal run by students at the George Mason School of Law. The entire article called: "Trahison des Professeurs: The Critical Law of Armed Conflict Academy as an Islamist Fifth Column" can be downloaded at the law journals' website. The French Trahison des Professeurs(treason of the professors) is a reference to a 1920s attack on French intellectuals:“Trahison des professeurs” (treason of the professors) is an homage to “trahison des clercs,” the title of a work decrying early twentieth-century European intellectuals for failing to quash emotional and political arguments and make reasoned judgments about national security. JULIEN BENDA, TRAHISON DES CLERCS (1927).

In the introduction to the paper Bradford identifies himself: "Associate Professor of Law, National Security, and Strategy, National Defense University, Washington, D.C., United States, and National Defense College, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Ph.D. (Northwestern), LL.M. (Harvard). U.S. Army Reserve, 1995-2001." As has happened previously, at least some of his credentials are simply wrong. A representative of the National Defense University said that Bradford had been a contractor at the prestigious school but "never an NDU employee nor an NDU professor".

Bradford got all upset when five members of a committee reviewing him at Indiana university said they did not believe he deserved tenure but did authorize his re-appointment. Bradford reacted angrily on his blog, on the radio, and even "The O'Reilly Factor." He claimed that Liberal faculty members were pushing him out because he was conservative, a war veteran, and a Native American who did not fit the liberal mould. Bradford is a member of the Chiricahua Apache tribe. Quite a bit of his scholarly work is on Indian law and on this issue he claims his views are radical. He thinks that Indian tribes should be treated more as if they were nations, and that land taken from them illegally should be returned.

However, Bradford ended up resigning from Indiana in 2005 after he lied about his military service in his faculty profile. He claimed he had served in the infantry from 1994 to 2001 and been a major in the Special Forces. Research showed that Bradford had seen no active duty, was not in the infantry and was discharged as a second lieutenant. He had been in the Army Reserve from September 1995 to October 2001. He saw no active duty.

Bradford was hired at West Point only on August 1 this year. Army colonel Christopher Kasker noted Bradford's paper was written long before he was hired at West Point and the paper represented only the views of Bradford and not the institution. Latest news is that Bradford had resigned from his position at West Point.