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.

Anti-terror legislation used in drug wars in US

The so-called "sneak and peek" powers of the Patriot Act allow investigators to do searches without informing the target of the searches.When these controversial powers were granted assurances were given that they would be used only to counter terrorism.

Those supporting the extended powers argued that investigators needed to probe the lives and finances of suspected terrorists without the knowledge of the suspects. Critics pointed out that the federal government already had these powers to use for national security investigations. The new provisions in the Patriot Act , critics argued, were far too broad and would be used for cases that had nothing to do with national security. The Patriot Act was passed right after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks and few were interested in what civil libertarian critics might say about the act. The huge Patriot Act was passed overwhelmingly even though only a few Congress members actually read it.
 In May of 2011 President Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 extending three key parts of the act for four years. The original act is the USA PATRIOT standing for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has numerous analyses of the Patriot Act including the sneak-and-peak powers which are now used for many different federal law enforcement purposes.The increase in the use of the powers is reflected in numbers. From September 2001 to April of 2003 the powers were used only 47 times. In 2010 alone 3,970 requests to use the powers were made. Within three years the number was 11,129. Instead of being used as a tool to be used in exceptional circumstances against terror suspects, the powers are being used regularly in a variety of different types of cases such as drug investigations. Of the 3,970 cases mentioned earlier, a remarkable 3,034 were for narcotics investigations. Only 37 were for terrorism cases.
 The patten remains the same in later reports. Out of the 11,129 requests in 2013 only 51 were for terrorism. For narcotics on the other hand there were 9,401 requests. The use of these powers beyond their original mandate shows that legislators should be careful to consider the implications of what they are passing. Any new powers given to legal investigators will be used as widely as possible and it is crucial to carefully define the scope of new powers before they are passed into law. An instructive example of the use and abuse of these new powers together with the new Stingray technology by the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington D.C. is given in this article.

Canadian government grants greater powers to spy agency

The Canadian Conservative government of Stephen Harper has announced that it will increase the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service(CSIS) the main spy agency in Canada.

The Minister of Public Safety Stephen Blaney said the legislation would give the CSIS more power to investigate terrorist threats outside Canada — and also to protect the identity of informants working for CSIS. Blaney referred to the advance of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq as showing the need to increase the powers of CSIS:"The events in recent months in Iraq and Syria have shown us that we cannot become complacent in the face of terrorism. Now more than ever, a motivated individual or a group of extremists with access to technology can do significant harm to Canada from thousands of miles away." Blaney claimed that the new legislation will allow CSIS to track and investigate potential terrorists when they travel outside Canada which could ultimately lead to prosecution.
Blaney claims that the government as of early 2014 the government knew of 130 individuals with connections to Canada who were suspected of engaging in terrorist activities. Eighty of these suspects had already returned to Canada and were being investigated. The legislation would allow CSIS to work more closely with the Five Eyes spy group that includes Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. The legislation would allow CSIS to obtain information from the other four "eyes" on Canadians suspected of fighting with terrorist groups abroad. In turn CSIS could provide other members with information on their citizens in Canada.
The FIve Eyes(FVEY) is described by whistleblower and former US National Security Agency contractor as a "supra-national intelligence organisation that does not answer to the laws of its own countries." : Documents leaked by Snowden in 2013 revealed that the FVEY have been intentionally spying on one another's citizens and sharing the collected information with each other in order to circumvent restrictive domestic regulations on spying. The new Canadian legislation will make legal what CSIS had been doing all along even though it was against the law. CSIS has been subject to a number of criticisms. The Maher Arar report criticised CSIS for not sufficiently subjecting material obtained through torture to critical analysis. A CSIS mole infiltrated a Canadian white supremacist movement from 1988 to 1994 the Heritage Front. Not only was the mole, Grant Bristow, one of the founders of the group, but he ensured that CSIS funds came to the group.
The new CSIS headquarters in Ottawa will be the most expensive government building ever built in Canada. As an October 2013 CBC article noted: While the Harper government is preaching government austerity, it is spending almost $1.2 billion on a new Ottawa headquarters for a little-known military spy agency. The expenditure shows the priority that the government gives to its spy agency.
Two lawyers with a great deal of experience defending clients involving security told the CBC that the blanket protection given to protect sources might cause court proceedings to be unfair to those accused. Lawyer Norm Boxal, who represents an Algerian refugee in a security case, said: "These types of privileges can have far-reaching effects, and can close off information in cases where it would be important to have.There is no problem to have a secret source — that can be done all the time, and within the existing law. The problem is when you have secret information and you choose to act on it, and that's the difference. If they want to use the secret information to enforce things — [for] deportation, or in criminal trials — they should have to produce the source." Paul Copeland, a Toronto lawyer agreed that giving class privilege to intelligence informants would be "highly dangerous" and claimed that the only way to test evidence was to be able to cross-examine on it.
 Steve Hewitt, a senior lecturer in Canadian and American Studies at the University of Birmingham notes that in passing this legislation Canada is following the UK model rather than that of the US where informants are often brought into court in terrorism cases and subject to rigorous cross-examination. He notes that some informants act out of self-interest and for money. Failing to provide a fair trial for suspected terrorists is not likely to hurt the Harper government politically. The appended video shows the type of overseer Stephen Harper appointed for the CSIS.

The presidential election and drone strikes: Five Questions

Not much has been said about the issue of drone attacks during the presidential election campaign. Robert Naiman suggests that there are five important questions that journalists should ask about the issue.

Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Among his other many pursuits he writes on U.S. foreign policy for the Huffington Post. Given that there has been little discussion of U.S. drone policy during the presidential campaign, Naiman along with others urged Bob Schieffer , who was moderator of the third and last debate between Obama and Romney, on foreign policy, to ask a question about drones. He did.

Schieffer asked the question only of Mitt Romney! He asked only Romney what his position on the use of drones is on the grounds that people already know what Obama's position is. Romney replied:

" Well I believe we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world. And it's widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes, and I support that and entirely, and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology, and believe that we should continue to use it, to continue to go after the people that represent a threat to this nation and to our friends."

One can see from this answer that Romney is in basic agreement with Obama on drones. In the election campaign, the two want to emphasize their differences, and hence they will not even bring the issue up.

To ask only Romney about the issue is strange. After all, Obama seems proud of his policy and considers it a success even though there are many criticisms. Schieffer could even have asked a critical question but I suppose that would be going beyond the pale.

However, Naiman and others have considered that even bringing up the topic was a step forward. In the Guardian, Mark Weisbrot said: "It was a victory just to have drones mentioned." Perhaps it is a big leap forward over Big Bird.

On MSNBC, Joe Scarborough said:

What we are doing with drones is remarkable. The fact that ... over George W. Bush's eight years when a lot of people brought up a bunch of legitimate questions about international law--my God, those lines have been completely eradicated in a drone policy that says that, if you're between 17 and 30, and you're within a half-mile of a suspect, we can blow you up. And that's exactly what's happening.

The defense of these attacks as protecting civilians in the U.S. shows how completely bizarre the discourse has become. There is no direct and immediate threat to anyone in the U.S. by most of those who are targeted. At most they are a threat to U.S. troops and those who might support them in Afghanistan. The way to avoid that problem would be to withdraw the troops as many in the U.S. want.

Naiman suggests it would be informative and useful if high-profile journalists ask some detailed questions about drone policy and engage in genuine critical discussion of the issues. I doubt that this is likely to happen, certainly not before the election in any event. Here are the five questions Naiman wants asked.

The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan recently said that the U.S. has an official count of the number of civilians it believes to have been killed since 2008 by drone strikes in Pakistan but the number is classified. What is the number? Why is it classified?

Researchers have reported U.S. secondary or follow-up attacks that target rescuers after drone strikes. Legal experts say these attacks are war crimes. The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan denies such strikes. What is the truth?

U.S. officials say that the Pakistani military secretly support the strikes. However, the Pakistan parliament has several times passed motions demanding the strikes stop. Is the U.S. violating international law and Pakistani sovereignty by the drone strikes when they are not approved by the Pakistani parliament?

U.S. officials claim the strikes are narrowly targeted on high level terror suspects. However, the U.S. also is said to use "signature strikes" based on suspicious activity. How is this consistent with narrow targeting? I think the answer to this is that it isn't but that officials do not care.

John Brennan, the White House counter-terrorism adviser, says that civilian deaths are exceedingly rare. However, data collected by a number of sources show otherwise, and that at least 15-30% of deaths are civilians. If the collateral damage is this high is the U.S. violating the principle of proportionality?

Those are all good questions but I would not expect the questions even to be addressed in the near future if ever. Certainly, they are unlikely to be answered before the election.

Man and wife banned from boarding plane because of T-shirt satirizing TSA

A man and his wife were not allowed to board a Delta Airlines flight from Buffalo-Niagara airport because their satirical T-shirts supposedly made crew and passengers very uncomfortable.

Arijit Guha 31 is a doctoral student at Arizona State University. He has advanced colon cancer and has undergone extensive surgery and chemotherapy which ended up costing $118,000 more than the $300,000 cap on his student health plan, expenses that his insurer Aetna would not cover.

Guha managed to draw the CEO of Aetna Mark T. Bertolini into a heated exchange on Twitter and as the video appended shows Guha won out in the end and even won a victory for the student health plan. The usually caustic and sarcastic Guha in the end had nothing but praise for Mr. Bertolini. Guha is no stranger to controversy and he seems to enjoy being provocative. He has no praise for the TSA(Transportation Security Agency)

Guha and his wife were about to board a plane at the Buffalo-Niagara airport. They passed through security with no problem. However, he was then approached by a Delta agent who told him that his T-shirt was making passengers nervous. The offending T-shirt has a TSA logo together with text that satirizes what Guha considers the agencies paranoid and overbearing security stance.

TSA agents questioned Guha about the significance of his T-shirt. He explained that it was mocking the manner in which the TSA approached security and over-reaction by them and the public to the threat of terrorism. Ironically what was happening to Guha and his wife was a perfect exemplification of his point!

Guha was then informed that if he took off the offending shirt and again had their belongings searched they could board the flight. Guha agreed. Just as they were about to board the plane he was pulled aside again by not only a Delta supervisor but three TSA agents and several Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority police as well. There was no SWAT team however.

He and his wife were questioned again. Their bags were searched anew, the offending shirt was photographed, and they were asked multiple questions. This was all to no avail as the pilot of the plane insisted that the presence of Guha and his wife would cause discomfort to other passengers. The T-shirt text was obviously not really a satire just the plain truth.

Guha and his wife were subject to even further interrogation. Some of the questions were quite inappropriate. There is much more detail on Guha's own blog. Guha and his wife had to find overnight accommodations at their own expense and flew out the next morning at 7 AM. The TSA was kind enough not to put them on the no-fly list. Yet!

Pakistan: U.S. ambassador claims opposition wants pro-U.S. government

   In an interview on BBC the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter claims that he had spoken to two leaders of  Pakistani opposition parties and they had both promised that they would create pro-U.S. governments if elected.
     The two leaders were Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan. Munter announced in May that he was quitting his post this summer. According to an article here the two leaders also said that they would cooperate unconditionally with the U.S. in the war on terrorism. Surely this would mean that the two would support drone attacks in the tribal regions since this has been a key part of the U.S. war on terror. Perhaps Munter does not fear to report events such as this since he is leaving. Munter's statements will be used by more radical Islamic parties to claim that they alone are the true opposition.
   Khan the head of the popular PTI has long criticized the ruling Pakistani People's Party as simply being a client of the U.S. Both have condemned the drone attacks. There has of now been several motions in parliament demanding the attacks must stop.
  Immediately after the reopening of the NATO supply routes the U.S. initiated more drone attacks. Pakistan has denied that they had agreed to the attacks and repeated its opposition. Khan has issued a reply to Munter's remarks here.
   Khan said the PTI is neither  “pro nor against the US, it takes a position based on its policies. Thus, the PTI has consistently opposed American war in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s partnership in it. " Khan said that would try to build an enduring relationship with the U.S. based on common interests and mutual respect. However on issues such as supporting the U.S. in the Afghanistan war he was opposed to U.S. policies and this included that reopening of NATO supply routes.