Home / General / Today in Campus Political Correctness and the Progressive War on Free Speech

Today in Campus Political Correctness and the Progressive War on Free Speech

Comments
/
/
/
1103 Views

Raging_Abe_Simpson_and_His_Grumbling_Grandson_in_The_Curse_of_the_Flying_Hellfish001

The National Security Law Journal has published a notable contribution to legal thought. The title, “Trahison des Professeurs: The Critical Law of Armed Conflict as an Islamist Fifth Column,” does not quite do justice to the nature of the content. The author, West Point professor William C. Bradford, sketches out a theory that will surely make you want to subscribe to his drool-covered mimeographed newsletter:

Part I of this Article develops the claim that CLOACA [“critical law of armed conflict academy,” and yes this is what passes for wit here –ed.] is waging a PSYOP campaign to break American political will by convincing Americans their nation is fighting an illegal and unnecessary war against Islam that it must abandon to reclaim moral legitimacy. Part II offers explanations as to why this is so. Part III examines consequences of suffering this trahison des professeurs to exist. Part IV sketches recommendations to mitigate this ―Fifth Column‖ and defeat Islamism. Part V anticipates and addresses criticisms. Part VI concludes by warning that, without a loyal and intellectually honest law of armed conflict academy, the West is imperiled and faces defeat in the ongoing Fourth Generation War against Islamism.

He proceeds to argue that ISIS’s tactics aren’t so much something to be fought against as a model:

As just desert, Islamists should be anathematized as modern-day outlaws shorn of rights and liable to attack by all means and methods at all places and times and to judicial execution post-interrogation. If law is only legitimate if predicated upon history, values, and survival imperatives and “[n]o society can afford . . . inflexible rules concerning those steps on which its ultimate fate . . . depends,” then outlawry of Islamists is an efficient means to hasten their demise and the sole reciprocal arrangement possible with a foe that already applies this regime to Western “infidels.” The West must shatter Islamists‘ political will and eradicate those who do not renounce Islamism. Commitment to rule of law is not only an end but also a means to an end. Every rule, doctrine, and policy must endure a rigorous justification process whereby its retention in the LOAC canon is predicated upon its contribution to victory.

And, now, the punchline. What should be done with less authoritarian faculty?

A more proactive method to suppress disloyal radicals is to fire them. Islamists are heartened by their scholarly output and regard their presence within the academy as proof of American weakness and of the inevitability of Islamist victory; stripping tenure from LOACA members who express palpable anti-American bias, give aid and comfort to Islamists, or otherwise engage in academic misprision and corruption will deny the CLOACA Fifth Column the most important institutional terrain in the defensive battle. Although the question of how precisely to demarcate the zones of loyalty and permissible dissent remains open, suffering Islamist sympathizers and propagandists to inhabit LOACA and lend their combat power to the enemy is self-defeating.

CLOACA members whose scholarship, teaching, or service substantiates the elements of criminal offenses can be prosecuted In concert with federal and state law enforcement agencies, Congress can investigate linkages between CLOACA and Islamism to determine “the extent, character, and objects of un- American propaganda activities in the U.S. [that] attack the . . . form of government . . . guaranteed by our Constitution.” Because CLOACA output propagandizes for the Islamist cause, CLOACA would arguably be within the jurisdiction of a renewed version of the House Un-American Activities Committee (Committee on Internal Security) charged with investigating propaganda conducive to an Islamist victory and the alteration of the U.S. form of government this victory would necessarily entail.

“Material support” includes “expert advice or assistance” in training Islamist groups to use LOAC in support of advocacy and propaganda campaigns, even where experts providing such services lack intent to further illegal Islamist activity. CLOACA scholarship reflecting aspirations for a reconfigured LOAC regime it knows or should know will redound to Islamists‘ benefit, or painting the United States as engaged in an illegal war, misrepresents LOAC and makes “false claims” and uses “propaganda” in a manner that constitutes support and training prohibited by the material support statute. Culpable CLOACA members can be tried in military courts: Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides that “[a]ny person who . . . aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things . . . shall suffer death or . . . other punishments as a court-martial or military commission may direct;” the Rule for Court Martial 201 creates jurisdiction over any individual for an Article 104 offense.

The article is not merely an unintentional parody of Yooism but also an excellent unintentional parody of the contemporary law review. A substantively insane argument — “there are too many liberal professors today. Please send 40 to Gitmo. I am not a crackpot” — with barely enough content to sustain a 500-word blog post at a fourth-tier winger site is distended to 95 pages with countless superfluous footnotes.

The article has been repudiated by the editors, but the fact that it got published in the first place remains remarkable. In conclusion, that letter to the editor of a student newspaper proves that all liberals hate free speech.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
It is main inner container footer text