|William Bradford thinks people who criticize|
the War on Terror or military actions
are guilty of treason. So much for the 1st Amendment
He was found to have exaggerated his academic achievements.
But that's not what's really infuriating about Bradford. I don't know bow a scary guy like this got into the position of teaching law to West Point cadets.
Here's the deal: Basically, he's saying anyone who criticizes U.S. policy toward ISIS is treasonous.
According to The Atlantic, academic scholars who disagree with Bradford's views on the terrible terrorist group ought to be arrested because they are somehow aiding and abetting the terrorists.
It's not that the professors Bradford targets like ISIS. They hate those awful people, like most of us do. They just don't completely agree with all of the "war on terror" policies the United States has had in the past decade or so.
Bradford's language as to how these scholars are guilty of treason are straight out the McCarthy Red Scare tactics of the 1950s. The supposed pro-ISIS scholars, who are anything but, are guilty of "professional socialization, pernicious pacifism and cosmopolitanism."
So apparently it's treason for these professors to socialize with each other, call for peace and tend not to be particularly nationalistic.
Bradford calls the academics he opposes the "fifth column." The Atlantic says Bradford actually believes the scholars should be treated as "unlawful enemy combatants" which would theoretically open them, the schools they work at, their homes, and even journalists who quote them to a military attack.
Well, then. There goes the First Amendment! And let's combat ISIS by becoming as militaristic, fundamentalist and lacking in human rights as they are! That'll teach 'em!
Luckily, Bradford is out of West Point now, and presumably there are more sane law professors teaching our fine young men and women there.
However, as The Atlantic puts it:
"But it leaves unanswered the question of how he got hired there in the first place, given his checkered past and allegedly exaggerated credentials. And it also fails to explain how a scholar pushing these ideas seems not to have raised red flags any earlier."