Trust that the free marketplace of ideas will vindicate the truth about Islamism and LOAC, and that Americans are informed and discerning enough to withstand CLOACA PSYOPS alleging U.S. illegality, so
Trust that the free marketplace of ideas will vindicate the truth about Islamism and LOAC, and that Americans are informed and discerning enough to withstand CLOACA PSYOPS alleging U.S. illegality, so do nothing
Trust that the free marketplace of ideas will vindicate the truth about Islamism and LOAC, and that Americans are informed and discerning enough to withstand CLOACA PSYOPS alleging U.S. illegality, so do nothing
Counter-PSYOPs: conduct a counter-PSYOPs campaign that explains to Americans who their enemy is, why Americans fight, and the legality of methods and means the U.S. employs. This might include films, videos, and cyber content modeled after the 1940s federally-commissioned, Hollywood-produced documentary film series “Why We Fight” that countered enemy propaganda, explained the war aims of Germany and Japan, and reassured Americans of the justice of their cause. Along with a contemporary “Why We Fight” campaign, the U.S. should commission LOACA dissidents to counter the Fifth Column in scholarship and other media
Loyalty oaths: faculty at universities receiving federal funds may be required to pledge support for federal and state constitutions and swear “undivided allegiance to the [U.S.]
Fire disloyal radicals: 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.
“Material support” includes “expert advice or assistance” in training Islamist groups to use LOAC in support of advocacy and propaganda campaigns…CLOACA scholarship reflecting aspirations for a reconfigured LOAC regime it knows or should know will redound to Islamists’ benefit, or painting the U.S. 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 MSS
Charge treason
CLOACA scholarship and advocacy that attenuates U.S. arms and undermine American will are PSYOPs, which are combatant acts and, if colorable as propaganda that incites others to war crimes, are prosecutable. CLOACA members are thus combatants who can be targeted and killed at any time and place and captured and detained until termination of hostilities. As unlawful combatants for failure to wear the distinctive insignia of a party, CLOACA propagandists are subject to coercive interrogation, trial, and imprisonment Further, the infrastructure used to create and disseminate CLOACA propaganda—law school facilities, scholars’ home offices, and media outlets where they give interviews—are also lawful targets given the causal connection between the content disseminated and Islamist crimes incited. Shocking as it might seem, CLOACA scholars, and the law schools that employ them, are targetable so long as attacks are proportional, distinguish noncombatants from combatants, employ nonprohibited weapons, and contribute to the defeat of Islamism
Objective criticism is not disloyalty: it is undeniable that an ideological orthodoxy profoundly out-of-step with the American people and their military drives CLOACA to discover, interpret, and apply LOAC in ways that counter traditional conceptions of the law that governed war between World War II and 9/11. Whether departing so sharply from the commands of tradition, necessity, and democratic legitimacy should be regarded as a badge of humanitarianism may be, for some, open to argument. That their scholarship and advocacy, by design or effect, invariably affords Islamists material and moral advantage in their operations against U.S. forces while beguiling Americans away from unity and moral certitude is an empirical fact. Moreover, that CLOACA never proclaims modifications or interpretations of LOAC that would benefit U.S arms or reinforce American morale, and (almost) never decries Islamist violations of LOAC so frequent, systematic, and barbarous as to only be explicable as a deliberate battle strategy, reveals a professional cohort committed to the law in war but not as objective and apolitical scholars and not to a universal regime. Rather, the ineluctable conclusion is that CLOACA has entered the arena, chosen sides, and weaponized LOAC for use against its own people
McCarthyist attack: academic freedom is social contract, carries with it a “moral obligation to seek…facts without prejudice and to spread knowledge without malicious intent[;]” it is not a blanket grant of immunity from the consequences of politicized “scholarship” but a contractual license conferring the “freedom to say that two plus two make four.” Scholars who insist, in thrall to a hostile ideology, that two plus two make five are precluded from searching for truth; scholarship in which two plus two make five and five benefits Islamists suggests CLOACA should be evicted from the bunker of academic freedom
Anti-intellectualism: perversity inherent in countenancing intellectual elitism as a basis for a defense against criminal prosecution and a grant of immunity from targeting in war is astonishing. This critique suggests that those with a more enriched capacity for understanding the nature of the threat, the linkage between legal regimes and victory, and of the criticality that the nation cohere in its moral resolve be held not to a higher standard by virtue of this knowledge but to a lower one, ostensibly b/c the more one learns about the nation the more one comes to realize it is not worth defending.
Jurispathic: only if LOAC facilitates self-preservation can the military be expected to observe its constraints, and thus each and every pronouncement of CLOACA must be assessed for its effects on survival. When the West faces an existential threat from an enemy that abjures responsibility for observing LOAC and expressly aims to overthrow all regimes other than Shari’a, and where academic spin on the rules would render survival less likely, the insubordination of humanitarianism to efficiency and the academy to the military in determining and applying LOAC poses a much greater threat to law and the civilization it mutually reinforces than entrusting LOAC to the only institution with the capacity for and duty to defend both. CLOACA, and not the U.S., has embarked on a jurispathic enterprise in articulating, interpreting, and applying LOAC.
