West Point professor calls on US military to target legal critics of war on terror

The folks that published it pulled it from their website, and posted two rebuttals and an apology for printing it.

A Message to Our Readers: | National Security Law Journal

Read the link I PM'd to you.

Shades of the Rolling Stone reporting of a gang Rape @UVA; and how that all played out. Our media is playing well over their heads, and it's credability is not all that good. Why on Earth do we spend so much of our time glued to the media. Give the media, print and othersourced, not more than an hour your time a day. Even that hour is more than it is worth.

Rant over. Tin foil hat back on, and back into my wee Cave here in The Valley.
 
Last edited:
Shades of the Rolling Stone reporting of a gang Rape @UVA; and how that all played out. Our media is playing well over their heads, and it's credability is not all that good. Why on Earth do we spend so much of our time glued to the media. Give the media, print and othersourced, not more than an hour your time a day. Even that hour is more than it is worth.

Rant over. Tin foil hat back on, and back into my wee Cave here in The Valley.
I think they didn't have any Law of Warfare types at the Law Review (understandably) and really didn't understand what they were printing.

HH6 was agast when she read the story, really pissed when I shared (what I believe ) his backstory.
 
As stated, he's out. Someone forwarded me a copy of the original article... good lord what a mess. Something like 400 footnotes... rambling, pretentious content... a fair share of academic score-settling... a healthy dose of misrepresentation of the Law of Armed Conflict... and whole bunch of "kill everyone who doesn't agree with me."

It was stupid of him to write it, it was stupid of that law review to print it, and now I'm stupider for having wasted my time reading it.

On a scale of A-F, this one gets a Z-. My students don't even hand in stuff this bad... and they never went to law school.
 
As stated, he's out. Someone forwarded me a copy of the original article... good lord what a mess. Something like 400 footnotes... rambling, pretentious content... a fair share of academic score-settling... a healthy dose of misrepresentation of the Law of Armed Conflict... and whole bunch of "kill everyone who doesn't agree with me."

It was stupid of him to write it, it was stupid of that law review to print it, and now I'm stupider for having wasted my time reading it.

On a scale of A-F, this one gets a Z-. My students don't even hand in stuff this bad... and they never went to law school.

Which means it will surely end up in Hillary's talking points!
 
Yep, I heard about that one. Seems we might need to tighten up our hiring policies.

What fucking stuns me is I remember the shit those fucks gave you when you tried to get in there, and this prick wanders on in with the credentials of Walter Mitty and gets hired on seemingly face value! WTF! :mad: :wall: :thumbsdown: O_o
 
What fucking stuns me is I remember the shit those fucks gave you when you tried to get in there, and this prick wanders on in with the credentials of Walter Mitty and gets hired on seemingly face value! WTF! :mad: :wall: :thumbsdown: O_o

The halls of "academia" have a brotherhood as strong as any others that I have seen. It would probably be surprising to a point if we really knew how many professors are teaching that are operating on false credentials and supported by others that don't truly know their credentials.
 
The article was a tome, it was pretty well researched and his thesis of how we're losing the fourth generation war made a lot of sense on my end. It was pretty thick and got boring fast.
 
Back
Top