Fascism From West Point
This headline in the Guardian is completely accurate: West Point professor calls on US military to target legal critics of war on terror.
But it hardly covers to content of the 95-page paper being reported on: see the PDF.
The author makes clear that his motivation is hatred of Islam. He
includes the false myth of origins of Western Asian violence toward the
United States lying in antiquity rather than in blowback. He includes
the lie, now popular on all sides, of Iran pursuing nuclear weapons.
He announces, after the recent U.S. losses in Iraq and Afghanistan,
that U.S. armies always win. Then he admits that the U.S. is losing but
says this is because of insufficient support for the wars and for making
the wars about an “economic system, culture, values, morals, and laws.”
The key weapon in this war, he says, is information. U.S. crimes are
not the problem; the problem, he writes, is any information distributed
about U.S. crimes — which information is only damaging because the
United States is the pinnacle of support for the rule of law. It
wouldn’t matter if you spread news about crimes by some more lawless
nation. But when you share news about crimes by the United States it
hurts the U.S. cause which is upholding the rule of law and leading the
world to lawfulness. The United States is the all-time world champion of
the rule of law, we’re told, in a 95-page screed that never mentions
the Kellogg-Briand Pact and only belatedly brings up the United Nations
Charter in order to pretend that it permits all U.S. wars.
You can pack a lot of existing lies about U.S. wars and some new ones
into 95 pages. So, for example, Walter Cronkite lost the Tet Offensive
(and by the logic of the rest of this article, should have been
immediately murdered on air). The mythical liberal media is busy
reporting on the U.S. killing of civilians, and the worst voices in
public discourse are those of treasonous U.S. lawyers. They are the most
damaging, again, because the United States is the preeminent leader of
lawibidingness.
The treasonous antiwar lawyers number 40, and the author hints that
he has them on a list. Though whether this is a real list like Obama’s
kill list or something more like McCarthy’s is not clear. I lean toward
the latter, primarily because the list of offenses run through to fill
up 95 pages includes such an array that few if any lawyers have been
engaged in all of them. The offenses range from the most modest
questioning of particular atrocities to prosecuting Bush and Cheney in
court. Nobody doing the latter has any voice in U.S. corporate media,
and a blacklist for Congress or for the U.S. Institute of “Peace” would
hardly be needed if created.
