The other day we were visited by James M. Branum, Esq, attorney to the cowards and IVAW. He was here to tell us why Robin Long, the first deserter to Canada to be jailed since the Vietnam Era, only did 12 months of his 15-month sentence. Oh, and he chastised me severely for calling Kimberly Rivera Queen Fat Ass the Baby Factory. So, I’ll never do that again. <\/p>\n
I chased Branum back to his own website and remembered how I’d bumped into him before. I remembered because at the time, he was living in his grandparents’ basement on their farm. Lucky guy finally found a place to rent, last week apparently. Good for him.<\/p>\n
This week I read that he’s also Victor Agosto’s attorney from TSO’s favorite journalist Dahr Jamail<\/a> – journalist to the anti-war crowd. No lie is so fantastic that it’ll keep him from reporting it as news.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Anyway, Jamail wrote an article about Agosto’s defense entitled “Afghanistan War Resister to \u201cPut the War on Trial\u201d<\/a>“. You never realize what a doofus Branum is until you read his plan for the defense of Agosto’s refusal to deploy to Afghanistan. <\/p>\n \u201cVictor is approaching this from the standpoint of law and ethics,\u201d Branum explained, \u201cIt\u2019s his own personal ethics and principles of the Nuremburg Principles, that the war in Afghanistan does not meet the criteria for lawful war under the UN Charter, which says that member nations who joined the UN, as did the US, should give up war forever, aside from two exceptions: that the war is in self-defense, and that the use of force was authorized by the UN Security Council. The nation of Afghanistan did not attack the United States. The Taliban may have, but the nation and people of Afghanistan did not.<\/strong> And under US Law, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, any treaty enacted by the US is now the \u201csupreme law of the land.\u201d So when the United States signed the UN Charter, we made that our law as well.\u201d<\/p>\n The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2. The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and US treaties as \u201cthe supreme law of the land.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Emphasis is mine. The nation of Afghanistan didn’t attack us – the Taliban did. How many things can you find wrong with that statement? Me? I found a few things. The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan in 2001 (remember?). Using Branum’s logic, we shouldn’t have attacked Japan because the people of japan didn’t attack us, their emperor did. Sure the Taliban isn’t the government of Afghanistan now, but we’re there until we’re satisfied they won’t return as the government of Afghanistan and attack us again. Is that hard to understand? Apparently it is for that steel trap legal mind of James M. Branum, Esq.<\/p>\n But this where the story gets real funny. I mean hilariously funny. This is why service members should stay away from these activist lawyers;<\/p>\n \u201c[Army\u2019s Trial Defense Services (TDS)] had communicated to the prosecution for me that we were willing to accept an Article 15 and do a month of extra duty, then if he (Agosto) got a summary court-martial we\u2019d take it – which would mean Victor would serve a maximum of 30 days in jail, and receive an Other Than Honorable discharge,\u201d Branum explained, \u201cSo TDS said they took this offer to the CG (Commanding General) who was to sign off on it, but they said he made a mistake and wrote \u201cspecial\u201d rather than \u201csummary\u201d on the court-martial and sent it back down.\u201d<\/p>\n Branum explained that \u201ca summary court martial is little more than an Article 15. Supposedly there was an \u201chonest\u201d mistake made by them handing down this special court martial, but I think they are playing games with us.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n They made an offer of an Article 15 and the CG (bless his Army heart) rejected it. It’s like a thief trying to plead his crime down to traffic ticket and the prosecutor telling him “no”. But to fat ass, basement-dwelling Branum “they are playing games”. <\/p>\n Due to the perceived breach of good faith by the Army during the negotiating process, Branum believes he has no choice now but to up the stakes in Agosto\u2019s upcoming court-martial.<\/p>\n \u201cNow we\u2019re going to put the war on trial with their special court-martial,\u201d Branum said, \u201cThey had their chance to keep this quiet and move on, but now we\u2019re going to pull out all the stops and put the war on trial, and show how the whole thing is illegal.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n See that, Victor? You’re going to put the war on trial. Of course, if the war is found guilty it won’t go to jail. If I were you, I’d ask Branum what his success rate is, because as far as I know he’s 0 for 1. Are there any resisters he’s kept out of jail?<\/p>\n Branum claims that this is the defense that saved Eric Watada – Watada was saved by a mistrial (for now). Do you think the Army will make the same mistake twice, Victor? You’re betting your future on it. <\/p>\n Branum claims that he’s supported by the National Lawyers Guild – that’s Marjorie Cohn’s crowd. Cohn wrote Rules of Disengagement<\/a>, which TSO reviewed to some acclaim a few months ago. <\/p>\n The National Lawyers Guild has a long and storied history of anti-war activity. They were against the US entering World War Two – well, until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, then they supported President Roosevelt’s war policies. I think that was the timeline of the Communist Party of the USA’s support of Roosevelt’s policies, too. <\/p>\n Recently. Cohn also accompanied Matthis Chiroux to his discharge hearing and using everything she has learned was able to convince the board to award Chiroux the same discharge he would have gotten if he’d just stayed home and waited for the Army to mail it to him. In other words, she didn’t help him…at all. But she did get to shoot off her big mouth and make a name for herself among the anti-war Left. That’s what it’s all about, isn’t it?<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n