The numbskull defense (Video added)

| July 15, 2009

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.

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.

This week I read that he’s also Victor Agosto’s attorney from TSO’s favorite journalist Dahr Jamail – journalist to the anti-war crowd. No lie is so fantastic that it’ll keep him from reporting it as news.

Anyway, Jamail wrote an article about Agosto’s defense entitled “Afghanistan War Resister to “Put the War on Trial”“. You never realize what a doofus Branum is until you read his plan for the defense of Agosto’s refusal to deploy to Afghanistan.

“Victor is approaching this from the standpoint of law and ethics,” Branum explained, “It’s 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. And under US Law, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, any treaty enacted by the US is now the “supreme law of the land.” So when the United States signed the UN Charter, we made that our law as well.”

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 “the supreme law of the land.”

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.

But this where the story gets real funny. I mean hilariously funny. This is why service members should stay away from these activist lawyers;

“[Army’s 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’d take it – which would mean Victor would serve a maximum of 30 days in jail, and receive an Other Than Honorable discharge,” Branum explained, “So 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 “special” rather than “summary” on the court-martial and sent it back down.”

Branum explained that “a summary court martial is little more than an Article 15. Supposedly there was an “honest” mistake made by them handing down this special court martial, but I think they are playing games with us.”

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”.

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’s upcoming court-martial.

“Now we’re going to put the war on trial with their special court-martial,” Branum said, “They had their chance to keep this quiet and move on, but now we’re going to pull out all the stops and put the war on trial, and show how the whole thing is illegal.”

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?

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.

Branum claims that he’s supported by the National Lawyers Guild – that’s Marjorie Cohn’s crowd. Cohn wrote Rules of Disengagement, which TSO reviewed to some acclaim a few months ago.

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.

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?

Agosto was pretty brave about going to jail when he stopped by here a few weeks ago. I guess that was when thought he thought he was going to get 30 days at CCF.

But don’t worry, Victor, the Army may crucify you, but you can bet Branum will be right there with you – handing them the nails.

Added: Here’s a video of another case Branum lost – Cliff Cornell who also got a 12-month sentence. Branum seems much more upbeat than Cornell in this video. He doesn’t look like Branum’s assurance that a lot of people are “standing with him” is very soothing. Put yourself in the video, Victor;

Added again: Here’s Tony Anderson, another Branum client who got 14 months – the odds are getting slim, Victor;

Category: Antiwar crowd, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Usual Suspects

13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DanNY

Heh, excellent post, Jonn!
Tools getting used by other tools!

Sporkmaster

I think his odds are worse then that. If you go by his youtube page he is 0 for three. Also he has a video of a guy that get a year in jail for desertion. The guy looks horrable abd not takeing it well. I would love it if he makes a similar one for victor.

OldTrooper

That’s what my contention has been and I informed Victor of this, right here on TAH.

He will serve his time alone. The others, who feed on the hoopla, will still be able to feed on the next one, until they, also, go to jail, etc., etc. The only one that gets shafted is the person who actually believes the crap these morons spew. Is it worth your freedom, future employment opportunities, explanations to your family (both siblings/parents, or your children/wife) as to why you didn’t follow through with your obligations? If you answer yes; then fine, do it and don’t whine about it afterwards. Just don’t expect me to buy you a beer after you get out.

TSO

With this guy “standing behind you” you are sure to get….

Having this guy as your lawyer is like being the dude in the red shirt beaming to the planet surface with Spock, Bones and the Captain.

OldTrooper

“Having this guy as your lawyer is like being the dude in the red shirt beaming to the planet surface with Spock, Bones and the Captain.”

Or, the anonymous henchmen that get in the way of Austin “danger” Powers.

truthaddict

what a pathetic straw man argument and diversion from the REAL argument: the legality and justification for the war.

Besides, the Taliban didn’t attack us either.

In fact, several months after attacked, invaded and occupied Afghanistan the US government was still publicly admitting it did not know who was behind the 911 attacks and only “thought” they knew.

That’s right. We illegally attacked, invaded and occupied one of the poorest countries in the world based on a suspicion.

Per the enlistment oath, the US Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the UN Charter both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and occupations are completely illegal and a soldier is obligated to resist.

And in response to “old trooper” your argument of compliance and subservience to aggressors is disgusing. If I were Victor I wouldnt want your fascist ass to buy me a beer. I prefer the company of good people with strong ethics and not aggressors.

Jonn wrote: I’m sorry but I can’t get past the “straw man argument” line. What “straw man argument” did I use? Do you know the meaning of the term?

sporkmaster

1. Al-Qaeda attacked us and have been attacking US targets for the better part of twenty years.

2. The Taliban supported, supplies and protected them. Also the Taliban made not attempts to stop them.

3. The attacks on September 11th where the final straw and had the backing of the UN, and Nato nations.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sc7248.doc.htm

Yes we did, Al-Qaeda. They also made a attack on the Twin Towers in 1993. Again we knew that they attacked us.

They are legal, and approved by congress.

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Also I would like to ask how it is illeagel by the Constutition?

Until you remember it is fore free. If these people have such strong ethics, why are people leaving IVAW? Or how about him impersonating people to insult them? Yea, great people.

samthedagger

Why can’t conservative chicken-hawks spell or use proper grammar in their online rants? I get a headache trying to argue with such imbeciles because of their apparently poor grasp of such as simple thing as the English language.

The “wars” are ILLEGAL according to the Constitution because war must be declared by Congress and can only be declared by Congress. But Republicans have used Executive Orders since Reagan to carry out wars under a little known law that violates the Constitution giving the President the authority to carry out limited military operations for a period of 30 days before requiring a declaration of war from Congress. Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. have all used this law (Grenada, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Operation Iraqi Freedom) to initiate “wars” they never had the Constitutional authority to initiate. These authoritarian leaders who love to tell us what to believe, what to do and when to shut up have always followed a policy of “invade first, ask for declaration of war later.”

I will concede that of these actions, Afghanistan alone was justified, even if only in hindsight, but the summary invasion of Iraq ruined whatever goodwill 9/11 had generated towards the American people and our cause there. Iraq made Bush Jr.’s imperialistic ambitions plain for all the world to see and the American people were right to reject him and his party in 2008 for their crimes against humanity. That’s how democracy works (and I’m glad it does). You conservative types are just licking your wounds after the electoral thrashings you received in 2006 and 2008 that were a rejection of six years of corruption, greed, immorality, and neo-imperialism. Just because the President says so is not good enough. Soldiers have a responsibility to think for themselves and act morally. Branum may be an incompetent lawyer, but I salute the brave men and women who have the courage to stand up for their ethical and moral beliefs. Remember that it was 18.2 million German soldiers following orders, not the simple actions of one man that caused the Holocaust.

Nick Mabarrack

The Taliban didn’t attack the US. They were not even on good terms with Al Queda at the time, as they viewed bin Laden as a rival.

The Taliban would have brought anyone bin Laden’s head within 24 hours if they were offered a reward for it before the invasion.

sgt lomeli

the “war on terrorism” is not illegal and the “operations” in iraq and afghanistan are not illegal either. it’s all in the way you word it buddy. thats why the korean and vietnam conflicts were not illegal iether. politicias and their words. they at least know their way through wording things the right way.

sgt lomeli

also the taliban leaders were instructed to turn over bin laden and his key leaders and the taliban responded by saying a big NO. their excuse was that he was a guest of their nation. get your facts straight.

Sporkmaster

Looks like our favorite lawyer has made all of these videos private.

trackback

[…] haven’t had an opportunity to discuss James Branum (background here and here) lately because I’d heard he’d been keeping his nose clean and actually helped […]