Bowman Now Calls For Impeachment: Asks Military To Refuse Orders To Attack IRAN

Oh and Semper-

Let it be noted - the first time in ATS history where you and I see eye to eye!!!

Nice work on the debate by the way.

ya but couldn't attacking Iran be considered immoral and unethical, especially if the real reason for attacking is, as that greenspan guy just said, oil

To you perhaps, and you may perceive it as such, and many may consider it valid. But it is an Opinion and not fact based

One can not PROVE it is about oil as the conflict has gone on this long and we still do not have the OIL that many claim it is over... That is just foolish...

Are they trying to tell us that if we really wanted the oil, that we could not just take it? Again, foolish line of thinking...

Now what you may be referencing is a MORAL OBJECTION to service or combat...

That is a legitimate concern and one may proclaim that. Then you would be placed in a position of NON-COMBAT or released under a General Discharge.....

That is all perfectly legal and on the up and up

Semper

Originally posted by TruthWithin
While it is very easy to condemn various acts in the military as either being traitorous or otherwise, please remember this:

The Military in the US is not governed by the Constitution. What I mean by this is that there is no Freedom of Speech and other basic rights once you join the armed forces.

Thus - you MUST follow your orders. Period.

It doesn't make it right when bad orders are given, but it is necessary...why?

Becuase when you have 130,000 troops in the middle of a desert and they are all constantly fighting under life and death situations, you can not afford to have 130000 people doing what they think is right.

Why don't you go tell the judge who's preciding over the case where the marine was ordered to kill 17 women and children that and see what he says about it being:

1. illegal
2. immoral
3. unethical

I guarantee he'll say all 3.

Truth, THANKS!!!!

I need all the help I can get...

hmm, a system that prevents the individual from doing what they believe to be right.

that's kinda scary, don't ya think?

The Military CAN NOT CONSIST OF INDIVIDUALS

Think of the ANARCHY

What could they accomplish of every soldier was allowed to do whatever they wanted to...

That would not be a military, it would be a rabble

Semper

Originally posted by jimjamjerry


hmm, a system that prevents the individual from doing what they believe to be right.

that's kinda scary, don't ya think?

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that you believe it is right to drive through red lights. Red lights are "system" in which we sacrifice the ability to do something for the sake of the common good. By NOT traveling through a red light, you provide a level of safety for other drivers EVEN if you don't BELIEVE it to be "right".

The same thing applies here. If everyone in the military worked as an individual, the US would be under the rule of the Queen of England.

Why don't you go tell the judge who's preciding over the case where the marine was ordered to kill 17 women and children that and see what he says about it being:

I am positive you are correct in that...

But that situation is not the one we are debating and I am sure you would agree that 2 wrongs do not make a right...

Apples and oranges

I also would have refused to kill innocent women and children as most if not all of my comrades in arms... (I would hope)

semper

reply to post by bigbert81


Yes...and there will always be tough cases to preside over in regards to this. That is why we have military tribunals and a judicial system to figure these things out.

consider for a moment that what if NOT attacking iran is later suicide, i mean the president of the country is I believe just a pawn like bush, but what if its a test the NWO people have set up, for the populace. if we say no, its our choice and someone we care about or us ourselves get hit. Its a tricky game were playing, with murdering madmen who have no inner thought other than to obey and conquer in the name of self dellusion. I think the decades of money, power and weapons have gone to peoples heads. Amedinijad and bush are two faces on the same coin to me, playing a game with our minds. I say if he makes a move against isreal, then move in at isreals request. THe thing that compells me to think this way is the bible, and a prophecy of all nations turning against isreal, and all nations being destroyed. but then i think, what if its all just a zionist/jewish plot, thats worse than anyone elses?

i will not wail to a wall, nor pray to the east, i only know one thing, God isnt this. For all of your murder, the fields of blood. What has your god given you, but more desert to run. So continue to reap, a harvest of plagues, and die sooner than later, so my heart does not fail. From watching you stupid apes run back forth, to the endless sound of yes sir, out the door.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by mastermind77]

[edit on 17-9-2007 by mastermind77]

Originally posted by jimjamjerry

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Agree, he should be arrested and tried for conspiracy to commit treason...
There are certain topics that NO ONE should mess around with, this is most definitely one of them. The military is obliged to follow the chain of command and proper authority. Individual assessment, personal feeling, interpretations and or opinions are ultimately not up for debate.

wow. that sucks

who is at the top of the chain of command?

[edit on 17-9-2007 by jimjamjerry]

ok, so I'm guessing the correct answer is the president right? Commander in chief. but doesn't he answer to a higher authority, like the American Public. ANd if the president doesn't listen to the will of the people, isn't he disobeying and order. and if so, isn't that what impeachment is all about? Getting a traitorous president out of office?

I'm not American, I don't know. But the system, when presented this way, seems to make sense.

What is the popular opinion in the states on dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran anyway. is the majority opposed at this point?

reply to post by semperfortis


That's good to hear Semper that you obviously have a bit more gray matter between your ears than others, but I have a friend who is getting ready to return to Afghanistan who deals with PSY-OPS, and he even admits that all the reports of high pressure to kill Iraqi civilians are quite true. 1.2 Iraqi civilians killed, and Al-Qeada has completely regained it's strength from pre-9/11.

If you just follow orders without using your own logic and morals, then you are nothing more than a robot to be used as anyone sees fit. I do think that orders are important to follow, but there are certainly restrictions.

You've even said yourself that you would have refused the order to kill women and children. I hope you can see that that is no different than refusing another order of which is illegal, immoral, or unethical. If you disagree with this, then please tell me why you would have disobeyed the order.

Originally posted by TruthWithin

Originally posted by jimjamjerry


hmm, a system that prevents the individual from doing what they believe to be right.

that's kinda scary, don't ya think?

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that you believe it is right to drive through red lights. Red lights are "system" in which we sacrifice the ability to do something for the sake of the common good. By NOT traveling through a red light, you provide a level of safety for other drivers EVEN if you don't BELIEVE it to be "right".

but I don't believe that. it's stupid to go driving through red lights. if you do, sooner or later either you or someone else is going to die. in this case, stopping at a red is the right thing to do.

the example your using now is order of magnitudes different than 160,000 soldiers in a desert, a half a world away from home, occupying a country which had nothing to do with 9-11, had no WMD, and just seems to have been picked off by the most powerful nation in the world.

i mean, its pretty well established now that IRaq had nothing to with with 911, had no WMD, and was pretty much just sitting there minding it's own business.

isn't this true?

Originally posted by mastermind77
than later, so my heart does not fail. From watching you stupid apes run back forth, to the endless sound of yes sir, out the door.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by mastermind77]

who the heck are you referring to here?

Strongly opposed. Despite things I'm sure you've seen online, most Americans (at least all of the ones I speak to) are not out for blood or to turn the entire middle east into glass. And yes, you would think that the American public is the boss of the President, but the fact is, there doesn't seem to be much of anything we can do. There is a petition going up right now to impeach Bush, but the fact of the matter is that our system is so slow, even if we did get going on the process, Bush would be out of office by the time it was done.

If we could do more, we wouldn't allow a president to rid us of Habeus Corpus, or any of our other rights, especially after impeaching another president just for lying about a BJ.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by bigbert81]

Originally posted by bigbert81

Strongly opposed.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by bigbert81]

well I know there doesn't appear to be a lot you can do. I just want to establish the fact that, constitutionally, the president takes orders from the people and that, constitutionally, when he doesn't do that a) he's impeached and b) the military must stop taking orders from him because the military is not obligated to take orders from a traitor.

this is basically the jist of the constitutional system of America right?

I'm not American but I gotta respect the system, as written, even if it appears to be broken right now. What a great set of ideas to build a nation on.



[edit on 17-9-2007 by jimjamjerry]

reply to post by semperfortis


Okay, let me tell you this. Bush was wrong about Iraq, he has done NOTHING but bring more chaos. I have old friends who still live in Iraq, they all wish Saddam was back, at least then you can walk around feeling safe. If Bush attacks Iran, every other country will look at how the Iraq war was so "successful" in bringing down the insurgency, they will surly promote him to world leader.

reply to post by jimjamjerry

I'm not American but I gotta respect the system, as written, even if it appears to be broken right now. What a great set of ideas to build a nation on

Yes it is, and that's why I'm so upset that the ideals on which we found this nation are being thrown out the window with GWB. We're losing our rights, and we can't do anything about it. The majority of Congress even admits that they did not read the Patriot Act before signing it into law. There are even pieces to the Act which Congress said no to before, but were "snuck" in.

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by semperfortis

 

Okay, let me tell you this. Bush was wrong about Iraq, he has done NOTHING but bring more chaos. I have old friends who still live in Iraq, they all wish Saddam was back, at least then you can walk around feeling safe. If Bush attacks Iran, every other country will look at how the Iraq war was so "successful" in bringing down the insurgency, they will surly promote him to world leader.

6 years to get where we are today fighting in 3rd world countries. WWII lasted 6 years. We have killed and estimated 1.2 million Iraqi civilians, and recent reports show Al-Qaeda has regained it's strenght. I wonder if the rest of the world considers this a "success"? And I wonder what their hopes for us attacking Iran are.

Originally posted by semperfortis

if an illegal or unreasonable order is give, it need not be followed

The facts are this

An order can be disobeyed if it is

1. Illegal
2. Immoral
3. Unethical

HOWEVER

That can not be in the persons OPINION, or MINDSET, it is incumbent on the person disobeying the order to PROVE, FACTUALLY before a TRIBUNAL of MILITARY officers and enlisted men, that the order in facts fits one of those criteria..

We can all have our opinions, and feel strongly about them. Perhaps so strongly as we begin to believe them to be facts....

Frequently however, they are just opinions

No one can state FACTUALLY that attacking Iran, Somalia or Diego Garcia willl produce anything. Not factually. This is because it has not been done and there is no factual precedent to draw upon.

That is why in the Military, we follow orders

Those that give those orders are in positions, with the full use of War Colleges and experienced advisers, to make those decisions that ground troops should never make..

Simple system

Has worked for over 200 years

Semper

Semper honors to you and those who serve! but bubble heads add another to the list of order dis qualifiers: nonsense...

those who earn their "dolphins" are given a special right for the safety of the sub. the right to question any order or command so long as it is in a manner thats not subordination. all with this right through training have the same knowledge of the ship as those in command. if a qualified e2 nobody hails up and says something is not right the command and colleagues give courtesy and have to disprove it before proceeding. for example a navigation watch can halt command in control even on the xo of the ship if he puts it into unnecessary danger. the chief of the watch also. this is suspended only when the captain enters control. historically this level only happens in movies like crimson tide. but the safety feature built into the command structure does exist. unlike other military services and the surface navy we are trained to question and check everything.. we honor each other so we don't go blub blub to the bottom..

i understand that marines and the like can't manipulate time and strategy like we can in order to work this way They don't eat fresh eggs in the middle of war. i never really wanted to try MRE's..

since i have been out i apply the same psychology to Washington. since they supposedly represent us they should speak more specifically. given that too much truth can put people in danger. but when congress an equal to the executive branch demand to know the specific plan for the war on terror. and the president refuses..multiple times to people who have the required security clearance and need to know.. i call that "nonsense" and constitutionally very dangerous ground. i believe that as representatives they owe us the "dolphin" right and can question anything the president says and my duty to do so.

bad things happen to those that question things. and by the time you get to defend your action you are already at mast or court marshal. thats not freedom to me. but as i mentioned my experiences differ in nature

thank you for serving!

Semper: You stated in your U2U that my arguments were my opinion and not correct or factual, and as such not worth debating. Well now:

It is not a matter of opinion that the majority of American people are against this war and have started tuning bush minor out.... his approval ratings hover around 30%.

It is known now that the Iraqi National Congress fed the bush administration cooked intelligence and out and out fabrications from several phony defecting "generals" and other "officers". It is also known that team bush did not pay any attention and out and out discounted intelligence that contradicted them and their push for war... the whole "seeking yellow cake in Niger" is the classic example. They were told repeatedly that the info was false, and still it was used in the State of the Union address. The so-called mobile bio-labs that general Powell cited before the UN turned out to be another phony bit of info. Ditto with the aluminum tubes. The bush administration was informed by the IAEA that they were not of the grade to use as centrifuges and were ignored. The list goes on. It is not a matter opinion, it is a matter of public record now so my statement that they are either liars, incompetent or blinded by their own ideology holds true.

As for my comment about Clinton being impeached for a BJ. He was impeached for lying under oath, which is true; about a BJ, ergo he was lying about a BJ. Besides that to rehasah what I responded to Centurian about it:

"I know the excuse given was that he lied under oath, but that is all that it is. It was nothing more and nothing less than a political move to remove a president that Newt the Gingrich and Tom Delay did not like. Perhaps somebody actually cared that he lied (If you were married to Hillary... wouldn't you? ) but not the people who pushed it. It was a political act period. In short it was an attempted coup to remove a sitting president."

And it still holds true that Clinton's lying under oath about sex, nowhere compares to lying our way into a war.

The troops that bush minor is taking credit for bringing home are coming home because the military is stretched too thin and they were already scheduled to come home because of it. if the troops are stretched too thin to maintain the so-called surge; would someone please tell me how are they going to be able to respond to any Iranian reply to any attack by us? The generals would be amiss and deliquent in their duty if they did not baldly state the obvious... if we are stretched too thin for one then we are obviously stretched too thin for the other. That is not a matter of opinion... that is logic.

"As for being a traitor... I have said it before and I will say it again... it is no sin Semper, no treason or dishonor to object to what your country is doing if you feel that it is wrong.

Blind obedience and blind allegiance is nothing to be proud of.

War, and all military actions are nothing more than a failure of diplomacy and reason... not noble... not heroic... not honorable.... bloodshed represents nothing less than failure."

I stand by that. Anyone who thinks war is noble and honorable is a fool.

Again it is a matter of record that the IAEA has said that Iran is a minimum of 5 years away from any form a nuclear capacity, if not more. They have said that repeatedly. so if that is true then ...." Doesn't prudence and reason say engage diplomatically and deal with the issue that way instead?"

"If a member of congress or a retired military officer is calling for impeachment, it is their right and there is nothing treasonous about it. They are stating their opinion. If they are urging the military to refuse a possibly disastrous order; it may be extreme but given the circumstance, of an overstretched and exhausted military and a leadership that does not listen... well then perhaps it is called for."

Given bush minor's known dislike for opinions different from his, the above still holds true.



[edit on 17-9-2007 by grover]

Im in the military, and I have been to Iraq. I cannot imagine a scenario where I would ever turn down orders to deploy, nor can I imagine anyone that I know doing so. It would be career, personal and social suicide. You would probably go to jail while they were sorting your case out, and not only that you would lose the respect of everyone you work with, and probably 99% of military people around the country and world.

I think the big point that most civilians miss is this.

We all choose to be here. This war has been going on for over 5 years now. We all have enlisted, reenlisted or gotten our commissions during this war. The military is not for everyone, and we inheirently think different about our jobs than people on the outside do. We all know what we are getting ourselves into, and all have to opportunity to get out if we want to after 4 years, or at the most 6.