Raising questions about 911 gets Army Sergeant demoted

There's some grey area here. Unless the UCMJ has changed a lot since I was in, there is a case for what he did. If he truly thought there was an instance of the military, and by extension, the government, being involved in an illegal action, then it was his duty to report that fact.

Now the rub would come in who received the E-mail. If it was someone he could reasonably be expected to think would aid or guide him in using proper channels to bring a perceived illegal action to light, then he would have been well within his rights, even duty bound to pursue some course of action.

I can see why the military would not want to open this can of worms. A good JAG lawyer could make this an event that would not go away easily.

reply to post by NGC2736


The action that got him trouble I believe was the email to other soldiers.

I say so because there has been many cases of objectors to the war in the military ranks for many reasons, that have follow proper chain of command procedures and had gotten away from serving in the war and gotten discharges with no more than a reprimand.

Now you have also fools that flee to Canada, not knowing what the legal process for conscious objectors is, now thats going AWOL and thats another can of worms, because you become a deserter in a time of War and that can be punishible by DEATH.

What is everyone going on about? This guy has no real evidence, just the same failed logic that all 911 conspiracy theorists have been repeating ever since it happened. You can see it plainly in his statements. Whoever turned him in for the emails is the real hero.

This is just prime cut juicy flesh to be ground up into the sausage of the conspiracy. He will now be a footnote in the tale as if it adds weight to the argument.

In a letter appointing Major Edwin Escobar to lead the investigation, Col. Luke S. Green, chief of staff of the Fifth Army, wrote, “SFC Buswell failed to obey a general order or regulation when he used his Government issued email account to send messages disloyal to the United States [emphasis added] with the intent of engendering disloyalty or disaffection for the United States in a manner that brought discredit upon the United States Army.”

Green added that Buswell “allegedly asserts that he has information that proves a conspiracy on the part of the US military industrial complex to attack targets within the United States (e.g., The Pentagon), opinions which he asserts publicly and over Government email systems.”

He did what is said in this quote. Considering his Job, I'd think he left them no choice but to do what they did. What he said in his email could theoretically be of benefit to a propagandist for a Terrorist Organization or any other enemy of the US. I think that is pretty clear too.

Had he quit the Military before he started his crusade; He would have my utmost respect even though I don't agree with the Truthers. He made an unwise move and now he will have to pay the price.

Originally posted by SectionEight
Good. There is such a thing as moral and discipline and honor in the army. He showed poor judgement against moral and no discipline by expressing his personal views. Corrosive effects on moral are swiftly dealt with, and rightly so. Army life is not civilian life.

Does this include ALL the debunking military personel on here? Or is it just if you question?

Edit: It really makes one wonder why most of the debunkers around here are military personel. Hmmm....

[edit on 1/24/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by SectionEight
Good. There is such a thing as moral and discipline and honor in the army. He showed poor judgement against moral and no discipline by expressing his personal views. Corrosive effects on moral are swiftly dealt with, and rightly so. Army life is not civilian life.

Does this include ALL the debunking military personel on here? Or is it just if you question?

Edit: It really makes one wonder why most of the debunkers around here are military personel. Hmmm....

[edit on 1/24/2008 by Griff]

Maybe because they're in a better position to speak about subjects than those whose personal knowledge is based on Google and Alex Jones.

The issue here is that he used his government computer. I f he'd done this from home it wouldn't have been a problem. JMHO

Originally posted by Bugsmasher
The issue here is that he used his government computer. I f he'd done this from home it wouldn't have been a problem. JMHO

How many of our military debunkers around here use their government computers to post on here?

Should they be reprimanded also?

Should Ryan Mackey be fired for writting a debunking letter and posting to JREF from his government computer or time?

Why is there a double standard here?

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Maybe because they're in a better position to speak about subjects than those whose personal knowledge is based on Google and Alex Jones.

You should really get to know some of our truthers around here if you think that. Some are engineers, contractors, architects, etc. I've never been to Alex Jone's site and I use my knowledge based in years of college and years in the field, not google.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by SectionEight
Good. There is such a thing as moral and discipline and honor in the army. He showed poor judgement against moral and no discipline by expressing his personal views. Corrosive effects on moral are swiftly dealt with, and rightly so. Army life is not civilian life.

Does this include ALL the debunking military personel on here? Or is it just if you question?

Edit: It really makes one wonder why most of the debunkers around here are military personel. Hmmm....

[edit on 1/24/2008 by Griff]

Hmm indeed. For anyone that doesn't see things your way......wait for it......it must be part of a conspiracy. I bet you got 6 firewalls running though multiple routers just to be here. Don't forget to check your windows folder before you log off, and look under your bed too.

Originally posted by SectionEight
I bet you got 6 firewalls running though multiple routers just to be here. Don't forget to check your windows folder before you log off, and look under your bed too.

The funny thing is....wait for it....I don't have to. you know why? I'm not a jarhead. No offense jarheads.

reply to post by Mindless


Why has this post been allowed to remain? If not against the T&C it is at the very least not in line with the civil decorum being preached here on this site.

Originally posted by Mindless
A slap on the wrist? I hope he brings this evidence forward and all these baby killing war mongers get hung.

Yes it is a slap on the wrist, the military could have charged him under several more sever articles found in the UCMJ. As for your irrational and ungrateful view of the fine military men and women in uniform who represent and protect this country. All I have to say is be grateful and thankful that you can sleep safely at night and exercise your rights at will; without having to put your brave self on the front line as the heroic few who volunteered for you have.

Originally posted by Mindless
I don't support the military at all anymore.

A loss of support that I'm sure all service members are still reeling over.

Originally posted by Mindless
Defense is one thing and i would gladly give my life for the defense of my country.

If we wait until the point where you, the civilians, have to die in the streets of your hometown to stop enemy soldiers then the "defense" part has failed miserably. As Gen. George S. Patton rightly once stated… "I want you to remember that no poor dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Originally posted by Mindless
BUT if this guy is telling the truth anyone trying to suppress it should be drug behind a horse for miles on end.

The individual in question is making accusations against the US Government and military of knowingly facilitating and or orchestrating one of the worst attacks in this country's history. While being on active duty during a major war effort, while using his official military capacity and means to spread his message and ideas to other members of the service. And yes, while presenting zero "evidence" to back up his "truth".

[edit on 24-1-2008 by WestPoint23]

reply to post by Griff



BTW, I seriously mean no disrespect to our military folk. I tried joining the Army myself. Keep up the good work.

“Who really benefited from what happened that day?” he asked rhetorically. Not “Arabs,” but “the Military Industrial Complex,” Buswell concluded. “We must demand a new, independent investigation.”

If he said that then all I can say is: Of course he'll get in trouble!!

It's almost like slandering your boss at work. To top it off, he says so with no evidence to support him!

There will always be those that think 9-11 was an inside job, conspiracy etc... Their minds and views will never change, regardless that they have no proof.

Popular Mechanics wrote a great article on debunking 9-11:

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

Everyone knows that one plane was shot down - at least if you were positioned in the right place in Nato on the day you'd have seen the order, like my mate was.

The question is whether it was the right thing or not, and whether covering it up was the right thing or not.

Its a tough call. Do you:

a) shoot it down to prevent the lunatics achieving their objective & causing even bigger loss of life or ;
b) Shoot it down & make the passenger heros "lets roll style"?

Who would ever get on a plane again if they thought the govt would shoot it down if it were hijacked?

But then again, how do you face the loved ones of the people who lost their lives if you could have stopped it?

Logically, everyone on the plane will die anyway, better to stop the carnage there. Making them the heros who stopped it themselves is pure propaganda, & probably highly needed at a time like that.

Lets face it, if the "terrorists" needed the threat of slitting the air hostesses throats to get the pilots to open the cabin door, how did a load of Joe Publics get a load of "terrorists" who wanted to kill themselves to open the doors to the cabin after they'd got in & locked them again?

Sorry to say it but I think its clear which one was shot down, & I think the administration called it perfectly right.

There is a double standard.
Failures were promoted, and whistleblowers were silenced.

Who got PROMOTED for their FAILURES after 9-11?

Here's a good article I came across which discusses who failed in our
chain of command, and who was promoted accordingly for their failure:
Cui Bono? The 9/11 Promotions

“It has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time. And the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value, because the 9-11 terrorists were not just lucky once. They were lucky over and over again. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck. If at some point, we don’t look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs, properly, then how can we ever expect for terrorists to not get lucky again?” -

Those are the words of Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee in
an opening address to the 9/11 Commission. So, where is the accountability?

Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11—Promoted

Who was in charge at the Pentagon? Richard Myers,[20] who gave several contradictory accounts of his actions on 9/11,[21] was promoted as a new Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on August 24, 2001 by President Bush.

Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11—Promoted

On a day in which routine procedures should have prevented 9/11 from even happening, the attacks were mirrored in military drills.[28] NORAD commander-in-Chief Ralph Eberhart[29] was asked by the 9/11 Commission if these war games “helped” response to the 9/11 attacks and responded nonsensically, “sir, my belief is that it helped because of the manning, because of the focus, because the crews—they have to be airborne in 15 minutes and that morning, because of the exercise, they were airborne in six or eight minutes. And so I believe that focus helped.” This was clearly a false statement since none of the planes were intercepted during the attacks.

Brigadier General Montague Winfield—Promoted

Brigadier General Montague Winfield was in charge of the National Military Command Center (NMCC).[45] But as Nick Levis observes, “Montague Winfield was originally scheduled to be at his command post on morning of Sept. 11. But on Sept. 10, he arranged for his deputy to relieve him the next morning at exactly 8:30 a.m. This turned out to be just eight minutes before the military was alerted to the diversion of the first flight.”[46] Winfield’s absence was significant because the NMCC was responsible for coordinating information on the 9/11 attack. In May of 2003, he was promoted to the two-star rank of major general.

Who else?

Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director—Promoted
Ben Sliney, in charge of FAA on 9/11—Promoted
Steven Abbot, coordinator of Dick Cheney’s task force on problems of national preparedness—Promoted
Marion (Spike) Bowman, blocked FBI investigations into the alleged hijackers before 9/11—Promoted
Pasquale D’Amuro, in charge of counterterrorism in New York—Promoted
Michael Maltbie, the supervisor handling the case at the FBI's Radical Fundamentalist Unit—Promoted
David Frasca, head of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit—not fired

Yea, they knew nothing right?
Responsibility? Accountability?

Let's give it up for our proud military "leaders"
They've done a real bang-up job! Promotions all around!

Give it up for the 9-11 investigation too..
I'm sure the three-thousand or so people who died that
day really appreciate their hard work.

Justice.. prevails?

Originally posted by dshut69
Everyone knows that one plane was shot down - at least if you were positioned in the right place in Nato on the day you'd have seen the order, like my mate was.

If any such order went out, it would not have gone to NATO. They did not have the capability to respond to it. Why would we even involve them?

I think your mate is lying to you.

Originally posted by SectionEight
Good. There is such a thing as moral and discipline and honor in the army. He showed poor judgement against moral and no discipline by expressing his personal views. Corrosive effects on moral are swiftly dealt with, and rightly so. Army life is not civilian life.

That is a disgusting and WRONG statement. If Sgt. Buswell thinks that people in the "Military Industrial Complex" were involved in 9/11 (he is right of course) then that is TREASON- and it is his DUTY to say so.He has after all sworn an oath to uphold the constitution. The "correct" course of action , technically, would be to report his suspicions to his superior officer. I don't know military law, but asking the opinion of others within his ranks to confirm his or refute his suspicions seems like a prudent course of action before accusing people of such a crime. SectionEight chose a good name- probably for an obvious reason.

reply to post by ItsHumanNature


There is nothing "wrong" with my statement, it is based on historical facts of millitary duty. Yours is based on opinion and wishfull thinking of what millitary duty means. The Sgt who has to sweep floors for the rest of his duty can provide no facts for the kind of accusations he made neither.

Originally posted by forestlady

Originally posted by SectionEight
Good. There is such a thing as moral and discipline and honor in the army. He showed poor judgement against moral and no discipline by expressing his personal views. Corrosive effects on moral are swiftly dealt with, and rightly so. Army life is not civilian life.

I think you mean "morale", not "moral". Anyway, you are saying that we should lose our freedom of speech when we join the Army? Isn't freedom of speech the stated reason usually given for fighting in the first place? Why should the rest of America be able to speak freely, but not the soldiers, the ones who are actually doing the fighting?

Man, that's some twisted logic you have going there.

Forestlady, actually I don't think he is saying that they *should*, I think he is saying that they *do* lose their right to free speech while in the military. You see, when you are in the military you do not fall under normal constitutional civilian law, you fall under what is called the Universal Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ for short.

I'm still starring your post though, because I agree with your stance. It is unfortunate that those who serve in our military do not share in the same freedoms as we civilians whom they are sworn to protect.