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

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:04 AM
link   

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


dandelionsalad.wordpress.com

I contend that should some civilian order you to initiate a nuclear attack on Iran (for example), you are duty-bound to refuse that order. I might also suggest that you should consider whether the circumstances demand that you arrest whoever gave the order as a war criminal.

I know for a fact that in recent history (once under Nixon and once under Reagan), the military nuclear chain of command in the White House discussed these things and were prepared to refuse an order to “nuke Russia .”
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.globalresearch.ca

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
ATS: Cheney behind 9/11 former Star Wars Head claims




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:04 AM
link   
This is one gutsy move by Bowman in my opinion, he literally asks the military to rebel against Bush/Cheney, asks for impeachment and it seems almost asks the military to take matters into their own hands because they swore to protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I´d like to know what ATS members who are in the Armed Forces think of all this...

dandelionsalad.wordpress.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   
I am not in the military but i will give my views anyway.

I say it would be an act of heroism on the military if they refused an order like this. The world would see it as an act of mercy and heroism as well.
This is also very telling that there is talk in Washington of nuking Iran, IMO. :shk:

The military KNOWS they would not be defending their country- against what??? What would they be defending? Nothing. They would just be killing and causing all of the USA citizens to face possibly the same fate by doing so.
They will think of their families back home, their kids, parents, spouses, and i hope to God they REFUSE the order of the Potus and face contempt rather than cause death to so many for NOTHING.

Impeachment: That is the biggest joke i've ever heard of. It wont happen.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:27 AM
link   
What a brilliant letter.
im going to print that out and store it with all the old news paper clippings i n the scrapbook.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Attacking Iran in my opinion would be one of the biggest mistakes America can do, it can cause the beginning of the end? All I know is that its not a good idea! NO to war on Iran!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Impeachment: That is the biggest joke i've ever heard of. It wont happen.


I hear that... If it is any consolation I think that Bowman knows himself he is wishful thinking looking at the way he formulates it:


"Some of us had hoped that the new Democratic Congress would end the occupation of Iraq and take firm steps to prevent an attack on Iran , perhaps by impeaching Bush and Cheney. These hopes have been dashed. The lily-livered Democrats have caved in, turning their backs on those few (like Congressman Jack Murtha) who understand the situation. Many of us have personally walked the halls of Congress, to no avail."


For or against, I too think it will not happen, also given the fact that Bush/Cheney´s term is coming to an end anyway.

(What´s next? Barack/Clinton?, Fred Thompson?)



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   
He is a Traitor

Pure and simple

Semper



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
He is a Traitor

Pure and simple

Semper

Who?

If you mean Bowman then I think your wrong. Attacking Iran would cause America many many problems, it could be the beginning of the end, not attacking Iran would make them heroes, they will save your country.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Attacking Iraq was the biggest mistake since Vietnam, but I also disagree.

Not attacking Iran is the biggest mistake which could be made.

Bush has destroyed the credibility of his office, just when it needs it.

Sorry to my friend dgtempe, but I don't advocate any kind of invasion or occupation. I do advocate taking out Iran's nuclear capability urgently.

Whatever the consequences and they will be huge, the consequences of not doing so will be enormous. Iran is a very dangerous nation with nuclear capability. It is known to have supplied Chinese arms to the Taliban and it would not hesitate to supply nuclear weapons to al Qaeda, nor even to use them itself.

Recently a senior Iranian cleric issued a fatwah against the west, blessing the use of nuclear weapons against the infidel (in other words, us).

[edit on 17-9-2007 by sy.gunson]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:59 AM
link   
It would be the end of the United States as we know it if they attack Iran, so I applaud what this guy is doing. He's no traitor, Semper. He's a patriot of your country. He's not one to let the U.S. lose it's credibility and probably it's independence for a war that will definitely be lost if they do wage it.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
He is a Traitor


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. This is the basis for one of the most stable and reliable civilian led militaries in the world. Everyone has opinions, just because yours differ from mines does not give you the right to call for treason…



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   
So Westpoint, are you saying that all those German officers tried and hanged after WWII because they followed orders were killed illegally?
Is the "I was only following orders" excuse now acceptable?

If the "commander in chief" says he is the decider and takes the decision making process away from oversight and debate then in my books that's a dictatorship. Keeping the government in check is the responsibility of the armed forces and the people, your own constitution was built on that idea.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
So Westpoint, are you saying that all those German officers tried and hanged after WWII because they followed orders were killed illegally?


Of course not, choosing to file for a relieve of duty due to personal objection is completely legitimate and acceptable. However taking active measures to disrupt and go against the chain of command and higher authority is treason and illegal. Although I will admit the first point is not as cut and dry as I would like...

One more thing, debating constitutional theory it nice and everything but in reality following the chain of command is the foundation that provides the US military such, credibility, stability and capability. So I'm relived to say what is suggested in that article will likely never happen, our career guys are too well trained and disciplined for such tactics.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by semperfortis
He is a Traitor


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. This is the basis for one of the most stable and reliable civilian led militaries in the world. Everyone has opinions, just because yours differ from mines does not give you the right to call for treason…

That way of thinking is very wrong, and worrying. If someone gave you the order to go in bomb some building with families, children, women.
Or go in and execute them, would you follow it, because you shouldn't question the order?

Or better yet, if you were given an order (e.g attacking Iran) that would put your family, your people, your country at high risk, would you follow it, would you accept that YOU were the reason that your country is now basically messed up, and is probably the beginning of the end for that country.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Who? Bush or Cheney? Or Both? They should both be put on trial as war criminals!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23legitimate and acceptable. However taking active measures to disrupt and go against the chain of command and higher authority is treason and illegal.

So, Westpoint, would it be considered treasonous to "disrupt and go against" if the higher authority is (hypothetically, of course) a madman bent on world domination, obviously in the pockets of corporate America?

I, as an ex-military member, would consider it patriotic and heroic.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
This is wrong on many aspects. Let me first say that it will be unfair for the civilian population to expect the military to do the work that belongs to elected officials.

If you don't like the work of your elected official then wait for the next election and kick them out of office, BUSH was relected! You guys put him there! Now is up to the military to refuse orders and arrest him?

I would choose not to follow an illegal order if it was given to me, but my actions will be based on my personal view and in no way I will go out of my way to disrupt activities, cause a mutiny or rebel again civilian authority elected by the people.

If the people of the U.S. Don't want war against Iran, you guys need to do better than complain in blog sites. Start a movement for peace or join one, get some overwhelming public support that would make make any politician of thinking about approving or supporting such an act to think more than twice about it. Let's your voices be heard.

But to ask the military to do the job that civilian population did not do is wrong and unfair to those that are serving.

Why Bush got reelected? Why he has not been impeached? If anything as a service member I will say that I'm pretty disapointed at the civilian population that elects this people to later complain about it. It should be a lesson to all of you that don't go out and vote, a lesson to all of you that don't check what you candidate stands for and still vote for him. A lesson to all those that don't check what grous are giving money to this people campaings, follow the money and you will find out what interest grous are pushing any candidate.

This is not a military mess this is a mess brought to you by no one but yourselves. Learn from it, if you gets disapointed and feel that your military let you down cause we choose to follow our orders, always remember that you guys put us in this position, you elected them and if we are killing other people and getting killed also is because the official that you choose to put up there.

Learn your lesson please.


[edit on 17-9-2007 by Bunch]

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by subject x
I, as an ex-military member, would consider it patriotic and heroic.


If, hypothetically speaking of course, the case was so clear then so would I. However it would still be treasonous and illegal. The chain of command should almost never be broken, and yes I am aware of the exceptions. However the decision to go against it should not be based on public opinion or any such factor.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
This is wrong from both point of views IMO, and I will elaborate.
Going against the chain of commands will ultimatley become a civil war between both sides, one is the people following the president, and two are the people who appose him.
Attacking Iran would be a mistake, but is the mistake worth risking?
No one knows the agendas of either side, Iran could be giving weapons to terrorists, or they might not be. NO EVIDENCE!
So basically attacking Iran would go against the moral ethics of the United States, if they have evidence of Iran backing up insurgents then let them present itin a world court, infront of every nation. Or better yet. why not just debate with the Iranian leader like he is asking?



Presumption of innocence is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations. It states that no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted by a court. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to convince the court that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In principle, the defense does not have to 'prove' anything. However, the defense may present evidence tending to show that there is a doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
WIKI



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
IMO, maybe Iran is purposely trying to provoke us to attack them so other countries around the world would feel sorry for them and basically start an anti-American influence or even WW3. If this is true, then this is the same strategy Al Qaeda used when they hit us on 9/11 to try to provoke us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq so the Middle East could change into an anti-American dominance.





new topics
top topics
 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join