It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 14
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regensturm

The hijackers were purportedly Saudi, from wealthy families, from a wealthy nation. They did not live in a cave.


I was talking about the people who planned, orchestrated and financed the 9-11 attacks. Bin Laden, etc.




Well, actually, I can indeed tell you how it feels.


I'm from the UK.

In my childhood, my Grandparents, Aunt and Great Uncle all lived in London.


Every holiday, we used to all go and visit them, and travel around London.
It was at the height of the IRA campaign. We used to drive past bombed buildings not far from where my Nan lived.


A house that my Great Uncle used to walk past everyday turned out to be IRA bomb factory. We found out because it exploded and the police found all the gear inside.


We used to go to the popular spots of London, regardless of the IRA.


But never did we fear. Never did we paralyse ours and think what if?




These are excellent points. But in our case here in NY the fear is very well founded. Everyone knows NY is the #1 target.

Huge buildings were demolished, not just a bomb here and there. Also, was there ever the real threat of having a nuke (or bio/chem weapon) go off in your city?

I understand what you're saying and these are great points. The IRA seems like a very good comparison. I thinks its a little different though.

What if it was known that the IRA wanted to acquire a nuke, bio/chem weapon and they had sponsors who were actively developing a nuclear program? Such as the case of Iran and the terrorists.

They might call them dogs, etc. (Sunni and Shia), but don't they use each other when needed? (I'm not sure here, but thought they did.) Wasn't Bin Laden's son living in Iran? I don't know what the significance of that is, but seems strange to live in the land of your mortal enemies.




In 2003, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, wrote a letter to the US, offering a diplomatic relationship between Iran and the US, for Iran to stop it's support for Hezbollah, for Iran to give up it's nuclear programme, and to help the US against a common enemy: Al Qaeda.

The US Administration threw this away. An opportunity was missed.


I had no idea about this. If this is true, then we screwed up on many levels. (Have to look for more info on that, are there any referrences on the web?)

Good points, I appreciate it.

[edit on 19-9-2007 by Electro38]

[edit on 19-9-2007 by Electro38]




posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   
If there is an uprising within our own armed forces and the troops were to start refusing to execute their orders, that would set off a chain of events more catastrophic for this country than anything that could result from engaging Iranian targets.

This Bowman fellow who wrote this letter, is an utter and complete fool.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Just to those of you that continually "misquote" the oath one takes when entering into the service for the United States...

I just saw it on a previous post where a poster said that you take the oath to defend the Constitution and not the President...???

Well having taken the Oath and being somewhat familiar, I thought I would post the actual Oath here so that we may reference it in our debate...



Here is the oath for enlisted


"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).


And commissioned


"I, [insert name here], do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."


The enlisted oath is pretty cut and dry

In the Officers oath, it is the "Faithfully Discharge the Duties of the Office" ...

One of the duties of the office is to obey the orders of those appointed above you..

It really is pretty simple

Semper


Where does it say we are required to defend the President? Where does it say we should pledge allegiance to the President?
It doesn't.
There is a huge difference between defending one's constitution and obeying orders from the President.
I can't believe you don't understand the difference. Every other war vet I know understands that you defend the Constitution and in the event you are issued an illegal, immoral, or unethical order, you are DUTY-BOUND to disobey that order. All the military personnel I've known (which is alot; I come from an extremely military family, was married to a Vietnam vet, and have friends in the Army) understands this. It doesn't matter if it's the President who issues the orders, you are required to disobey an order that is any of the above that I listed.
Preemptive striking with nuclear weapons, without the other country committing an act of war, is a war crime.

Quit trying to twist words and confuse folks, Semper. Your arguments don't hold water and I think you know it.

Again, yes, you are required to follow orders; but if it's an illegal, etc. order, then the duty to disobey supercedes the need to follow orders.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Electro38

These are excellent points. But in our case here in NY the fear is very well founded. Everyone knows NY is the #1 target.



London was a target for the IRA, constantly. I don't know if NY will be attacked again, but I think occupying Iraq does not help matters.



Originally posted by Electro38
Huge buildings were demolished, not just a bomb here and there. Also, was there ever the real threat of having a nuke (or bio/chem weapon) go off in your city?



Do a web search on the Manchester IRA bombing. The centre of Manchester literally had to be rebuilt.


I think that the longer the IRA bombing had gone on, the possibility was certainly out there that as the IRA grew more frustrated with the political situation, the more they may have turned to a nuke or bio or chem bomb.


Certainly, they had wealthy backers, particulary amongst some members of the Irish American community in the US.


By the time the IRA called a ceasefire, they were very sophisticated at making bombs, and powerful ones at that.



Originally posted by Electro38I understand what you're saying and these are great points. The IRA seems like a very good comparison. I thinks its a little different though.

What if it was known that the IRA wanted to acquire a nuke, bio/chem weapon and they had sponsors who were actively developing a nuclear program? Such as the case of Iran and the terrorists.



Well, as I mentioned, the IRA had wealthy American benefactors from a country with a nuclear programme.


The British government knew attacking the US for this would bring pain worse than the IRA's bombing.


The aim being therefore to foil such attempts by the IRA to carry out attacks, and eventually, coming to the political table.



Originally posted by Electro38
They might call them dogs, etc. (Sunni and Shia), but don't they use each other when needed?



Shia Islamists may co-operate with Sunni Nationalists and secularists (because they are not extremist in their religion), and Sunni Islamists may co-operate with Shia secularist and nationalists (because they are not extremist in their religion), but Sunni Islamists and Shia Islamists, who take their religion as a way of life and how to act will not co-operate.



Originally posted by Electro38
Wasn't Bin Laden's son living in Iran? I don't know what the significance of that is, but seems strange to live in the land of your mortal enemies.



I would take that with a pinch of salt, but I think it's wise to remember not all of Bin Laden's family approve of Osama's behaviour.


Bin Laden's family were businessmen and women, and religion came second.


If Bin Laden's son is in Iran, and shares his dad's views, it does not mean the Iranians like him being there.


The same as having Islamic clerics in Britain who espouse all sorts, it does not mean the UK likes having them there.


Don't forget Iran is a big country. If he is there, has the same views as he did, and If the Iranians are hunting for him, they might not find him.





Originally posted by Electro38
I had no idea about this. If this is true, then we screwed up on many levels. (Have to look for more info on that, are there any referrences on the web?)

Good points, I appreciate it.

[edit on 19-9-2007 by Electro38]




Some time looking at the web searches should turn it up eventually, but some if it is probably really buried away.


I have read about it quite a number of times.

[edit on 19-9-2007 by Regensturm]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by lee anoma
 


I have always being intrigued on why people bring past episodes of our history to critize actions or issues that we face on the present.

How does that help us resolve the current conflict?


I respectfully submit that if you had studied history, you would know that the Geneva Conventions are NOT part of the Constitution, they weren't written until after WW2, because of war crimes. (Something you alluded to in an earlier post)



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Regensturm
 


I guess the situations are very similar.

Did the IRA stuff stop because their leaders got involved in the political system of the UK?

I found an article describing the building of a coalition in the gulf. All we see on the news here in the US is OJ (he was arrested again).
www.newsvine.com...

What a job that guy has (Fallon).

Also, the French Foreign minister, said we should prepare for war if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon. Then he went and changed his advice:

www.newsvine.com...

You would have no idea any of this stuff was happening if you watch the new media. You'll know all there is about Brittney's custody battle with K-Fed, and OJ of course.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Electro38


I guess the situations are very similar.

Did the IRA stuff stop because their leaders got involved in the political system of the UK?



Yes, Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness (who were at one time in the IRA) agreed to The Good Friday Peace Agreement of 1998, which devolved power from Westminster ruling Northern Ireland to that of Stormont, which has a DUP-Sinn Fein majority.


There's been bumps and setbacks, but to see the DUP (want NI to stay part of the UK, and said horrible things about Catholics in the past) and Sinn Fein (Want Northern Ireland to be part of Ireland, not UK) share power is still quite a revelation.



Originally posted by Electro38
I found an article describing the building of a coalition in the gulf. All we see on the news here in the US is OJ (he was arrested again).
www.newsvine.com...

What a job that guy has (Fallon).

Also, the French Foreign minister, said we should prepare for war if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon. Then he went and changed his advice:

www.newsvine.com...

You would have no idea any of this stuff was happening if you watch the new media. You'll know all there is about Brittney's custody battle with K-Fed, and OJ of course.




If the west make statements regarding a possible war, it's buried. If the Iranians make statement regarding a possible war, it's headline news and the headlines scream "IRAN MAKES THREATS".


That's just the way it is.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


My point was that if you are going to take some sort of stand(be it misguided or not) you-

A. need to realize the consequences

B. not whine when you face the consequences

I agree that if you feel an order is immoral/unethical, you should bring that up, and if the order stands, then do what your conscience tells you.
On the otherhand, it's not up to you to decide based on your opinion what is legal, if something has already been determined to be legal by JAG lawyers, etc... That's why soldiers are supposed to be apolitical, at least in official capacities. Differences of opinion aren't justifications for indiscipline or insubordination. If you still can't in good conscience obey an order, then you need to have the moral courage to face whatever consequences may result from your disobedience.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

I agree that if you feel an order is immoral/unethical, you should bring that up, and if the order stands, then do what your conscience tells you.
On the otherhand, it's not up to you to decide based on your opinion what is legal, if something has already been determined to be legal by JAG lawyers, etc...


This entire train of thought is very dangerous. Soldiers follow orders, period. JAG does not belong in combat whatsoever. "Rules-of-engagement" belong on TV not in real combat.

Kill the enemy period. If the enemy is hiding behind so called "civilians" too bad. Shoot anyway. Soon the enemy learns it wont stop the good guys from killing them. If the terrorist hide in home surrounded by "so called" civilians, drop a bigger bomb.

"rules or civility" in WAR is insane.

[edit on 9/19/0707 by astmonster]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Regensturm
 



Good post, thanks. (I'm actually learning something)



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Well, you may consider if Iran is that big a threat and to who?

Certainly, if they advance their technology why should they not have the right to nuclear power? Look at Pakistan and India...

I think the ones that feel most threatened by the nuclear technology advance in Iran is Israël, and I don´t blame them given the previous statements made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

If he truly is out to destroy Israël and build a bomb, he is going about it the wrong way. I personally think he is not trying to build a bomb and certainly not will do anything foolish like trying to use a nuclear device against any of the Middle Eastern countries, but he sure is using bad PR.

My final thought is that any country should have the right to technical advancement to provide better lives for its people, including Iran.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
"Iran Draws Up Plans To Bomb Israel"

www.newsvine.com...



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Electro38
 


And we have plans drawn up to bomb EVERYBODY!!!



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Electro38
"Iran Draws Up Plans To Bomb Israel"

www.newsvine.com...


Hrm. If you read the article it simply states that IF Israël attacks Iran, they will respond by bombing Israël, and that the response plans to do so are being made.

So: IF Israël decides to ATTACK Iran, Iran will respond by bombing them.

What exactly is strange or disturbing about drawing up a plan to defend you country against an agressor?

Nice headline by the media B.T.W. Almost as good as "Iranian President Wants To Wipe Israël Off The Map".



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 



I'm just posting as interesting news. It seems like things are heating up a little.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth4hire

Originally posted by Electro38
"Iran Draws Up Plans To Bomb Israel"

www.newsvine.com...


Hrm. If you read the article it simply states that IF Israël attacks Iran, they will respond by bombing Israël, and that the response plans to do so are being made.

So: IF Israël decides to ATTACK Iran, Iran will respond by bombing them.

What exactly is strange or disturbing about drawing up a plan to defend you country against an agressor?

Nice headline by the media B.T.W. Almost as good as "Iranian President Wants To Wipe Israël Off The Map".


Thanks, I know what the article says.

There's nothing "strange" about it but it is disturbing in the way the war rhetoric is increasing. Not just from Iran, but the French, USA, etc.

That's all. I'm not saying "Iran bad" "USA good". (I wish we can all get beyond that).

(Matter of fact, I think I'll add that to my signature.)



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by astmonster

Originally posted by BlueRaja

I agree that if you feel an order is immoral/unethical, you should bring that up, and if the order stands, then do what your conscience tells you.
On the otherhand, it's not up to you to decide based on your opinion what is legal, if something has already been determined to be legal by JAG lawyers, etc...


This entire train of thought is very dangerous. Soldiers follow orders, period. JAG does not belong in combat whatsoever. "Rules-of-engagement" belong on TV not in real combat.

Kill the enemy period. If the enemy is hiding behind so called "civilians" too bad. Shoot anyway. Soon the enemy learns it wont stop the good guys from killing them. If the terrorist hide in home surrounded by "so called" civilians, drop a bigger bomb.

"rules or civility" in WAR is insane.

[edit on 9/19/0707 by astmonster]


I think you missed my point. I was saying that if legal scholars have analyzed something and blessed off on it, it's not the individual's job at that point to decide the legality based on their opinion. In other words, a soldier can't take it upon themself to decide "I disagree with this, therefore I think it's illegal, and I'm not gonna do it." On the flip side, if the soldier is told to do something illegal or immoral, it is their job at that point to not follow that order.

As for rules of engagement, US forces are not obligated to hold fire in the scenarios you mentioned. The situation is known as "being in the fray."
If civilians linger in a combat zone, they lose protection under the law, and are considered to be in the fray. Somalia would be a good example where the warlords were using civilians to look for US positions and report back, or as human shields from which to fire from behind.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by forestlady
 


Actually with regard to preemptive strikes, you may want to read up a bit-

www.cdi.org...

The right and obligation of a governing authority to use force to defend its citizens against an aggressor predates by centuries modern nation-states and modern international law. Christian just war theory, upon which the modern laws of armed conflict are based, recognized such a duty as early as the 4th Century. Since their emergence in the 16th Century, modern nation-states have been believed to hold such a right. While aggression is traditionally considered unlawful, and self-defense lawful, more problematic is the question of whether a first-strike could ever be considered a defensive act rather than an act of aggression. The right of anticipatory self-defense assumes that an aggressor is poised to strike, and that one acts defensively in anticipation of the attack rather than waiting for the attack to occur. Traditionally, it was deemed theoretically possible that even a first-strike could be deemed defensive in nature, and lawful, if it was to forestall an attack that was imminent.

The most widely accepted modern standard for anticipatory self-defense was articulated by U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster in diplomatic correspondence with his British counterpart over the Caroline incident (often mischaracterized as the Caroline "case") and consisted of two prongs. One was that the need to use force in anticipatory self-defense must first rise to the level of being a necessity, and one that is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. The other requirement was that the action taken must be proportionate to the threat and not be excessive.

With respect to preemption, the National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by U.S. President George W. Bush itself does not necessarily significantly challenge prevailing international law. It rests upon a standard doctrine of anticipatory self-defense, and explores the question of when an attack is imminent. On its face it does not seek to overturn the rule, but to explore how the rule and its underlying purpose could be applied in particular situations not existing in the past.

The NSS focuses on several major considerations, one being that the imminence of a terrorist attack is much harder to detect, another being the fact that innocents are often targeted, and the third being the devastating impact of weapons of mass destruction (WMD.) While the text in the NSS relating to preemption does not necessarily limit its scope to WMD, it comes in a section dedicated to WMD.

Some commentators have suggested that WMD, and WMD proliferation, might be carved out as a special category under anticipatory self-defense. They argue that the right implied by anticipatory self-defense to act against a threat before it is "too late" may require setting a threshold in the context of WMD at some earlier point in the proliferation process, with that earlier point serving as the equivalent of the imminence of a threat. Such a point, it is argued, could represent the presence of a danger justifying a "defensive" first-strike, perhaps when accompanied by other factors such as a history of aggression, ties to terrorism, or certain criminal activities by the target regime.


www.commondreams.org...

"The president has the obligation to protect the country," said Douglas J. Feith, the Defense Department's undersecretary for policy. "And I don't think that there's anything in our Constitution that says that the president should not protect the country unless he gets some non-American's participation or approval of that."



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by forestlady
 


However you want to interpret it FL,

The FACT is that it is clear in it's intent and operative history..

The President is the SUPREME commander of the Armed Forces, the OATH requires that you obey the orders of those placed in superior ranks

No matter how you may skew it, or place your own personal interpretation on it, the OATH is clear and concise and requires no interpretation

Just because it does not say what you want it to, does not change it in any way..

The President Commands ALL the Military
The Oath Requires Obedience

Simple and direct

Semper



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
No matter how you spin it though semper... a soldier's ultimate allegiance is sworn to the constitution and not the president.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States"

from the enlisted man's oath you cited. You are right in it says you swear to obey, but you do not swear an oath of fidelity to the president... that is reserved for the constitution only.

AND in the officer's oath you cited nowhere does it mention the president or the swearing to obey him at all.

I find that quite interesting.

[edit on 19-9-2007 by grover]




top topics



 
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join