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

reply to post by semperfortis


I have to step on this one now, but I asked the question to my now retired Marine husband and he said that if a soldier is given an order and he feels that is against his believes and think is morally wrong he has the right to refused at the spot and then wait for court Martial to fight his point of view.

That is all my friend.

Grover,

No matter how you spin it, your wrong...

Marg,

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is clear...

Whether you and Gover wish to not believe it...

Here are the FACTS...

ALL, that is ALL Commissioned Officers and Enlisted Personnel are subject to the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

That is a FACT

Article 90, of the UCMJ STATES

809. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;
shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
UCMJ

"I have bolded the text for emphasis"

Now you may argue if the order is lawful, but that puts the burden of proof on the soldier that has disobeyed the order and the final decision will be decided by the Courts Martial

As I stated

You may not like it, but Grover putting his spin on it and you saying it is not so, in no way changes it...

Semper

MArg,

As covered in a previous posting,

The 3 types of orders a Soldier is allowed to disobey are..

1. Illegal
2. Immoral
3. Unethical

BUT

And it's a BIG BUT

The Soldier better be able to prove, in a courts martial, that the order he disobeyed falls within one of those categories. That decision falls to a Military Tribunal and NOT to any individual

Semper

Some of you may not like the way the Military is run, or the way the Military dispenses justice.

That is perfectly fine as your opinion.

However, infractions of the UCMJ, such as disobeying a direct order, is covered completely....

Once one takes the Oath, they voluntarily submit themselves to the UCMJ and are subject to it until they EAS.. (End of Active Service)

No amount of Liberal spin can change what is written in the UCMJ. If you check the link I provided, you will find the complete UCMJ for your leisure to read...

It really is clear

The President is considered the highest ranking Commissioned Officer in the Military, (Supreme Commander)
To disobey his order, makes one subject to the specified article of the UCMJ

Semper

For further clarification

You have asked for our opinion as to the scope of the President's authority to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We conclude that the President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (the "WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

Our analysis falls into four parts. First, we examine the Constitution's text and structure. We conclude that the Constitution vests the President with the plenary authority, as Commander in Chief and the sole organ of the Nation in its foreign relations, to use military force abroad - especially in response to grave national emergencies created by sudden, unforeseen attacks on the people and territory of the United States. Second, we confirm that conclusion by reviewing the executive and judicial statements and decisions interpreting the Constitution and the President's powers under it. Third, we analyze the relevant practice of the United States, including recent history, that supports the view that the President has the authority to deploy military force in response to emergency conditions such as those created by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Finally, we discuss congressional enactments that, in our view, acknowledge the President's plenary authority to use force to respond to the terrorist attack on the United States.

Our review establishes that all three branches of the Federal Government - Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary - agree that the President has broad authority to use military force abroad, including the ability to deter future attacks.
War Powers Act

Hence he is tasked with the title of Commander in Chief

Semper

reply to post by BlueRaja



No I did not miss the point. Courts have no business in WAR period. This is a seperation of powers issue. POTUS is commander in chief. There is no other authority in the chain of command. Jag was designed to handle wife beatng and stealng someone's dog.

Congress has no authority either, only purse strings, and even then POTUS can just launch and attack anyway in the interest of national security.

The court system is not even a equal branch.

Illegal... Immoral.... unethical but not fattening? Thats interesting.

In a previous post a few pages back you asserted Semper that when we took the oath that we swore allegiance to the president and i am pointing out that in the oath's that you yourself quoted that, that is not so. We swore allegiance to the constitution and we swore to obey the president and I am trying to say that allegiance and obedience is not the same thing.

"An oath of allegiance is an oath whereby a subject or citizen acknowledges his/her duty of allegiance and swears loyalty to his monarch or country. In many modern oaths of allegiance, allegiance is sworn to the Constitution. In particular, in the United States presidents, judges, and military personnel are under an oath to the constitution."

from wikipedia

as heroic as it would be to have the courage to not launch the missile..being in the Navy that I was in, the people that are trained to be in those positions 1. can easily be replaced and 2. would more than likely follow blindly any order given. You are trained that the decisions are not your responsibility. Dont get me wrong there are alot of smart people in the military, but there are also alot of not so bright ones either. the likelyhood of an order like that not being followed is close to 0..unfortunately

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

www.newsvine.com...

The source you linked stated:


"The deputy commander of Iran's air force said Wednesday that plans have been drawn up to bomb Israel if the Jewish state attacks Iran,"


End quote.


In other words, Iran would bomb Israel if Israel bombs Iran.


Iran are warning Israel that if Israel attacks them, Iran will not take it lying down, they will strike back.


The same way as America would not take China or Russia bombing them, America would (presumably) bomb China or Russia in return.


It's not therefore, simply 'Iran will bomb Israel' full stop.


Only if Israel bomb Iran.

[edit on 20-9-2007 by Regensturm]

Semper, I know that the POTUS is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. I'm not disagreeing with you. You admit that there are 3 reasons for a soldier refusing an order. We agree. What are you disagreeing with me about?

I'm not spinning anything, I'm just stating the facts.

Anarchy is hatred of human authority; atheism of divine authority-two sides of the same whole. - Macpherson

Anarchy is the choking, sweltering, deadly, and killing rule of no rule; the consecration of cupidity and braying of folly and dim stupidity and baseness, in most of the affairs of men. Slop-shirts attainable three half- pence cheaper by the ruin of living bodies and immortal souls. - Carlyle

We are not where, or who we are, by defying every right and rule that we so please, where nor when. We are, rather, where and who we are, because we have established right & goodly rules such that we do not fail ourselves, our forefathers nor or children.
I've survived two major wars & several other "diplomatic indiscretions." I dare say that we have the very best system of government & military means. When mistakes are made, they are addressed forthwith. If those ends do not suffice, we work them out within our system of DEMOCRACY. We have order, principles, & process. If you are unhappy with such a system, you have two choices: 1. Leave. 2. Change the system.
Thomas Jefferson once said, "America is an experiment in democracy." In conclusion, I would hope this experiment continues, & we WILL ourselves to reason, such that we may respect the rights & liberties of each other.

one thing that Semper and others have overlooked is, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK FOR AN ORDER IN WRITING, you may not disobey and order, but you may ask for it in writing, which if the oder is the least bit hinky, will NOT be put in writing which gets you off the hook, the order is withdrawn. THIS applies EVEN IN COMBAT......

so if an order is given that you do not think is correct, ask for it it in writing... at least that way the Officer in charge cannot say he didn't order it in the first place. Officers KNOW this, no all enlisted do..

edit to add, if the superior refuses to put it in writing you are no longer duty bound to follow the order as given

[edit on 20-9-2007 by thedigirati]

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by semperfortis
He is a Traitor

Agree, he should be arrested and tried for conspiracy to commit treason...

Absolutely.

Oh .. and we are already at war with Iran. We have been for a long time. A proxy war with Iran is being fought in Iraq AND Iran has been moving covertly (and not so covertly) on the international scene against us for a very long time.

Anyone remember those massive rallys and speeches that Iran sponsored - featuring Chavez from Venezuela - calling for an end to America, etc etc etc??????

Originally posted by patriot jim
Well I think the USA is a dangerous country, too

:shk:

Originally posted by thedigirati
The POTUS swore an oath to defend the constitution of the US, then called it a G*ddamned piece of paper, that alone should have gotten him thrown out of office IMO.

Then Clinton should have been thrown out for saying 'Ill rule by executive order if I have to'.

Originally posted by Project_Silo
The U.S needs to be held accountable,...

How about holding Iran accountable for a change.

Originally posted by grover
The large majority of the American people are against this war ...

You mean a war with Iran? Sure. That's because -
1 - A full out war (like you are thinking of) probably isn't needed - YET.
2 - Most likely change in Iran will come from inside.

But the subject is Bowman and his call for impeachment. Was Bowman correct to say what he did, or was he wrong.

Originally posted by grover
War, and all military actions are nothing more than a failure of diplomacy and reason...

Sometimes. But there are other times when diplomacy and reason CAN NOT be used. Such is the case with radical islamic terrorists. There is no way to reason with them because they are completely unreasonable AND crazy (imho). There are also times when war and other military actions are needed in the case of self defense - such as defending ourselves against Hilter. You will see this again when we have to defend against Chavez.

Yes grover, it's coming.

Originally posted by bigbert81
Dude, you've gotta get past the traitor bit. Even the military is told that if an order is unlawful, they have the full right to not do it. .

Going to war with Iran wouldn't be 'unlawful'. It would be self defense.

Ya'll best say - going to war with Iran AND Venezuela. Chavez is in the back pocket of Iran and they will definately use Venezuela in a war against us.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I don't consider the present Bush administration to be the ``elected government``.

Sorry Vitchilo, that's exactly what it is. Much as Hillary will be the elected president soon. Sometimes you get stuck with people you don't want.

Originally posted by forestlady
When you join the military, you must take an oath which says that you will defend your country and your constitution, NOT the president.

... and you take an oath to obey the orders of those in your chain of command. POTUS is the Commander in Chief. If POTUS says 'go to war because there is a threat against us' ... then soldiers MUST go to war. Period. You can't cherry pick which orders to follow.

Originally posted by grover
Clinton's "crime" simply does not compare ...

It may not 'compare', but it is still a crime. No need to put quotes around it. Seriously grover, sexual harrassment and telling lies under oath in a harrassment case is serious business. Not as serious as sending people to war, but it is still serious. Especially to us women ....

Then Clinton should have been thrown out for saying 'Ill rule by executive order if I have to'[/quote'].

That is totally out of context though..... Clinton was referring to congresses refusal to pass a budget and the resulting back to back shut downs of government.

The large majority of the American people are against this war ...

THIS war... the war in Iraq they are sick of and they are sick of the notion of war without end.

Originally posted by grover
War, and all military actions are nothing more than a failure of diplomacy and reason...

ALWAYS... does not mean that they are sometimes necessary as in WW2 but this is not necessary, nor was the invasion of Iraq.

It may not 'compare', but it is still a crime. No need to put quotes around it. Seriously grover, sexual harrassment and telling lies under oath in a harrassment case is serious business. Not as serious as sending people to war, but it is still serious. Especially to us women ....

A case that was thrown out BTW for lack of proof. I am not defending sexual harassment (but any form of sexual attention would be welcome these days

and I am a man) but the Paula Jones case should have never gotten that far anyway and it was none of Ken Starr's business who Clinton was doing or not.

FlyersFan, I'm not at all saying the military shouldn't obey commands. Of course they should. BUT what I am saying is that if it is unlawful, etc. you are supposesd to refuse.

This thread is not about whether the Iran war is lawful/unlawful, or whether or not the military is good/bad or if Clinton should have been impeached or not.
It's about Bowman saying that he hopes the upper branches of the military refuse an order to preemptively bomb Iran using nukes. I'm not commenting on any of those topics, just saying that there is an exception to obeying orders. Hopefully, it would be a rare thing to refuse an order.
Nor is it about disobeying an order because you FEEL it is wrong. It's pretty clear-cut, it must be unlawful, immoral or a war crime in order to refuse the order.
That's all I'm saying.

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.........
[edit on 17-9-2007 by Bunch]

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Bunch]

I must honestly say I agree with you 100% on this particular statement Bunch, I don't agree on alot of stuff you said but this quote brings it home, we sat back and not once, but twice let them sucker us with these fraud elections and did nothing but complain and whine. This is a very harse lesson that we have learned, stop tuning in to Paris Hilton, and start reading and researching to these dudes true agenda, hell I would treat the presidency like any other job, you mess in the first 90 days then you are outta here.......lol. But seriously we need to become more aware as a nation and get out of this sheep mentality. That's my 2 cents.

Originally posted by thedigirati


edit to add, if the superior refuses to put it in writing you are no longer duty bound to follow the order as given

[edit on 20-9-2007 by thedigirati]

For the benefit of the rest of us, could you give us the reference you are using(i.e. regulation, chapter, paragraph). Based upon 15yrs active duty experience, I can say if you tried that, you'd be in some hot water.

That would be the highest level of insubordination, which is actually punishable by death.

Soliders take an oath to obey orders no matter the circumstances.

Imagine an Officer holding a gun to your head as you sit at the command terminal, and you would be shot if you did not follow through with the order, then the Officer would assume command and initiate the command.

Originally posted by semperfortis
He is a Traitor

Pure and simple

Semper

Simple indeed. I consider a man who would launch a "first strike" nuclear attack on innocent people to be far worse than a traitor to his country. That type of man is a traitor to humanity.

There is no virtue in blind obedience. A soldier should always ask himself whether the orders he has received are moral; and whether he should, as a human being, choose to follow them.

Have any of you... especially you Semper ever considered the honor implicit in following your conscious and saying no to an order that you consider illegal, immoral, unethical (not to mention fattening ) in the military.

Would you be so strident in your devotion to the presidency and his orders if it were, say, Bill Clinton or his "wife"?