Sgt. Donald Buswell - American Patriot?

btw, I do know a thing or two about retaliation from higher ups in the workplace.

I was "laid off" my last job (really fired, but "laid off" is what the state called it) for an incident with a higher up. He asked my opinion about the filing system they had in place, and so I gave him my true opinion about it. I thought a few changes could make it better, and I thought there were things that were being done in an "overkill" fashion. He began to offer a counter argument for the current system, and I told him I could see what he was saying, still thought some changes could be made, but I'd continue to do it the current way if he wanted. He then proceeded to chew me out for not changing my opinion about the system. He then reported me to the Director of our Department, probably for "spreading dissent and disloyalty".:laugh: Needless to say, I was let go at the end of the week.

So, being in the corporate world, I do know what it's like to be punished for having an opinion. I didn't agree with the decision to fire me, and I don't agree with the decision to punish the Sgt.

 

As far as this poll goes, I believe the Sgt. is a patriot for serving in the military, not for sending the email. He is certainly no traitor for sending it.

The person who voted as such should know that the Sgt., if a real traitor, should be brought to trial, convicted, and executed. Is an email worthy of treason and execution?

"Traitor" is not a flippant term to be thrown around at anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

He is no traitor.

 

Thanx for getting back to this. I run hot with this issue, and I certainly didn't make things better with my words.:type:

But I support the UCMJ, and gladly put myself under it. Simply put, when you enlist, you are literally property of the government. You just can't have it any other way. I think most service folks would agree, the military wouldn't work with the constitution being the authority.

It's hard to be in the service, you get told what to do, where to go, who to shoot, and you don't get much 'splainin' with it. And when it comes time to do your job, you'd better be thinking. I was a radar tech, and I'm sure my schooling ran up almost into triple digits. For that, I've spent a total of nine months in the Persian Gulf, I've backed up Marines in Beruit, and a lot of us know more than one person who didn't come home. We do treat it like a club. It is an exclusive club, and we're extremely proud of each other, as well as ourselves, to be in it.

I guess I should just say, It's impossible to explain.

 

Bro. Curtis, that's really one of the best explanation's I've ever heard and I've heard it before from others. It's just impossible to explain yet easily understood by those who've been there.

 

There isn't anything in the UCMJ or all the regulations of the military that is contrary to the Constitution that I'm aware of. It's good to remember that all the "rights" defined in the Constitution are not exactly absolute at all times, in all places, or all situations. Likewise, the Constitution is hardly the full body of law to which we're subject. You can't go around saying you obey only the Constitution when you're subject to a host of local, state, and federal laws all derived from the power the people grant to their State and federal governments via State and federal Constitution.

For the military the key code - that deals with matters of justice - is the UCMJ. But beyond that there's a vast number of department directives, regulations, manuals, etc. that must be followed as well as orders of numerous type given at the unit level. Regulations - were are a form of permanent standing orders - and other orders - written or verbal - are given to carry out the business of war fighting, or preparing for war fighting, or doing all the things necessary to support it. When a member of the military does not follow the rules they're subject to being disciplined. A commander that does not maintain good discipline will themselves end up in trouble. That's exactly what we've seen at some high levels in the on-going war. They are responsible and accountable.

When there's a concern about something they order a command investigation designed to gather facts to see if there's a problem. (From the little bit of information I've seen on this case that's what was done with SGT Buswell's case.) If there's possible criminal acts involved a criminal investigation is also undertaken. (I didn't read this in SGT Buswell's case.) Sometimes these investigations result in no charges being made and sometimes they do. (That's what I'd really like to no about SGT Buswell's case.)

That's all necessary to maintain order and thereby effectiveness of the war fighting capabilities. The people that do this for a living - including the top leaders - are not idiots. They are professionals. We often have a negative view of people at the top of an organization but we fail to realize what they've been through to get there. Today's senior military leadership were the the junior officers and enlisted members of times past. Many have seen far more than those looking up to them ever will because most won't serve nearly as long.

Yet they are all people who willingly yield - even if required to serve by draft - certain personal liberties - rights the rest of us my retain - in to serve their nation so that the liberties we all enjoy may be preserved. There's no way to adequately compensate a person for doing that. That's why it's called "service". It's really nothing like working in a civilian enterprise where you can quit if you don't like what's going on or it gets to difficult or to risky for you. When you serve you promise to do whatever is necessary up to and including laying your life down for the cause you're sent to fight. You put yourself at the disposal of those appointed over you to carry out the missions they give to you. You put your trust in their judgment, training, and experience. Senior commanders do send warriors into "impossible" situations knowing full well many - and maybe all - will not survive in order to win. You do what has to be done and you don't debate it or question it.

Surely, there is the very rare case when a person might be commanded to do something clearly wrong - such as murdering a non-combatant - and in such case there is no obligation to carry out such an order. However, the person had better be correct about it before refusing any order.

 

I don't think he was charged with treason. I haven't read that anywhere.

 

I recommend reading "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts" for some good explanations regarding things like the aircraft impact at the Pentagon. I read most of it some time back but just don't remember all the details. My conclusion was that there's nothing about the events of 9/11 to suggest anything except the obvious evil deeds of the terrorists were behind it all.

 

The Constitution is the highest document in the land. If something goes against the Constitution, it is (or is supposed to be, anyway) illegal. I don't know what the Code says, but I do know that it does not trump the Constitution. If there is anything within it that does run contrary to the Constitution (maybe there isn't, I don't know), then the Code is wrong. The federal government, military or otherwise, does not have the authority to disregard Constitutional rights. State and local laws are a different ball of wax. They all get their authority from the Constitution, but the feds roles was supposed to be well defined. Obviously, it isn't anymore, unfortunately.

I don't have a problem with an internal investigation to find if the Sgt. did something illegal, but, if the investigation proved anything other than nothing amiss was done, the investigation was faulty.

Even if the Sgt. is granted no Constitutional rights, and even if he is subject only to the Code, and even if he has to follow every order without questioning it, no one here, or in any article I have read, has been able to demonstrate what order he broke.

What order did he break????

Was there a standing order not to send out emails about conspiracy theories?

What did he do wrong? Why won't anybody say?

They accused him of disloyalty, but I am wondering where they found that in his email. Disloyalty to whom? He didn't accuse the President of wrongdoing. He didn't accuse his COs of wrongdoing. He didn't accuse the military or the country of wrongdoing. Where is the disloyalty? Which "official" story is he supposed to believe? There are many from all sorts of folks and committees involved in government.

All else aside. I don't care about any of the other things we've all been arguing about. I just want to know what order he disobeyed in order to face such punishment.

 

I know, but the poll for this thread asked the question and someone answered, yes, he is a traitor. I'm just curious if that person would admit to their willingness to see the Sgt. tried and executed for treason over this email.

 

Bro James, what he did wrong is to encourage his fellows troops to mistrust their government and their leaders.

Would you, as an employee of a large company, have the right to spread all manner of crackpot theories and vicious rumors about upper management? You would be fired for sure. The military's version of firing is loss of pay and privileges, and possibly worse.

The 9/11 Commission and the NIST came to the conclusion that the towers and the Pentagon were struck by hijacked airliners, that the towers collapsed as a result of the impact and fires. That's it.

 

The poll is worthless.

"Neither" should have been a choice.

 

Having some military time myself, I will say he is entitled to his opinion. His mistake was using a government email account. They are monitored and it gives the impression of "an official position" to those reading the email. Especially since he was an intelligence analyst, his clearance was probably pretty high and his email account was probably not the run of the mill Army email account.

Had he been saying this across a hotmail account he'd be good to go (most likely). It appears to be Army endorsed because of the email address and that's where the problem arises.

 

We don't have all the facts on this case so it's impossible to say with certainty what SGT Buswell could have been charged with much less what, if anything, he was actually charged with. He may have simply be reassigned. He may have simply been reminded not to use the military's e-mail to send around his personal opinions. In my opinion, unless there's more to the story, he would not have been prosecuted for a serious offense leading to a dishonorable discharge or worse as the August 2006 implies. The nature of his offense seems much less than that to me. Perhaps the facts of the final disposition of this case will surface soon.

The August 2006 articles state he was being investigated based upon his sending the quoted e-mails and the content of them. The official response was "no comment" which is completely appropriate in such matters. The quoted "official" response from an unnamed source, and thereby unreliable, was that he "used his Government issued email account to send messages disloyal to the United States …". I doubt the "disloyal" part of this was an official position. The articles speculated about what might have been in store for SGT Buswell but there's no follow-up of what actually happened. This is rather typical in situations like this. It was a good story for the intended agenda unless it turned out not to be a story at all!

Regardless, and because you asked, based on what was reported in the articles, and assuming it was true, then it would seem me he could be charged under articles 92 or 134 of the UCMJ as follow:

UCMJ Art. 92. Failure to Obey Order or Regulation
"Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

UCMJ Art. 134 General Article
"Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

The August 2006 articles did reference the following regulations which could - we don't know for certain - define the "orders" he allegedly violated:

5 CFR 2635.705(a) Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch
Use of Official Time
"(a) Use of an employee's own time. Unless authorized in accordance with law or regulations to use such time for other purposes, an employee shall use official time in an honest effort to perform official duties. An employee not under a leave system, including a Presidential appointee exempted under 5 U.S.C. 6301(2), has an obligation to expend an honest effort and a reasonable proportion of his time in the performance of official duties."

DoD Directive 5500.7 Standards of Conduct
"B. Applicability and Scope
a. Although OGE regulations, reprinted in reference (t), do not apply to enlisted members of the Department of Defense, the provisions of 5 C.F.R. 2634 (reference (m)), 5 C.F.R. 2635 (reference (n)), 5 C.F.R. 2638 (reference (q)), and 5 C.F.R. 2641 (reference (r)) are determined to be appropriate for enlisted members and are hereby made applicable to enlisted members as if the terms "employee" and "special Government employee," as used in those OGE regulations, include enlisted members to the same extent that military officers are included within the meaning of those terms."

DoD Regulation 5500.7-R (Joint Ethics Regulation)
"2-301. Use of Federal Government Resources
[SIZE=+1]b. Other Federal Government Resources. Other than the use of Federal Government communications systems authorized in accordance with subsection 2-301.a. of this Regulation, above; the use of Federal Government resources as logistical support to non-Federal entity events in accordance with subsection 3-211 of this Regulation, below; and the use of Federal Government time authorized in accordance with subsection 3-300 of this Regulation, below; Federal Government resources, including personnel, equipment, and property, shall be used by DoD employees for official purposes only ..."

So, in short and from the information available, it seems he messed up by distributing his personal thoughts through the military's e-mail system and while on "official" time. You can get into serious trouble for that in the civilian work environment as well!
[/SIZE]