Donald Buswell is correct that all U.S. military service personnel from the lowest to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are to defend the U.S. Constitution even if it means disregarding all orders of the ostensible President of the United States, George W. Bush.
George W. Bush is not the law. His office-holding is illegitimate.
Furthermore, if preserving, protecting, and defending that Constitution requires, they are to arrest any and all civilians who are subverting that Constitution by illegal (unconstitutional) means. That's the mundane law.
I'm not for the mundane law over the divine law, but I'm for it over what is even lower: The lawlessness (not anarchism — rejection of coercive control — but willful immorality) of George W. Bush and his clique.
Thursday, May 15 2008 - Stories by Topic
Free At Last — Army Intelligence Analyst Buswell, 'The 9/11 NCO,' Speaks Out
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
By Stephen C. Webster, Austin Bureau Chief
AUSTIN, Texas — On Aug. 2, 2006, Sergeant First Class Donald Buswell had his life forever changed by an e-mail.
During his 21 years in the Army, SFC Buswell served in both Iraq conflicts, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Korea. In 2004, Buswell sustained numerous shrapnel injuries from a rocket attack, after attempting to save two Iraqis who were left burning from explosions on a dirt road adjacent Saddam's palace.
SFC Buswell, a decorated soldier, is by numerous measures a patriot who willingly and regularly risked his life in service to the United States. Unfortunately, the United States Army did not see it that way.
On that August day in 2006, Buswell received an e-mail which claimed to refute the "liberal" idea that a jet aircraft cannot vaporize. The e-mail's author intended to support the 9/11 Commission's claim that the plane which hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 literally atomized. It was sent to 34 people in the compartmentalized information facility at Ft. Sam Houston. Its allegation was not one Buswell could let pass unanswered.
His response, found in The Iconoclast's first story about SFC Buswell – published Aug. 21, 2006 – refuted the allegation that airplanes can vaporize, and urged his fellow soldiers to support a new investigation into the attacks; to question the official story and "demand answers."
The next day, he was denied entry into his place of work. Soon thereafter, the Army informed him that he was under investigation. In the following days, he was fired from his job, demoted, ordered to undergo a mental health examination, and accused by Col. Luke S. Green, chief of staff at US Army North (Fifth Army), of "making statements disloyal to the United States."
"When the stuff about [WTC complex owner] Larry Silverstein came up, when he said on TV to 'pull' WTC 7, then seeing building seven falling in on itself with no apparent motivation to fall down ... You know, I used to be an EOD [Explosive Ordinance Disposal] in the Army, so I know a bit about how explosives blow up – you know, fast burn explosives, slow burn explosives, I know what the yields are, went through the Army's training on it – and that building was demolished. It was intentional, the middle caved in first, then the whole thing fell in on itself.
"And with the twin towers, well, when I first saw it on TV, live of course, and again and again on video over the years, I at first resisted my instinct that there were bombs in the buildings. I was like, 'That's too much for me to handle. I don't want to believe that, because it would mean that possibly people in my government did that, or high up corporations, or organized criminals, or ... Someone on the inside.'
"And if they did put the bombs in the buildings and they were razed from inside, then what about the passenger manifests from those four planes? And what about the video tapes? And what about the perfect passport of Mohammed Atta flying out of the burning building and landing in the rubble? That's just unbelievable ... Doesn't make sense. But this information is coming from my government, so it has to have been spun.
"When I came back from Desert Storm in 1991, they announced the first of the big draw down plans. I wanted to stay in, so I moved around to a couple places in Germany, and eventually got transferred to Ft. Hood. I must have been there 12 years before getting a transfer to Ft. Sam Houston's intelligence facility.
"My logic and reasoning on this matter is sound. I've been looking at this thing for years, and there's just no possible way the official story is accurate. The Pentagon is not a hardened structure; it was built during World War II. It is a weak structure. So linking the alleged plane at the Pentagon with this F4 jet angered me. It was insulting to me.
"I didn't tailor the response in an offensive way. I simply said, 'If the Pentagon were hit by a plane, there would be a 190-foot wingspan impact on the building, which there was not. There would be two large engine holes in the building, which there was not. There'd be tail wreckage, bodies and debris everywhere, but there wasn't.
"Compare the impact hole at either World Trade Center tower to the impact hole at the Pentagon. At the WTC, it looked like a silhouette of a plane, right through steel. If a plane hit the Pentagon, there would be a similar silhouette, a plane punching through concrete. But there wasn't. It was just a 16-foot hole. That just doesn't add up.
"When you study this subject like I have, you uncover things from time to time that make you say, 'wow.' You find things that just add fuel to the fire. When I wrote that e-mail, I didn't know this at the time, but on Sept. 10, 2001, SECDEF Rumsfeld said in a press conference, 'Hey, we've lost $2.3 trillion dollars.'
"Two point three trillion dollars?!? Most of us can't even imagine that sort of money. So then I started thinking, 'What part of the Pentagon was hit?' Turns out, it was the comptroller, the accounting department. That part of the Pentagon. I mean, I'm not making this up! This is genuine. We keep finding new things about 9/11 that weakens the government's story. And each time it gets weakened, every three or four months or so, I'm just stunned that we, as a Republic, aren't doing something about this. Where is the outrage? At the gas pump?"
"Then the security manager came in with a folder in his hand with my name on it. We went in the back and he asked me, 'What did you do?' I'm looking at him like, 'What do you mean?' He tells me, 'That e-mail you sent got a lot of attention. The chief of staff is pissed off.'
"He said, 'My role in all of this is that your security clearance has been suspended locally, so you can't work here anymore.' And I understood that. I know security clearance procedure. I asked, 'What do I do now?' and he told me to report to the supply room, basically a non-entity, to hang out with some of the other soldiers who were in trouble. Nobody told me anything for a while after that.
"I asked them what the charges were, and they said there were none, 'But what we're looking for is that you made statements disloyal to the United States in that e-mail.' I'm like, 'Okay, whatever, colonel. I acknowledge what you're saying, so let me get out of here.'
"I took my 15-6 papers, took the e-mails, and said to myself, 'I'm not going to let them Jessica Lynch me. I'm not going to let them tell the first story, because the first story is not going to be correct. I am going to tell my story first, and it will be 100 percent correct, which it is. My story, the correct story, the True story, is the only one that you'll read.
ICONOCLAST: "Captain Eric May is a writer with The Iconoclast and a known figure in the 9/11 Truth Movement. He and his on-line group, Ghost Troop, have the stated intent of preventing another potential 9/11-like attack in the United States, from the vantage point of people who believe the first series of attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. Government.
ICONOCLAST: "Was there any discussion within Fifth Army as to your association with Ghost Troop?"
BUSWELL: "When they put me in a classified environment at Fifth Army, I sought legal advice with the G2 Legal advisor, Mr. Kevin Kapitan about my views concerning 9/11, and my involvement with a cyber intelligence group that was interested in preventing another 9/11-style event in the United States.
BUSWELL: "It's very clear: go right at the source of all this. I've seen pictures of Saddam Hussein shaking hands with Rumsfeld. Saddam was our friend. He attacked Iran when we told him to. He gassed the Kurds with our weapons. He invaded Kuwait when Ambassador April Gillespie, who Saddam asked about what the United States' position is on Kuwait stealing Iraq's territorial oil, gave him the wink and nod.
"Saddam Hussein said in ... I think it was 2000, 'Let me stay in power and I'll sell you all the oil you want, cheaply.'
"Well, they didn't do that, so he started selling Iraq's oil in Euros. He was the first one to do that, before the Euro was even a tangible currency, when the Euro was just a symbol yet to be printed on keyboards. He was selling his oil in Euros to piss us off, very effectively.
"And look what is happening now: many countries are trading in Euros, the dollar is being devalued, and Saddam started all of it. So, I don't know ... Saddam was a bad guy, he was a gangster, but we did business with him. What does that make us? The weapons of mass destruction thing, that was a farce. If we want truth, we've got to go to the genesis of today's problems: 9/11.
BUSWELL: "I'd like to see a real investigation into 9/11. Every possibility looked at, nothing overlooked. Everything examined. I don't know if it can be done internally, such as the last one. We have laws on our books to support that type of investigation, but I think it can be ultimately corrupted like the first one was. I think the US military is going to have to do it.
"The United States military is the only group that can effectively and objectively get to the bottom of 9/11. Military trained interrogators are the ones who will have to put these gangsters in a room and get the information out of them; not through torture.
"I don't believe you get right answers through that – no Rumsfeld, Jack Bauer tactics. '24' is just some crazy [television] show, not reality. I'm not talking about operations like we have at Guantanamo Bay now with US military interrogations of farmers and hapless inductees into the Taliban Army. I'm talking about who is benefiting and has benefited from 9/11. That's where we start.
"My whole point is to get a message to members of the military: 'Obey your oath, do what you feel is right.' I've made decisions that I felt were right and caught heat for it. I call on all the military: 'If you see something wrong, question it. If you see something that's not right, illegal, question it. Get out of that box you're in. If you follow that path, if you take the road of least resistance, people will die. People have died. I want you [to] think for yourself. I want the military to think independently.'
"Sadly, we recently saw Admiral Fallon, an independent thinker who was standing against the administration's plans to attack Iran, routed from command. I have effectively been routed from command as well. It is going to take hundreds more to be routed before this takes hold.
"Right now, in the INTEL sections of the Army, the Navy, Air Force, Marines ... everywhere, in Homeland Security, the defense department, state department, they are beginning to question. It will take more people going through what I experienced to really shake things up, however.
"Solving 9/11 is going to require our military. I don't think we need an investigation with European influence, or Japanese influence. I think they all have noble intentions, but we've got laws on our books for terrorism, treason, and murder. All, it appears likely, were committed on 9/11. We have rules on our books to solve this.
"If it ultimately comes down to it, we may have to round up these thugs and have them all shot in the internal courtyard section of the Pentagon. After a trial, of course — punishment carried out right where it all began.
"Now, I'm not saying who should be shot. I don't know. But the military needs to uncover this, but they won't. Not yet, anyway, because they have to obey the civilian leaders. Thank God we all swear to uphold the constitution. That, right there, is the basic gospel of the soldier and serviceman. If they don't know what to do, they should read the constitution.
"Yes, the oath does say, 'I will obey the orders of the president of the United States.' But the constitution is supreme. Presidents come and go, constitution remains. It is not a living document; it is not open to interpretation. We can all discuss it, but it's plain and simple. We as soldiers need to obey it. And when we as a Republic get around to enforcing the supreme law, it must be a concerted effort, a coordinated effort, and it must be handled internally.
"My mission is to speak with the military and encourage them to do the right thing. When you see something not right, like what I saw, and you bring it up to command but they leave you with no options, you have to reach out there and send that mortar over the wall. I want an investigation. 9/11 must be solved. Put the mess behind us and move on.
"I mean, Iraq. Almost six years now. What for? The goal posts keep changing, the objectives keep changing. Even the definition of victory is unclear. Sadly, the American people have such a short attention span because of our media, with its drive-by information tactics, that we just don't remember, or it doesn't sink in.
"If anything I've said sinks in with anyone, I hope it is this: 'We must go back to the source. We must solve this 9/11 crime, or we risk losing our country and our freedom.'"
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)