Posted on 12/25/2004 9:21:41 AM PST by Jacob Kell
The U.S. military can force its personnel to wear the blue beret of the United Nations and serve under the world body's command, a federal judge ruled.
Judge Paul Friedman upheld the military's conviction of former Army specialist Michael New, who refused to don the U.N. cap and shoulder patch and to serve in a peacekeeping mission in Macedonia nearly 10 years ago, the New York Sun reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Appeal....
I thought part of being a soldier was to disobey illegal commands?
How is a soldier to determine the legality of any command, given what's happening to New (and probably others)?
That's a crock! What an idiot liberal judge. He doesn't seem to realize that our military people joined to serve the U.S. and wear U.S. military uniforms.
Simple analysis:
Soldier's actions: Correct
Judge's actions: Both Idiotic and Criminal!
This judge should serve the prison term not the soldier!!! What a Jacka$$!
Simple, you just ask the enemy to hold on while you check with the JAG, who can then go judge shopping for a ruling, and depending on that ruling he may or may not shoot the enemy. Of course if the judge lets you shoot him, you could still be subject to the whim of an appellate court.
Merry Christmas
The Military Oath
The following oath is taken by all personnel inducted into the armed forces of the United States, as found in the US Code, Section 502.
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.
This is not the UN doing the forcing; this is the US Military dictating what the uniform for the day is. The federal judge is right on this one. A soldier does NOT tell his superiors what he will, and will not wear. A soldier accepts commands, then takes action without question. There is nothing illegal about a command from the military to change insignia or change the uniform.
Now, as to the sense of this order; I agree that the UN SHOULD NEVER have been given the authority to have US Military under their command. However, this was done with the full consent of the Commander In Chief (Clinton, the despised); and was therefore fully legal, even if it was rehensibile.
Friedman Biography
U.S. District Court Judge, District of Columbia. Room 6321, 333 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20001. 202-273-0440.
Judge Paul L. Friedman was an assistant to Lawrence Walsh in Iran-contra investigation. He was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton. His best known decision is FEC v. GOPAC, 897 F.Supp. 615 (DDC 1995), in which he ruled against GOPAC. Judge Friedman was also an attorney in the law firm of White and Case for almost two decades.
Judge Friedman was born February 20, 1944. He received his B.A. from Cornell in 1964, and his J.D. from S.U.N.Y. Buffalo in 1968.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/people/friedman.htm
This is sure to put a dent in the military's recruiting program. Then again, maybe that's what the judge is hoping for.
I can't object to this decision, because it follows the tradition of judges not intervening in military decisions unless there is an overwhelming reason to do so.
The fault was with clinton and his politically correct military commanders. The damage needs to be undone by the military, not be judges imposing demands on the military.
I'm sorry for Michael New, but there it is. It would be a terrible precedent for the judiciary to start micromanaging military discipline.
Again, in this instance it was the USA (under Clinton)that decided to place the US Military under an international command. I think we both agree that this was a mistake, and personally I hope this never happens again.
However, when the US Military issues a command to it's troops; the individual (General down to the Pfc) does NOT have the right to say 'nope'. The Commander in Chief (ie. Clinton) authorized this, and the military follows orders as given. They do not get to pick and choose which orders they may like; which scirmishes they will participate in, what color uniform best matches their eyes, or how long their hair should be. If the military says your uniform will consist of 'x'; you wear it, or pay the consequences. This is as it should be.
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.
Agreed. Orders are followed. Clinton set a dangerous precedent.
You do realize that this clause requires the oath taker to fight liberals?
"If the military says your uniform will consist of 'x'; you wear it, or pay the consequences. This is as it should be."
You're talking apples and oranges.
Style and color of uniform as opposed to THE UNIFORM OF ANOTHER ENTITY---THE UN.
"YOUR" uniform, as a soldier of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is changable and is what you're told it is.
In this case the armband and blue beret DO NOT represent the nation to which the soldier has taken an oath.
New is correct. Let him sleep the sleep of the just.
It's illegal if you the order is to change to the uniform of another country. You can't command a US soldier to put on a Korean or German uniform and follow a foreign commander.
It is not up to the officer or enlisted man to decide what orders from the CIC he or she wishes to follow. He may not like the decision; as some soldiers may not like their assignements today, but that is the way military life is. In short, you may complain to your hearts content; but you follow orders, or face the consequences.
When Clinton placed the military command under UN control; the UN is now the de-facto commander. Any command coming from a UN officer carries the same authority and consequences as if it came from a US military superior officer. The UN decided that the US military uniform would be amended to include an armband and beret. Again, as Clinton had placed the military under UN jurisdiction and control; the soldier's opinions are neither counted, nor are they pertinent to the discussion.
This soldier chose to disregard a direct command from the UN, the US military and that of his Commander in Chief. There are consequences to his actions, no matter how justified you or I may feel he was to do so.
BTTT!!
First off, the UN is not a foreign country. Secondly, when the CIC places your unit under control of a foreign party (and we both agree this is a travesty), that foreign party is now your commander. If your commander issues a direct order, and you ignore it (storm that beach, wear that beret, et.al.) you are inviting a court martial.
The UN has a good reason for placing this requirement, as it allows visual confirmation to distinguisth the difference between UN troops, and US military troops also operating in the area (yes, there were both). Also, an officer wearing the UN uniform commands the same level of rank as an officer in the US military. An order from a Capt. in the UN outranks a command from a Lt. in the US military. Again neither of us agree with this, but this was Clinton's doing.
The order was clear, it was repeated, it was legally binding, and there are consequences to ignoring the order.
The UN seeks to establish sovereignty over the USA. So did Hitler.
That makes the UN an enemy.
It also makes American supporters of the UN traitors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.