Posted on 01/05/2005 8:09:06 AM PST by Willie Green
Army Specialist Michael New's objection to serving in Macedonia during the Clinton administration -- under the insignia and tactical command of the United Nations -- has gained him no court victories.
For his "disobedience" -- at muster he would not wear the U.N. blue beret and shoulder patch -- New received a "bad conduct" discharge in 1996, upheld by a military appeals court and in December by a federal judge.
Mr. New is not a coward; he says his orders were unlawful.
The volunteer for the U.S. armed forces would have been unconstitutionally ordered to serve under a foreign commander, wear foreign insignia, and as such, would also have been subjected to involuntary servitude. Nor was his service in a U.N. unit approved by Congress, as is required by law.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
It's called:
DISOBEDIENCE OF A LAWFUL ORDER.
An UNLAWFUL order must fall into one (or more) of three categories.
1. UNSAFE
2. IMMORAL
3. ILLEGAL
His order to serve was "lawful" however nauseating.
I would have done the same as New.
The oath is to defend the Constitution and to obey the lawful orders of the officers appointed over you.
New's beef seems to be with uniform, which is whatever the commander says it is.
I take his point, I'm just saying that it doesn't sound like an unlawful order to have him wear the uniform the mission required.
Then you would have gotten the same thing.
As the poster made, the uniform of the day is WHATEVER the Old Man says it is.
the UN is not our supreme commander. I commend the soldier for standing up to the Constitution he took an oath to protect when he joined our military. I hope he is working earnestly in defense of American values and hasn't succumed to the denigration of the socialist left.
It will take a long time to undo the damage to American sovergnity caused by the Branch Clintonians.
So would I. He signed up to protect the U.S. and serve in our military. Not serve under the UN for a foreign commander.
Wrong! It was NOT a lawful order to put on the uniform of a foreign entity.
His entire outfit should have followed his courageous lead!
signed:
Former SSGT USMC VN combat vet.
Well, after being booted from the Army New was twice convicted for dealing drugs. Does that count?
Army Specialist Michael New's objection to serving in Macedonia during the Clinton administration -- under the insignia and tactical command of the United Nations -- has gained him no court victories.
I would never disobey a lawful order of any in my chain of command, and I do not think this guy did either from what I know of the situation.
Can someone point to the relevant clause in the Constitution which prevented New's battalion from serving under UN tactical control?
I am surprised he hasn't faced annual tax audits by the Dollar Gestapo wing of the federal gov't, the IRS.
I and many others disagree. Something about that wonderful oath of enlistment we all swore comes to mind. Plus the fact that the UN is a pile of steaming pedos and thieves.
I'd have done the same.
Semper Fi
New swore to "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." He violated that oath. He should accept the consequences for his actions.
O/S point.
He was just another crybaby looking for an excuse.
Did a Joint Op in 94 with the Brits, UNDER their control.
If a COMPETENT AUTHORITY, i.e., his C.O. gave the order to wear the blue rag, and the US Army brought off on it, then New is GUILTY of Disobedience of a Lawful Order.
What, exactly were the charges and circumstances? If I were to give my wife a painkiller which was not prescribed for her, but for me, I'd be "distributing a controlled dangerous substance". It doesn't take much.
I agree. While I am sympathetic to Specialist Michael New's objections, had they not taken action against him, it would have set a very dangerous precedent. You cannot allow military personnel to pick and choose which orders they will obey, and which ones they will ignore.
Being stripped of his job and probably having problems finding work, because of the negative publicity surrounding his courtmarshal, he probably needed income to support the drug habit caused by his feeling of abandonment and helplessness. The system he signed up to defend turned against him. Can we blame him for becoming anti-establishment?
The liberals really won this battle. He fell right into the liberal victim trap.
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.