OK, New was wrong. I say he was wrong. A court martial said he was wrong. The miltiary appeals court said he was wrong. And the Supreme Court concured with the earlier decisions when it refused to hear the case. And I'm sorry but I don't see how a non-binding House resolution introduced a year after New was dishonrably discharged and which was sent to committee, never to see the light of day again changes anything.
Here's a news flash. The military does not make law. Normally missing a deployment would be thrown in a military prison. New was only given a bad conduct discharge because the Army knew that they had no legal ground to stand on were they to try for a conviction.
New didn't miss deployment since his infraction had occured before the unit deployed. He was, I believe, charged with a failure to obey an order. Which, if I recall correctly, is a violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, one of the punative articles. Punishment is as a court martial may direct. In this case the court martial directed that New be booted out of the Army with a dishonorable discharge.
I suggest you check up on the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 if you think that Congress has no say in whether or not American soldiers are given up to foreign command.
What part of the UN Participation Act specifically are you referring to?
The court martial discharged him for disobeying an order. That is not being disputed. The crux of the matter is that the order was an unlawful one. Any civilian court that agreed to hear the case would have to examine the legality of the order itself, which is probably exactly why no court has taken the case; it would open up quite a can of worms, don't you think.
New didn't miss deployment since his infraction had occured before the unit deployed. He was, I believe, charged with a failure to obey an order. Which, if I recall correctly, is a violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, one of the punative articles. Punishment is as a court martial may direct. In this case the court martial directed that New be booted out of the Army with a dishonorable discharge.
Again, the fact that he disobeyed an order is not being disputed. The court martial only determined that he disobeyed the order and did not take in to consideration that the order was illegal to begin with. Once again, had the military done otherwise it would have opened up a huge can of worms.
What part of the UN Participation Act specifically are you referring to?
SEC. 6. The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter.
http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/un_participation_act.asp