Posted on 04/24/2007 12:42:28 PM PDT by rightalien
Thank you for saying so!
IMHO, the order violated the law.
There remains a divide between what is legal and what is right. Nice to hear from you.
What if a soldier in Iraq says that ordering him there is illegal because there never was a formal declaration of war? Are you going to be so quick to jump to his defense and allow him to decide what is a lawful order and what is not? Or are you going to depend on the military brass to make that decision?
“What if a soldier in Iraq says that ordering him there is illegal because there never was a formal declaration of war? Are you going to be so quick to jump to his defense and allow him to decide what is a lawful order and what is not? Or are you going to depend on the military brass to make that decision?”
This is the crux of the debate. Can a US citizen be compelled to be under the leadership of a foreign government?
Apparently a position New didn't believe in.
I would not serve under a foreign country and its leadership since I am not a citizen of that country.
When I was in the Navy in the early 80's my destroyer was assigned to a tour with STANAVFORLANT, a NATO multinational command. Our commodore at the time was a Dutch officer. We took operational orders from him. I suppose you would have refused to do so?
This is the crux of the debate. Can a US citizen be compelled to be under the leadership of a foreign government?
No, the crux of the matter is whether a U.S. soldier can be compelled to obey the lawful orders of his superiors. New believed the order wasn't lawful. New was wrong. New paid the price for his error. One might admire him for having the courage of his convictions if not for the fact that he's done nothing but whine about it for the past 10 years.
Wasn’t it the president who signed the UN Charter? As in Truman? My dad said that “should the US join the UN” was a common debate topic in high schools and college in 1944, I suppose it was, since it was signed in 1945 at San Francisco. How did that work - doesn’t that take ratification by all the states legislature?
The U.S. Senate ratified the UN Charter by a vote of 89 to 2 on July 28, 1945. Per Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 that's all that's needed.
Indeed. But Congress ratified it.
My dad said that “should the US join the UN” was a common debate topic in high schools and college in 1944, I suppose it was, since it was signed in 1945 at San Francisco.
The San Francisco meeting resulted in a signing of an agreement - not a treaty. It was not until all five members of the permanent Security Council had ratified the Charter months after the meeting that it came into effect.
How did that work - doesn’t that take ratification by all the states legislature?
Only a constitutional amendment requires the ratification of all the states' legislatures. Treaties don't have to meet that high of a test.
To whom did the Dutch commodore report to?
Also, did you wear a Dutch naval uniform?
He reported up to another NATO commander, CINC, Eastern Atlantic (CINCEASTLANT), who was a Brit admiral. HE reported up to Allied Command, Atlantic. I don't remember who he was but he usually isn't American.
Also, did you wear a Dutch naval uniform?
No, I wore a U.S. uniform. Just like New would have.
“No, I wore a U.S. uniform. Just like New would have.”
“There isn’t a damn thing wrong with refusing to serve an organization that doesn’t report to the US Constitution.”
There is if you’re a globalist leftist asshat that is bound and determined to rid America of it’s sovereignty and freedoms.
He would have worn U.S. uniforms with U.S. insignia but which had the UN patch and a blue beret. New's concept of foreign uniforms was obviously as shaky as he understanding of lawful orders.
Would it have the American flag on it?
In the mid-90's? Normally no.
Wrong according to whom....the Supremes? They won’t touch this one with a ten foot poll, but that doesn’t mean they have actually made a ruling on New’s claims.
What they have done is refuse to hear the case and let the lower court ruling stand. By doing so they have said that New's appeal has no merit and that the lower court ruling was the correct one. If they thought there was any sort of Constitutional issue here they would have take it up. New has lost at every step.
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.