(2) The US Congress, as it is authorized to do by the Constitution, signed the Charter of the United Nations - a treaty which gave the US certain privileges and certain responsibilities as a party to the Charter.
(3) One of the responsibilities the US has under the Charter is to supply peacekeepers in certain contexts.
(4) The Commander-In-Chief is authorized by Congress to assign members of the US military to fulfill those treaty obligations.
(5) Michael New was selected.
(6) Michael New was insubordinate and violated his Constitutional oath.
(6) He is lucky he is not in prison.
However Spec. New was given lawful orders to carry out, he was also lawfully told what the uniform of the day was. He chose to unlawfully refuse those orders.
He deserves a dishonorable discharge. If he wanted to oppose US participation in UN peacekeeping, he should have not joined the Army. He should have run for Congress. It is not up to individual soldiers to decide the public policies of the United States or to determione what is and what is not the appropriate uniform of the US Army.
If he had been ordered to wear a uniform of pink polka dots and a tutu, the only appropriate response is “Yes, sir!”
Treaties, no matter how idiotic, are binding.
Article VI of the US Constitution.
New needs to call on Congress to revoke the treaty, doubt that will happen though.