Replies

I hate to correct a fellow Virginian. But you are wrong to call Michael New a traitor. Would Washington, Jefferson, and Henry serve under a foreign flag (UN) wear a foreign uniform (UN) ? I say NO!

Michael New is no better than Bill Clinton in terms of the contempt he's shown for our military. He disobeyed a direct order. For that he got what was coming to him. No different than the officers that publically denigrated Bill Clinton as commander in chief. A real solider must at ALL times keep their military bearing.

Sorry, pal you're WRONG. Obediance in the military is not ABSOLUTE without qualifiers, else we'd end up giving the same defense as the Nazis at Nuremberg. We are to obey all lawful orders, in accordance with the UCMJ - and above all, with the US Constitution as the guiding, ultimate document of our allegiance.

It is clear this assinine UN mission trumped neither the USMJ or the Constitution, hence Michael New's stance was correct and admirable.

A real solider must at ALL times keep their military bearing.

Just like all those good little NAZIs who were tried at Nuremburg. This man was able to recognize an illegal order and he refused to follow it. That was what Nuremburg was all about.

Rules of war allow for a person captured in the battlezone out of uniform to be tried as a spy, not treated as a prisoner of war. His uniform was that issued by the United States of America. No american military person can be ordered to be a spy.

Huh? Methinks you are blowing smoke (or, swilling beer, perhaps?). No one has to obey an unlawful order. In fact, every member of the military is drilled on that fact during "Law of War" briefings. Michael New correctly ascertained that he was being asked to carry out an unlawful order. He paid the price, but true patriots usually do.

P.S. Military bearing generally refers to the way one carries himself (i.e., appearance), and not behaviour. Hence a sloppy soldier could obey an order while a "squared-away" soldier could commit mutiny. The issue is not bearing, it is conduct -- and New refused to violate his conscience. (Guess you never heard of folks the Tuskeegee Airmen and their refusal to obey orders regarding segregation, which is celebrated as courageous by the same folks who busted New.)

Michael New is no better than Bill Clinton in terms of the contempt he's shown for our military. He disobeyed a direct order.

Too bad for the Jews Hitler's soldiers were not so brave as Michael -- to disobey 'direct' orders. Good soldiers, like Michael, obey lawful (morally correct) orders, only.

No, a Texan who disobeyed direct orders and spit in the face of everyone that's ever worn the uniform. A coward.

New refused to follow an order that was against Army regulations AR 670-1, to be specific.

The UN flag was an unauthorized patch in an unauthorized place. The Army and Congress didn't have the courage to amend the regs and lacked the moral integrity to admit that they were wrong.

If soldiers are expected to refuse illegal orders, then it is incumbent on the Army to let the soldiers know which illegal orders are 'really illegal'. /sarcasm.

BWT, I wore the uniform and can only speculate as to whether I'd have the guts to stand up for what was right like New did. The easy thing is to go along to get along, but he didn't do it.

I have so much hate and spite for your post ( notice that I did not say YOU). I don't know how to contain myself. I as a former soldier had to stand and protect the right for you to say what you just said. It makes me wonder what kind of world I will bring children into when people like you say that any order, even an order to give up your Constitutional DUTY must be followed.

I Pray my service to this country was not in vain, to give control of our Brothers in Uniform to people who think as you.

The Nazi soldiers who killed the Jews said I was Just following orders, I Will Not