Posted on 10/30/2002 3:59:17 AM PST by madfly
How can he follow an order that flies DIRECTLY in the face of the oath that he was sworn to - to get into the Army ??
He made the correct choice..
...I only wish that Klinton did....
Well perhaps you need to be a bit more specific. Are you threatening me with bodily injury?
The Supreme Court never took this case. They would be the final authority on whether it was Constitutional or not. Until they take it- and I doubt they will until a sitting President solicits them to do so- you only have the face of the situation to look at. It states in the Constitution that we can enter into treaties. That makes our involvement with the UN legal.
Now, I hate the UN just as much as anyone else- I want to make that perfectly clear. And my time in Macedonia did nothing to change my mind- in fact it only convinced me that the UN was just a huge waste of time and money. Also, understand, I have nothing personal against New. I agree with his assessment that we should not be involved in the UN in any way shape or form.
Anyway, we're in the UN legally. The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He ordered that mission. That order got carried right on down the line. New refused to carry out the order. You will always get in trouble for refusing to obey a legal order in the Army. Always. It doesn't matter what it's about or who the President is- you refuse to obey a legal order- you're in trouble. Now, this is what New did.
The Army could've chosen to be leniant with him, but then when Bosnia came along a short time later, some joker in his unit would've used this precedent to claim that Bosnia was illegal as well. Pretty soon you'd have people refusing to carry out legal directives in the war against terror. The whole disclipline of the Army could break down over one incident like this.
It also comes back to the process. New would've been informed over and over again that the order was legal. Enlisted men are not Constitutional authorities. When every level of his Chain of Command has informed him that the order is legal- he has exactly two choices at that point: carry out the directive or face the consequences. He chose the latter. Again, this has nothing to do with him personally or even the issue itself. It would've been played out the same way for any other directive he refused to obey (except obviously without the media and congress being involved). If Congress had so wished, they could've simply declared the UN mission illegal and New would've been off the hook. They did not.
It came as no surprise whatsoever in Schweinfurt when he got busted for this. We knew that was coming the second we heard about it. We could see it coming a mile away, so to speak. It was a topic of discussion in my platoon, but not for Constitutional reasons. We were mainly speculating on what was going to happen. Many of us were of the opinion that I expressed earlier in the thread- his commander should've just had him bodily put on the plane. We also resented the fact that the media never showed up when we did our duty- yet they were all over it like flies on sh!t when one soldier refused to obey an order. That's the breaks in the military- the public is all too happy to just forget you until there's some political angle to be exploited.
Also, you say he made the correct choice. Implicit in this is that I made the incorrect choice by following the legal order I was given. You are implying that I and my fellow soldiers who followed that order are in fact criminal. I take issue with that. Had I truly believed the order was illegal, I would not have obeyed it. But it was clearly a legal order, perhaps a disgraceful one for Clinton to issue, but it was legal. If we want to withdraw from the UN, we should do so. I believe we should. But until we do, we are a part of it, like it or not. Them's the facts. New perhaps did a service by bringing this issue to public light, but the Army did the only thing they could've by punishing him.
One issue I have never addressed in this thread is the topic of the article itself- which wasn't about New after all but about this current situation. I think if Bush promised what he did and we have troops currently under UN Command- he needs to be held account for that. I've read the thread and read the author's subsequent remarks, but has this ever been verified yet?
I feel queasy.
Nope....The oath to the Constitution is a Higher Power than Shrub.
No. Will you?
New swore that he would support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that he would bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that he would obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over him, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Now what part of that did the order to serve with the United Nations fly in the face of?
Yeah,but that was back then. Back then it WAS a evil thing. Bubba-2 is in charge now though,and now it is just peachy-keen.
"...defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...
Why is that portion so hard to decipher ?
Never mind....you'll never 'get it'.....
Did I miss where President Bush reinstated Michael New?
The Supreme Legislation hasn't ever taken a case that specifically involved the I.R.S. - -- - So what does that prove ??
...and I, quite frankly, don't care what the order was or who gave it....If it is something that goes against this Nation's Constitution...it is wrong !!
Plain...Pure...and simple
If you're that deep inside the belly of the Untied Nations....You'll never comprehend anything that anyone could explain to you.
The UN is the largest Terrorist Organization on God's little half-acre and they are dead-set on removing every shred of National Soverignty that we've ever had.
Even dear ol' Walter Cronkite has echoed that pledge....
How would 'following the orders of the UN' be in favor of the U.S. Constitution ??
You have never heard of Michael New?
BTW: Love Your Screen Name !! !!
One of my favorite lines is:
'...What Is It About A Person's Race or Point-Of-Origin That Gives Them The Right To Break This Nation's Laws ?? ?? '
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.