Posted on 10/30/2002 3:59:17 AM PST by madfly
At a time when President Bush is pleading with the United Nations for permission to wage war on Iraq, he has assigned U.S. troops to wear U.N. uniforms and report to a foreign U.N. commander.
The pro-U.N. policy represents a violation of a Bush campaign promise and the 2000 Republican Party platform. It also represents a continuation of a policy that began under former President Clinton, who ordered the prosecution of a U.S. Army soldier who refused to join the U.N. Army.
The United States Military Observer Group in the Pentagon confirms that U.S. soldiers wear U.N. blue berets and U.N. shoulder patches as members of UNOMIG – the United Nations Observer Mission in the country of Georgia. Soldiers ordered assigned to this mission wear this U.N. uniform. What´s more, they receive a United Nations physical examination before deployment to the mission and the U.N. pays some expenses associated with it. The purpose is to supervise the cease-fire between Georgia and Abkhazia. The U.S. troops take orders in the mission from a foreign commander named Major-General Kazi Ashfaq Ahmed of Bangladesh. After their service, members of UNOMIG may receive a ribbon described as "Central stripe of UN blue, flanked by white and green stripes, with dark blue edges."
President Clinton´s order to U.S. troops to wear a U.N. uniform was extremely controversial, unpopular, and alleged to be illegal and unconstitutional. House Majority Whip Rep. Tom Delay sponsored a bill to prohibit the wearing of a U.N. uniform by U.S. service personnel. This bill was a reaction to the case of U.S. Army soldier Michael New, who had refused to wear a U.N. uniform and was court-martialed and discharged for bad conduct by Clinton.
Such a bill was considered unnecessary under President Bush because he – and the Republican Party – had made it absolutely clear that he would never order U.S. troops to serve under U.N. command. "I will never place U.S. troops under UN command," candidate Bush said in his speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California, November 19, 1999. The 2000 Republican Party Platform declared that "…American troops must never serve under United Nations command."
My 15 year-old son wrote a report on this matter. He said:
"What is a hero? What acts do they do? They do many things: championing a good cause, going beyond the call of duty, and acting wisely under pressure to name just a few of the good things that heroes do. My paper is on Michael New; a soldier who refused to comply with unconstitutional orders from a higher command and then was discharged from the army because of it.
"In July of 1995, Army specialist Mike New was informed that his infantry would be going to Macedonia as part of a ‘peacekeeping´ operation. In August, he was told that his unit would be required to wear a U.N. beret and patch. He was told the order to wear the U.N. uniform was lawful because ‘the president said so therefore it is.´ But nobody ever provided a legal rational for this. Eventually, a battalion briefing offered the justification that ‘We wear the U.N. uniform because it looks fabulous.´ He refused to wear the uniform. In his oath, he said he would fight for the U.S., not the U.N. or some other foreign power. But Bill Clinton had ordered this without even Congress´ approval and he knew it was unlawful. This, he knew, violated his oath as a soldier. He didn´t wear the uniform like everybody else was doing. Instead Michael New did what was right and what was just, and by not wearing that uniform, risked everything.
"In terms of going beyond the call of duty, I believe Michael New went far beyond the call of duty. Now only was he willing to fight, he was also willing to put everything on the line to do what was right. And if he had to do it all over again, he would.
"Michael New definitely risked his life, future, and reputation by saying no to this illegal order. He knew that he would be court-martialed for doing what was right. His case is still in the courts. He was discharged from the army for ‘Bad Conduct.´ He knew that he could have gone to jail and that he´d have that mark on his record. But those were sacrifices he was willing to make for the good of the country. Michael New faced scrutiny from military officers. Yet he still stands strong in his belief that when you sign up for the U.S. military, you aren´t fighting for the U.N. of for some foreign regime; you´re fighting for America.
"He serves as a calling to my higher self because he acts wisely under pressure. He also does the right thing even though he knows the consequences. Michael New is willing to stand up for what is right. I admire these traits a lot and how he, with a promising military career ahead of him, decided he´d do the right thing and end up having to give it up. "In conclusion, I believe that Michael New is a great person. He shows leadership, champions a good cause, and fights for what is right. He acts wisely under pressure and risked his future for the country."
My son recognized a basic truth that has been lost on President Bush. The President must reverse course, order our troops out of their U.N. uniforms, and reaffirm their commitment as U.S. soldiers dedicated to protecting the U.S. Constitution.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Cliff at antiun@earthlink.net .
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.