PRESIDENT BUSH PLACES U.S. TROOPS UNDER A FOREIGN UN COMMANDER [GEORGIA]

Toogood Reports ^ | Oct. 30, 2002 | Cliff Kincaid

[exodus]

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.

To: madfly
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.
# 113 by sneakypete
**********************

If Michael New had been shot back then for refusing the order to be put under a foreign power's control, he would be rolling over in his grave today.

Imagine, a "conservative" President surrendering U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations. Maybe this is just another secret, back-door attempt to return our government to Constitutional principles.

Boy, those liberals won't know what hit them!

[xzins]

I'm trying to remember the different ways in which units can connect for a joint mission.

There's attachment, operational control (opcon), assignment, etc. These have varying meanings in terms of what the American commander's discretion allows.

Nato forces were, until recently, under a Spanish general. Now I think it's British. During WWII we had significant numbers of forces under Monty's operational control. Layfayette and Von Steuben also had command over American forces.

The issue for me is an oath of allegiance to another power. That shouldn't be.....except for purposes of spying and intelligence gathering.

[ladyinred]

If this is true, then I disagree with it. I support President Bush and resent some of the posts here, especially those calling him, Shrub, and going off about there is only one party, blah, blah, blah. But I do not like our military serving under a UN commander. I would like to see real proof of this, however.

[verity]

It will not be a problem. The UN is supplying them with black helicopters.

[Prodigal Son]

Why should I waste time you in threatening ??

You said you were warning me. There is no reason or need to warn someone except if something bad is going to be a consequence. I am still mystified as to the nature of that post.

[carenot]

IMHO, war changes the equation and the President is ethically responsible for seeing that all possible sources of intel are used DESPITE any promise made before 9/11 and the War on Terror began.

But the Michael New thing was before 9/11.

[xzins]

?????

Please explain what you're saying.

[carenot]

This better be a lie.

What if it ain't?

[exodus]

To: MsLady
"Obviously Shrub (the lesser Bush) isn't thinking. As a military officer, I refuse to take command(s) from a foreign officer and perform duty under the auspices of the UN..."
# 14 by kitd-fohs
**********************

Maybe Bush really is as stupid as the Democrats say he is.

Or maybe Bush really is a socialist, just as I've said since before he was an "official" candidate for the office of President.

[weikel]

Im not a bot I call them like I see him and as it stands think little of Bush but sometimes from a military aspect it does make sense to put troops under foreign command. A divided military command tends to be disatorous under the following circumstances I would approve of placing US troops under a foreign commander A. The commander should be competent and from a sincere ally B. The US troops in that theatre of war are a minority compared to allied troops. Certainly I would prefer to be under British Field Marshall David Alexander's command in WWII Italy then American General Clark's.

[meema]

I recognise his name, but that doesn't mean this charge is true.
I hope it is not!

[carenot]

The devil would be in the details, not the color of the beret.

You talkin' about the ones made in China?

[Prodigal Son]

If it is something that goes against this Nation's Constitution...it is wrong !!

I agree with you 110%. Now, if you would kindly point to the line in the Constitution where the Macedonia mission was forbidden- I will humbly accept my comeuppance. I'm not saying it's legal in a good way. I'm saying it was legal in a technical way- which is all that really counts when you're arguing your case before a Court Martial or a judge of any kind. New didn't have a leg to stand on legally.

I didn't throw the Supreme Court mention out there as a way of refuting you. This is not a personal contest - me against you, mano a mano, winner take all. I'm pretty emotionless about it to tell you the truth. I would like for the Supreme Court to take the case. That way there would be a final answer from the only legal authority our Constitution gives us on Constitutional matters.

My point was- until the Supreme Court takes the case you have to go with the law the way it is written. No where does it forbid the Commander in Chief from issuing such an order. In that sense, Clinton's order was Constitutional and legal. The Constitution states Treaties are to be considered as part of the supreme law of the land and that's the pertinent bit. The Constitution also grants the Congress the authority to create rules governing the use of the land and naval forces. Like I said in my post- had the Congress simply passed a law saying it was illegal for a President to use the military in this fashion- New would've been off the hook. But Congress did not do so. They have an equal share of the blame here because they possessed the true power to do something and they didn't. But failing the Congressional Act of the Supreme Court interpretation, it was totally legal.

[weikel]

However I doubt the circumstances are met here because the UN is not a sincere ally.

[Coto]

It's just that I've heard, if not read, several items about Mike New that were, shall we say, less than truthful.

I was only giving advance notice that I wasn't going to sit idly by and let that happen....

Now then....do you feel any better ?

[Coto]

"...it was legal in a technical way..."

That's where I taken umberage to this story.

Waaaaaaaaaaay too often have stories come out about the underlying theme of the Untied Nations.....
...placing American Soldiers under the control of anything other than American Armed Forces is, as far as I am concerned, outside and against the very foundation that this Nation was built on.

That's it....in Reader's Digest Form, anyway....

[RedBloodedAmerican]

No, you missed where Michael's process is being taken up by someone other than the President. If you get an itch behind your ear, should GW scratch it for you? I think if you read the EO by Clinton very carefully, and read what New did, and read what this author is saying in this anti-war, anti-President Bush article, you will (hopefully) see where Clintons EO and New do not even fit into the WoT equation. But then again, maybe you won't, I don't know.

[Prodigal Son]

Waaaaaaaaaaay too often have stories come out about the underlying theme of the Untied Nations..... ...placing American Soldiers under the control of anything other than American Armed Forces is, as far as I am concerned, outside and against the very foundation that this Nation was built on.

I agree with this sentiment, but it isn't admissable as evidence.

What statements of mine do you feel are straying from or misrepresenting the truth concerning New?

[Kerberos]

"You have never heard of Michael New? "

No, is he suppose to be someone important?

[A Navy Vet]

Did anyone bother to read this? Our troops are NOT under UN authorities. They're commanding officers have final say, but the UN theater commander provides the general operational control in agreement with US.

"The U.S. Commander-in-Chief never relinquishes his command authority over U.S. troops. American commanding officers retain authority over their own military forces serving in UN operations, including disciplinary and personnel matters, and troops can be withdrawn at the discretion of the U.S. The UN Force Commander has overall operational control of a mission, but is not permitted to change the mission agreed upon by the U.S. President, divide U.S. units, reallocate their supplies, administer discipline, or change a unit's organization. When a significant number of U.S. troops are involved, operational control remains in American hands or in the hands of a trusted military ally such as a NATO member."

"U.S. troops participating in UN peacekeeping missions wear their American military uniforms. To identify themselves as part of a UN peacekeeping force, they also wear blue berets or helmets with the UN insignia. U.S. soldiers on peacekeeping missions do not swear allegiance to the United Nations."