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 .
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
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!
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.
But the Michael New thing was before 9/11.
What if it ain't?
To: MsLady
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.
You talkin' about the ones made in China?
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.
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 ?
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....
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?
No, is he suppose to be someone important?
"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."
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.