Posted on 12/25/2004 9:21:41 AM PST by Jacob Kell
The U.S. military can force its personnel to wear the blue beret of the United Nations and serve under the world body's command, a federal judge ruled.
Judge Paul Friedman upheld the military's conviction of former Army specialist Michael New, who refused to don the U.N. cap and shoulder patch and to serve in a peacekeeping mission in Macedonia nearly 10 years ago, the New York Sun reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Appeal....
I thought part of being a soldier was to disobey illegal commands?
How is a soldier to determine the legality of any command, given what's happening to New (and probably others)?
That's a crock! What an idiot liberal judge. He doesn't seem to realize that our military people joined to serve the U.S. and wear U.S. military uniforms.
Simple analysis:
Soldier's actions: Correct
Judge's actions: Both Idiotic and Criminal!
This judge should serve the prison term not the soldier!!! What a Jacka$$!
Simple, you just ask the enemy to hold on while you check with the JAG, who can then go judge shopping for a ruling, and depending on that ruling he may or may not shoot the enemy. Of course if the judge lets you shoot him, you could still be subject to the whim of an appellate court.
Merry Christmas
The Military Oath
The following oath is taken by all personnel inducted into the armed forces of the United States, as found in the US Code, Section 502.
I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
This is not the UN doing the forcing; this is the US Military dictating what the uniform for the day is. The federal judge is right on this one. A soldier does NOT tell his superiors what he will, and will not wear. A soldier accepts commands, then takes action without question. There is nothing illegal about a command from the military to change insignia or change the uniform.
Now, as to the sense of this order; I agree that the UN SHOULD NEVER have been given the authority to have US Military under their command. However, this was done with the full consent of the Commander In Chief (Clinton, the despised); and was therefore fully legal, even if it was rehensibile.
Friedman Biography
U.S. District Court Judge, District of Columbia. Room 6321, 333 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20001. 202-273-0440.
Judge Paul L. Friedman was an assistant to Lawrence Walsh in Iran-contra investigation. He was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton. His best known decision is FEC v. GOPAC, 897 F.Supp. 615 (DDC 1995), in which he ruled against GOPAC. Judge Friedman was also an attorney in the law firm of White and Case for almost two decades.
Judge Friedman was born February 20, 1944. He received his B.A. from Cornell in 1964, and his J.D. from S.U.N.Y. Buffalo in 1968.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/people/friedman.htm
This is sure to put a dent in the military's recruiting program. Then again, maybe that's what the judge is hoping for.
I can't object to this decision, because it follows the tradition of judges not intervening in military decisions unless there is an overwhelming reason to do so.
The fault was with clinton and his politically correct military commanders. The damage needs to be undone by the military, not be judges imposing demands on the military.
I'm sorry for Michael New, but there it is. It would be a terrible precedent for the judiciary to start micromanaging military discipline.
Again, in this instance it was the USA (under Clinton)that decided to place the US Military under an international command. I think we both agree that this was a mistake, and personally I hope this never happens again.
However, when the US Military issues a command to it's troops; the individual (General down to the Pfc) does NOT have the right to say 'nope'. The Commander in Chief (ie. Clinton) authorized this, and the military follows orders as given. They do not get to pick and choose which orders they may like; which scirmishes they will participate in, what color uniform best matches their eyes, or how long their hair should be. If the military says your uniform will consist of 'x'; you wear it, or pay the consequences. This is as it should be.
I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Agreed. Orders are followed. Clinton set a dangerous precedent.
You do realize that this clause requires the oath taker to fight liberals?
"If the military says your uniform will consist of 'x'; you wear it, or pay the consequences. This is as it should be."
You're talking apples and oranges.
Style and color of uniform as opposed to THE UNIFORM OF ANOTHER ENTITY---THE UN.
"YOUR" uniform, as a soldier of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is changable and is what you're told it is.
In this case the armband and blue beret DO NOT represent the nation to which the soldier has taken an oath.
New is correct. Let him sleep the sleep of the just.
It's illegal if you the order is to change to the uniform of another country. You can't command a US soldier to put on a Korean or German uniform and follow a foreign commander.
It is not up to the officer or enlisted man to decide what orders from the CIC he or she wishes to follow. He may not like the decision; as some soldiers may not like their assignements today, but that is the way military life is. In short, you may complain to your hearts content; but you follow orders, or face the consequences.
When Clinton placed the military command under UN control; the UN is now the de-facto commander. Any command coming from a UN officer carries the same authority and consequences as if it came from a US military superior officer. The UN decided that the US military uniform would be amended to include an armband and beret. Again, as Clinton had placed the military under UN jurisdiction and control; the soldier's opinions are neither counted, nor are they pertinent to the discussion.
This soldier chose to disregard a direct command from the UN, the US military and that of his Commander in Chief. There are consequences to his actions, no matter how justified you or I may feel he was to do so.
BTTT!!
First off, the UN is not a foreign country. Secondly, when the CIC places your unit under control of a foreign party (and we both agree this is a travesty), that foreign party is now your commander. If your commander issues a direct order, and you ignore it (storm that beach, wear that beret, et.al.) you are inviting a court martial.
The UN has a good reason for placing this requirement, as it allows visual confirmation to distinguisth the difference between UN troops, and US military troops also operating in the area (yes, there were both). Also, an officer wearing the UN uniform commands the same level of rank as an officer in the US military. An order from a Capt. in the UN outranks a command from a Lt. in the US military. Again neither of us agree with this, but this was Clinton's doing.
The order was clear, it was repeated, it was legally binding, and there are consequences to ignoring the order.
The UN seeks to establish sovereignty over the USA. So did Hitler.
That makes the UN an enemy.
It also makes American supporters of the UN traitors.
Right. How does a federal judge from one district rule for the armed forces of the United States? What a clymer.
That should have ended any argument.
I don't know how I would have felt to wear the appurtenances of the UN, but it still says US ARMY on the chest....doesn't say army of the un, blah blah.
The purpose of the distinctive headgear is to provide a common, readily identifiable uniform item for all troops assigned to a particular mission.
Given the diversity of national uniforms, not a bad idea....armbands or even dying a sleeve pink would do it too.
Basically it was a lawful order, and should have been obeyed.
Now if you were to ask me about our involvement in the UN, I'd tell you, however I suspect what I would say would get me banned, if for nothing else, the language would cause the mods to flinch.
Reminds me of that old Joke about the Cherry asked an old
fart how he could tell who th eenemy was in 'Nam -came the
reply Stand up and yell Ho Chi Minh is a bastard. If he shoots at you that's the enemy.Some time later the cherry
met up with the old fart in a hospital where both were in
recovery from wounds recieved. I see you took my advice, said the old fart.Yes ,came the reply but it didn't come
about quite like you said. I yelled Ho Chi Mihns a bastard and he yelled back so's LBJ and while we was shakin hands we got run over by a supply truck.
New was Right -Clintons military WRONG-but Bush isn't goin' to change or challenge it.So News' screwed again .Nothin new under the sun.
This is not news. Read the UN Constitution. People who are shocked by this will also be shocked when the UN imposes its global income tax on the US. Already on the books. Read it. Or put your head back in the sand.
IT is NOT up to the CIC to change the military uniform.
Congress has that authority-not the President.The President
issued an unlawful order--one that violated the Uniform Code
New was right to refuse. Else why did the US go through the
Trials at Nuremburg at th eend of World War Twice? Under your surmise if the President orders the troops to murder
babies -it would be a lawful order? The President has NO
authority to violate the UCMJ,or US Code but is under the
Law same as anyone else--or by the Constitution ought be.
according to the regulations of the UCMJ. New honored the
UCMJ the Unusually good Liar did NOT. BUT RHIP.
Another opportunity for Bush to step up to the plate and do the right thing.
New should make a personal appeal to Bush, if he hasn't already.
At least that might get Bush "on the record" as to where he really stands on the UN.
"It is not up to the officer or enlisted man to decide what orders from the CIC he or she wishes to follow."
Yes it is. Always. With every single order.
"There are consequences to his actions, no matter how justified you or I may feel he was to do so."
It is the obvious consequences before Mr. New at the time of his decision that is the source of my admiration of him.
An illegal order is an illegal order. The process of it flowing down the chain of command from the President himself does not sanctify it.
This is how the powers that be do it. This is how they do as they damned well please and the law and the constitution be damned.They put a Mr. New into the crosshairs and threaten him with the full weight of the machinery of state and he, thus isolated, is expected to fall into line. Most of us do.
Not New.
New took an oath to defend America even to the point of death. That oath IS NOT transferrable to ANY OTHER entity by anyone,no matter how exalted in the chain of command he may be.
Bravo Mr. New. I hope when (not 'if' unless I am lucky)my time comes and I have offended the powers unto themselves and I have a decision to make that I can make the proper one as Mr. New did
No I didn't overlook it, did you?
No, but that boob New did. He willfully disobeyed a lawful order and he paid the price. He needs to stop his blubbering and accept the consequences of his actions. Not that THAT is going to happen any time soon.
I would actually argue that the UN is a foreign country. It is about 99% foreign. It controls territory and soldiers. It levies taxes. It has a governing body. It is effectively a foreign country.
Judge Paul L. Friedman was an assistant to Lawrence Walsh in Iran-contra investigation. He was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton. His best known decision is FEC v. GOPAC, 897 F.Supp. 615 (DDC 1995), in which he ruled against GOPAC. Judge Friedman was also an attorney in the law firm of White and Case for almost two decades.
***
The judge's bio.
FYI
THE MAN WHO SHOT PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN in March 1981 will be able to take unsupervised outings from the psychiatric facility where he was sent after being found not guilty by reason of insanity.
This ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman has caused widespread outrage. It will cause more when Americans learn that this highly-partisan judge was himself involved in an attempt to “assassinate” President Reagan politically.
Prior to his 1994 appointment to the Federal bench by President Bill Clinton, Paul L. Friedman in 1987-1988 was one of five Associate Independent Counsels assisting Lefty Lawrence Walsh’s political witch-hunt undertaken to cripple or destroy the Reagan Administration that history remembers as Iran-Contra.
Given his past as a partisan Reagan persecutor, Judge Friedman should have recused himself from deciding whether to release John W. Hinckley, Jr., 48, whose bullets came within inches of killing the same President that Friedman tried to bring down.
Instead, Friedman this week sent a message to America’s mentally unstable residents now being whipped by Democratic propaganda into hatred against current President George W. Bush that one can shoot a Republican President and not only escape the death penalty but also gain fame and regain freedom after doing so.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042650/posts
Alamo-girls informative page about Judge Friedman
http://www.alamo-girl.com/03152.htm
If I am not mistaken ,New has made an appeal to the
President --or at least one was made on his behalf. To
my knowledge he has been ignored. I have written the
Whitehouse--but with No connection to the case--I have been
ignored-as is to be expected in such.I do wish Bush would have stepped up to the plate on this--but suspect he wishes to remain disassociated--as there may come a time
when our military is usurped entirely by the UN or some
extra-constitutional entity. As predicted by the 1960's
State Dept. Document 7277Living at Peace in a World Without War.
Bush has been conspicuous by his silence on several issues.
I wanted to believe he was the man he was representing himself to be.
I couldn't stand his old man, though I voted for them both, for lack of a viable alternative.
I doubt we'll ever be given the opportunity again in the United States of America to vote
for a true conservative.
They must appeal, and I think we citizens should do something about this demonstrably biased judge.
Impeach? Dissolve his court? These are a couple of solutions.
If it is a federal court, Congress can disolve it.
I am less sure of the process for impeaching a judge, but I am sure there are freepers out there who can help.
Thanks for linking to the DSL!
You've got some great research. My pleasure.
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.