Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GIs can be forced to wear U.N. beret: judge upholds court martial of soldier who refused orders
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Sunday, December 26, 2004

Posted on 12/26/2004 1:11:46 AM PST by JohnHuang2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
True. But then, you can find plenty of examples of bad U.S. generals causing problems on their own as well.

Having your troops serve under allies isn't always the perfect situation. But its generally necessary at some level if you're going to fight alongside allies. To put it another way, I'd rather have had those U.S. troops under British command than have been doing all the fighting ourselves, with no British, Canadian, Polish, etc., support at all.

61 posted on 12/29/2004 8:47:46 AM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Of all the appropriate adjectives being thrown around on this thread the most powerful one to describe this is "unconstitutional".


62 posted on 12/29/2004 8:48:16 AM PST by SiliconValleyGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
Concur, in general - and under specific "Aliies" that we/I/you trust.

ANZAC's, Brit's, German's, Japanese are an easier choice than say South Koreans or Taiwan's ( ... See where the problems come from?) if those nations were attacked.

But putting troops under direct (no control) of EU or UN "commanders" who owe THEIR allegiance to Hillary or Kofi or the latest Sudan dictatorship IS what this policy you are addressing IS WHAT the international socialists ARE intending at doing.

The democrats/UN/international socialists ARE ALREADY screaming during the election that we could not react internationally WITHOUT the UN's permission!
63 posted on 12/29/2004 10:19:14 AM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: endthematrix

The oath mentioned here has never been uttered by a US officer while acting as a US officer. I can assure you of that.

What does that have to do with New anyway, he was an E-4 about as far from a commander as one can get.

IMO, he was either used by partisan politics to try and smear der schlickmeister, or he was just a plain ol' disobedient soldier. Either way, court martial was right and so is this decision.


64 posted on 12/29/2004 10:28:54 AM PST by American_Centurion (I am the martyrs' bane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Like I said, I've got no problem with putting U.S. troops under U.N. command for very specific operations that are consistent with our own policies. The inherent right to yank those troops out from under U.N. control at any time resides with us, so its not that big a deal.

Further, the reality is that a U.S. officer in that position is going to behave the same way as a U.S. officer does when under direct American command. That is, he will refuse to execute any unlawful orders.

It would be one thing if we were irrevocably assigning U.S. troops to the U.N., but that's not what's happening. It's important to keep that in mind.

65 posted on 12/29/2004 11:07:48 AM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: SiliconValleyGuy
Of all the appropriate adjectives being thrown around on this thread the most powerful one to describe this is "unconstitutional".

How so?

66 posted on 12/29/2004 11:09:33 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
Shouldn't he have recused himself if he is not competent to judge on the subject?

The term "competence of the court" is a legal term referring to the court's jurisdiction. He said that the issue is outside the scope of the court's authority.

67 posted on 12/29/2004 11:39:48 AM PST by Poohbah (God must love fools. He makes so many of them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
The term "competence of the court" is a legal term referring to the court's jurisdiction. He said that the issue is outside the scope of the court's authority.

OK. If the judge is saying the case is outside the court's jurisdiction, then how can the following have occurred? Shouldn't the court have declined the case?

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 r eported.


68 posted on 12/29/2004 12:18:51 PM PST by gitmo (Thanks, Mel. I needed that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: drt1

And clinton who lied under oath goes free, and the chairman of fannie mae gets a $1.3 million a year pension after mismanaging the fund to the tune of $9 billion.


69 posted on 12/29/2004 12:25:47 PM PST by ampat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts; Mr. Mojo

Heh!


70 posted on 12/29/2004 12:28:31 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter

Thanks. I always appreciate new target material.


71 posted on 12/29/2004 12:35:47 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Btw, I'd enthusiastically tell them where they could stuff their beret .....and doubtlessly suffer the consequences of my insubordination.
72 posted on 12/29/2004 12:41:25 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
"Thanks. I always appreciate new target material."

Thought of you immediately...Time for a different challenge, right??

Oh, and that's another scenario I'd pay to see -- YOUR reaction to the order: "Keep that UN beret on your head, Capt. Mojo!"

73 posted on 12/29/2004 12:47:54 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Heh.....I suspect you'd have a similar reaction to that order as well. Damn one-world SOBs.

The UN calls us stingy (even though we practically single-handedly finance their socialist organization and lead ALL catastrophe relief efforts throughout the world), and we say "okay, how many berets should we order?"

Unfortunately the good folks that are holding out hope that one day we'll give the blue helmeteers the big boot are living in a dream world.

74 posted on 12/29/2004 12:56:47 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Yep, be right next to you "I concur with Capt. Mojo -- hell no -- I ain't wearing this UN crap, sir. I pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of American. SIR")

"The UN calls us stingy (even though we practically single-handedly finance their socialist organization and lead ALL catastrophe relief efforts throughout the world), and we say "okay, how many berets should we order?"

The UN's hypocrisy is growing more bizarre by the day. I think France handed over a whopping $136,000 for the disaster.

And when will our legislators realize the UN is a front for socialism? (although this is just fine for the Dems, isn't it?) Naah, you're right -- ain't happening. The best we can do is keep on polishing our "skills" on those powder blue practice targets for the inevitable.

75 posted on 12/29/2004 1:09:30 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
Truly the president gives up no strategic command of our troops in such circumstances with the UN.

But for the same reason the USN repeatedly enters other countries "territorial waters" as a practice to prove we generally do not recognize the maritime territorial claims of other countries which we assert is "high seas" why on God's earth would we concede to decorating our soldiers in powder blue topped with a ridiculous oath?

76 posted on 12/29/2004 6:55:09 PM PST by Xcoastie (If you think education is expensive, try ignorance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson