Skip to comments.GIs can be forced to wear U.N. beret: judge upholds court martial of soldier who refused orders
Posted on 12/26/2004 1:11:46 AM PST by JohnHuang2
click here to read article
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.
Of all the appropriate adjectives being thrown around on this thread the most powerful one to describe this is "unconstitutional".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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.
"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.
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?
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.