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
get a copy of CROSSBORDER WARRIOR & read it. you'll see how Canada, GB & the USA "went out of their way" to assure that foreign nationals serving with allied units did NOT have to swear allegiance to any foreign power.
Thanks for the insight and clarification......but I still say that baby blue is a bad fashion choice for a warrior!
Oh, Yeah!....then there's that "oath" thing......
Yup, you did. I'd add that even if the President agrees to put U.S. troops under the command of a foreign general, he still retains the ultimate authority because he can withdraw them at any time. So we haven't surrended our sovereignity or ultimate control of our troops. We've just put them under the temporary tactical control of someone else, for purposes that presumably serve our interests.
It's a completely legitimate exercise of the powers of the C-in-C, even if some people might disagree with a specific application of those powers.
If it ever comes to that, it is good to know that the majority of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces hold the UN in quite low esteem and will be at our six when needed.
Who appointed this particular judge?
"I solemnly affirm to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as a member of the international service of the United Nations, to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interest of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the organization."
Aside from noting that New was not a Commanding Officer, there's nothing the slightest bit wrong with that oath. A UN Commanding Officer is going to be entrusted with the command of troops from a variety of countries. Because of that, he has to act in accordance with the interests of the United Nations. I don't think we'd be too happy if some French U.N. Commanding Officer took U.S. troops and used them for French purposes without our consent.
Before anyone goes apoplectic about this, there are three huge safeguards to be considered.
First, we're not going to be sending U.N. troops on a mission, or putting a U.S. general in charge with that oath, unless we've already determined that our interests and those of the U.N. are aligned in the specific case at hand. For example, the Korean War was a U.N. military operation with MacArthur in charge. That wasn't a problem because there was no tension between the U.N. resolutions being enforced, and the policy interests of the United States.
Second, if the Commanding Officer ever feels that there is a conflict between his U.N. duties and his oath as a U.S. officer, he simply resigns. No problem.
Third, the President has the right to recall the troops and/or Commanding Officer if he sees a conflict developing between U.N. interests in that particular deployment and U.S. interests. So its not like we're ceding ultimate control of our military to some nefarious evildoers at the U.N.
Part, though not all, of the screw-up's in the Battle of the Bulge were because US forces on the north of the bulge, were phyicscally separated from their US commenders on the south/center/middle of the bulge and "had to be" under the control of Montgomery.
Much of the screw-ups in the Caen attacks after D Day and in Holland air attack (A Bridge Too Far" was because US troops and strategic policies were determined by the Brit's reluctance to attack without a specifically prepared/too great a demand to attack WITH too poor an attack planning.
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?