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

Skip to comments.

Mike New granted hearing in DC Appeals Court
Mike New Homepage ^

Posted on 01/24/2006 6:29:20 AM PST by landofliberty1776

Go to the link for an article that I wrote regarding the story, and check out his website www.mikenew.com


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: michaelnew

1 posted on 01/24/2006 6:29:20 AM PST by landofliberty1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: landofliberty1776
Specialist New was court-martialed in 1996 after his refusal to follow an order that would place him under direct command of the United Nations, specifically a general from Finland. Mr. New to his credit did not believe that he, as an active American military member, should be required to take an oath, or be under command of the United Nations personnel.

It helps if people know what the subject is all about.

2 posted on 01/24/2006 6:31:22 AM PST by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theDentist

I am a retired Air Force NCO. This idea among some conservatives that military enlisted men have the right to decide which orders to obey and which to ignore is new to me and I don't like it. He should have obeyed the order even though he (and I) did not like it.


3 posted on 01/24/2006 7:07:32 AM PST by ekwd (Murphy's Law Has Not Been Repealed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ekwd
Well, I respect your opinion. I didn't serve to my regret. I think his action was appropriate, though the cost to him personally has been great.

I merely wanted a better description of the subject out there so it would get more attention and people would understand from the get-go what the story was about.

4 posted on 01/24/2006 7:11:55 AM PST by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: theDentist

We were tought to obey an order and then report it if we believed that it was illegal. This was in reaction to My Lai. It would be impossible to maintain discipline and good order if New had his way. Officers can resign, enlisted must obey.


5 posted on 01/24/2006 7:19:16 AM PST by ekwd (Murphy's Law Has Not Been Repealed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ekwd

sorry, pal...........we do NOT swear allegiance or take orders from foreign military personnel.........nor do we wear uniforms and/or insignia other than US military issue..........we swear an oath to the US, not the UN..........


6 posted on 01/24/2006 7:21:40 AM PST by joe fonebone (Woodstock defined the current crop of libs, but who cleaned up the mess they left?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

Sorry to you pal. We swear to obey the lawful orders of our superiors and we do not get to decide what is lawful and what is not. Such is the lot of a military enlisted man.


7 posted on 01/24/2006 7:23:27 AM PST by ekwd (Murphy's Law Has Not Been Repealed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ekwd

ya mean like the nazi's on trial at nurenburg.......they were only following orders, yet they were all hung by the neck until they were dead......you cannot order a man to disobey standing orders, and yes, an enlisted man can refuse to obey lawful orders if they conflict with standing orders ( I know, because I did it, and the man who gave me the LAWFUL order that I refused to obey, disappeared from our unit, and nothing happened to me ) And I took an oath to defend the US from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and nowhere did that oath tell me to protect, defend, or serve under the UN flag for any reason......... I would guess you were a senior non com, or a junior officer.


8 posted on 01/24/2006 7:40:15 AM PST by joe fonebone (Woodstock defined the current crop of libs, but who cleaned up the mess they left?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ekwd

As I recall, he tried to go through channels before his refusal to wear a UN helmet and insignia. He wrote a report quoting UCMJ and the US Constitution which he swore to uphold.


9 posted on 01/24/2006 7:46:47 AM PST by cyclotic (Cub Scouts-Teach 'em young to be men, and politically incorrect in the process)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
"ya mean like the nazi's on trial at nurenburg......."

This demonstrates that you are arguing from a weak position.

Cry and weep as you may, but the order was lawful and that position will be upheld.

10 posted on 01/24/2006 7:52:42 AM PST by verity (The MSM is a National disgrace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

I was an Air Force Master Sergeant. My guess is that your superiors decided that the order was not lawful because it conflicted with the standing order. I agree that what New was ordered to do was wrong. I cannot agree that he had the right to disobey the order. This was not an extreme case like the My Lai massacre.


11 posted on 01/24/2006 8:16:05 AM PST by ekwd (Murphy's Law Has Not Been Repealed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cyclotic

He was a military enlisted man. Once his options were exhausted, he had no choice but to obey the order until his term was up.


12 posted on 01/24/2006 8:17:24 AM PST by ekwd (Murphy's Law Has Not Been Repealed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ekwd

There are 3 reasons, in my mind only, that gave him the right to refuse this particular order:
1) Congress has not specifically authorized the wearing of UN insignia, or uniforms by active duty US military personnel
2) The wearing of foreign uniforms is not addresses specifically by US Military regulations.
3) The wearing of a foreign uniform and /or insignia, and taking of orders from a foreign officer is inconsistant with the oath of allegience taken by all military personnel.

Oh, and Thank You for your service to our country!!!!


13 posted on 01/24/2006 8:32:28 AM PST by joe fonebone (Woodstock defined the current crop of libs, but who cleaned up the mess they left?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: landofliberty1776

This man swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. he did not swear any allegiance to the U.N., and for some to think he should have is disheartening and concerning.


14 posted on 01/24/2006 3:23:22 PM PST by landofliberty1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
Specialist New was court-martialed in 1996 after his refusal to follow an order that would place him under direct command of the United Nations, specifically a general from Finland.

Actually New would have been under the direct command of his officers and NCOs. The same officers and NCOs that he swore an oath to obey when he enlisted. He violated that oath, articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and was properly punished. He got what he deserved, no more and no less.

15 posted on 01/24/2006 3:27:55 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Well, as I said in an earlier post, I didn't server (to my deep regret) but I think he did bring up a good political point: Is he legally obligated to follow orders of a General from another nation or of U.N. The Military JAG says yes.


16 posted on 01/24/2006 4:06:04 PM PST by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
Is he legally obligated to follow orders of a General from another nation or of U.N. The Military JAG says yes.

Well if New parked his car in the general's spot and the general ordered him to move it then I would say 'yes'. And I would say that that would be about the only way New would be faced with a direct order from someone other than his immediate commanders, which were all American. New was an idiot who saw rules and regulations where none existed. He disobeyed a lawful order of his superiors and he was properly punished for his actions.

17 posted on 01/24/2006 4:14:59 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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