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

Skip to comments.

British General Takes Command Of US Troops
The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 7-31-2006 | Ahmed Rashid

Posted on 07/30/2006 6:33:03 PM PDT by blam

British general takes command of US troops

By Ahmed Rashid in Lahore

(Filed: 31/07/2006)

A British general will command American troops for the first time since the Second World War when Nato takes charge of the mission to pacify southern Afghanistan today.

Lt Gen David Richards

Lt Gen David Richards, Britain's most experienced officer in developing world arenas, assumes control of a merged Nato and US force that will grow from 9,000 to 18,000.

It is one of the largest and toughest missions the alliance has faced, covering six southern provinces and extending its authority to almost all of the country. At a press conference in Kabul on Saturday, Gen Richards promised that Nato will bring a new strategy to the fight.

Instead of chasing down the Taliban, Nato forces will garrison key towns and villages. It wants to bolster the weak government of President Hamid Karzai and win the support of local people by promoting much-needed development.

The general said he hoped there will be "secure zones" in the volatile south in three to six months.

The direct approach pursued under American command, particularly by British troops, has claimed the lives of some 700 Afghan fighters - more than a third of them Taliban - and 19 western troops including six British soldiers.

US-led coalition forces and Afghan police killed 20 suspected Taliban on Saturday following an attempted ambush in the Shahidi Hassas district of Uruzgan province.

Since the Americans launched Operation Thrust two months ago, Allied forces have been surprised by the ferocity of the Taliban counter-offensive, while there is growing evidence that more Afghan tribesmen, disillusioned with the lack of jobs and reconstruction and a corrupt government, are supporting the rebels.

Gen Richards emphasised that the opium trade was to blame for a major part of Afghanistan's violence. "That very evil trade is being threatened by the Nato expansion in the south," he said.

"This is a very noble cause we're engaged in and we have to liberate the people from the scourge of those warlords." It is unclear to what degree leading drug runners will be targeted.

Nato will control security in 75 per cent of the country - in the west, north and south - while the US-led coalition still leads the fight in the eastern provinces along the border with Pakistan.

In the south, the force will comprise mainly British - there are already 4,300 UK soldiers - Dutch and Canadians.

Nato will also command 13 Provincial Reconstruction Teams and take on more responsibility from the Americans for training the Afghan National Army and police.

Francesc Vendrell, the European Union representative in Kabul, told The Daily Telegraph: "The European countries will need to face the fact that sending forces to the south is going to be dangerous and I am convinced they are ready to take losses, although we want to minimize them."

Tom Koenigs, the head of the UN mission, told the UN Security Council last week that 2,000 Afghans had been killed this year and there were 54 suicide bombings carried out by extremists.

These were unknown in the country until January, when they were introduced after Taliban and al-Qa'eda received training in Iraq.

"The violence is four times what it was in 2005. . . at no time since the fall of the Taliban have the prospects for security been more bleak," said Mr Koenigs.

Nato also has to deal with the sensitive issue of Pakistan's support for the Taliban. Mr Koenigs told the UN that "the cross-border character of this insurgency is no longer a matter of debate".

There is also the danger that just as the Iraq war distracted the West from giving more money and troops to Afghanistan after the defeat of the Taliban in 2001, the crisis in Lebanon will have the same effect.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: british; command; general; gwot; nato; oef; takes; troops; uktroops; us

1 posted on 07/30/2006 6:33:07 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam

What a picture they chose


2 posted on 07/30/2006 6:34:01 PM PDT by nuconvert ([there's a lot of bad people in the pistachio business])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Nothing against the Brits, but I wonder if this British general took an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution like the soldiers he will be commanding did.

I'm sorry. My last tour of duty in the Army was three years in a NATO unit. It was three years that couldn't end quick enough and made me very eager to get out of the military altogether. All due to the fact that none of my commanders during those years were American and cared not a single bit about American interests. I didn't think very much of it beforehand, but since that time I a vehemently opposed to anyone other than American officers commanding American soldiers.

3 posted on 07/30/2006 7:00:29 PM PDT by frankiep (I respect Islamofacists more than the American left - at least they ADMIT that they hate the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

This is the new ISAF commander's intent.

http://www.afnorth.nato.int/ISAF/mission/mission_operations.htm

ISAF COMMANDER'S INTENT - ISAF IX

My guiding intent is, through our actions and a linked information operation firmly rooted in substance, to reinforce the people of Afghanistan's belief that long-term peace and growing economic prosperity from which everyone can benefit is possible if they continue to give their government, and its international partners, their support and encouragement.

ISAF, in partnership with the GOA and the International Community, is to think and plan for the long-term future of Afghanistan, seizing short-term opportunities as they occur but always in a way that is in step with the long-term vision for the country. We are to focus on action that actively assists the GOA in nurturing and further developing the consent of the people to the GOA (our centre of gravity) and its international partners, not least NATO. Respect for the people of Afghanistan and their faith is to be central to all we do.

Within this framework, ISAF will:

a. In step with GOA's National Development Strategy, concentrate on those activities that will most clearly and quickly assist the GOA in its drive to establish the sustainable economic growth on which the future of the country depends. Some examples of this approach include:
1. Helping ensure the security of mineral resources, border crossing points, and the transport network, water and power supplies.
2. Supporting the GOA in the development and prosecution of its Counter Narcotics (CN) campaign.
3. Assisting in the GOA's economic and human resource development strategy so as to enable Afghanistan to become increasingly self-sufficient.
b. Work to resolve conflict and reduce tension within Afghanistan, focusing on the holistic defeat of the residual insurgency threat to the country. Supporting and helping to train the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) to a standard that will enable them in time to assume full responsibility for the internal and external security of the country will be critical to success.

ISAF is to be prepared to respond positively to requests to help the GOA and International Agencies (IA) with its guidance, advice and coordinating skills as required, in order to assist actively in the achievement of these aims.

My Main Effort is to extend and deepen the areas in which the GOA and IAs/NGOs can safely operate in the interests of the people of Afghanistan, enabling the ANSF increasingly to take the lead in achieving this aim. In this way too I will seize the initiative against those who oppose the GOA through violent means, by using appropriate and well considered measures - including the robust use of force should it be necessary - at times and in places of my choosing thereby forcing them to respond to my design.

CONTINUING OPERATIONS

ISAF continues to support the Government of Afghanistan, GOA, in providing a safe and secure environment in the Kabul, northern and western regional Areas of Operation. Currently ISAF forces are responsible for providing security assistance in more than 50% of Afghanistan's territory. ISAF has operational control over nine NATO-ISAF PRTS and two Forward Support Bases, with two regional co-ordinating bodies to facilitate command and control.





4 posted on 07/30/2006 7:10:06 PM PDT by MadJack ("..we lost our corkscrew and were compelled to live on food and water for several days." W.C. Fields)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankiep
Nothing against the Brits, but I wonder if this British general took an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution like the soldiers he will be commanding did.

Very well said. My sentiments, exactly.

5 posted on 07/30/2006 7:12:26 PM PDT by demkicker (democrats and terrorists are intimate bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: frankiep
too bad they didn't get this guy.

He has been completely briefed on "Precious Body Fluids"

6 posted on 07/30/2006 7:24:42 PM PDT by Boiler Plate (Mom always said why be difficult, when with just a little more effort you can be impossible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam
Instead of chasing down the Taliban, Nato forces will garrison key towns and villages. It wants to bolster the weak government of President Hamid Karzai and win the support of local people by promoting much-needed development.
That's a brilliant idea. Create large, immobile targets for Taliban raiders to strike at will.
7 posted on 07/30/2006 7:40:58 PM PDT by Asclepius (protectionists would outsource our dignity and prosperity in return for illusory job security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I don't like this


8 posted on 07/30/2006 7:44:39 PM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankiep

Last time I checked, The US Constitution did not apply to Afghanistan.


9 posted on 07/30/2006 8:25:01 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Red meat, we were meant to eat it - Meat and Livestock Australia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All

Oh....boy....here....we....go....another...."Monty's Folly"....I hope we don't have to suffer another "Bridge to Far"!!!!!!:-(


10 posted on 07/30/2006 8:28:02 PM PDT by Defender2 (Defending Our Bill of Rights, Our Constitution, Our Country and Our Freedom!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: blam

um, when did UK generals start wearing stars?


11 posted on 07/30/2006 8:29:50 PM PDT by rahbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankiep

I absolutely agree.


12 posted on 07/30/2006 8:56:58 PM PDT by loboinok (Gun control is, hitting what you aim at!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam

We (U.S.) can't expect NATO nations to contribute soldiers to Afghanistan if we're going to refuse to ever let anyone else command the ones we send. Unfortunately, we can't have it both ways.


13 posted on 07/31/2006 6:08:58 AM PDT by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankiep

"I wonder if this British general took an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution like the soldiers he will be commanding did."

As the United States Constitution has no possible influence or impact on the mission being undertaken, I wonder what the relevance of this is? British forces have operated on Nato operations under an American commander, there is no valid reason at all why the reverse shouldn't happen.


14 posted on 07/31/2006 8:00:14 AM PDT by Canard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Canard

The US Constitution has no influence or impact on the mission? Oh, please. It has everything to do with it. In case you forgot, US soldiers are there to protect and defend the United States, and by extension the Constitution. A British commander, or any foreign commander for that matter, has absolutely no allegiance to the United States other than what their superiors dictate. By doing this, we are placing US troops under the command of officers who do not have to answer to the President, Congress, or the American people, but rather to a foreign government.

And it doesn't matter if that government is friendly with us one bit. What does matter is that this type of thing happens far too often with barely a word said about it. I suggest you take a look at this site: http://www.mikenew.com/index.html. It is the story of Michael New, a US soldier who was arrested and dishonorably discharged from the Army for having the audacity to believe that the Constitution and the oath of enlistment actually mean something, and that foreign officers have no legal authority over his status as a US soldier. His situation had to do with the UN, not NATO, but the principle is still very much the same.

btw, If the United States Constitution has nothing to do with the mission, then please tell me how you justify sending American soldiers, whose sole duty is to protect and defend it, into harms way.


15 posted on 07/31/2006 10:25:48 AM PDT by frankiep (I respect Islamofacists more than the American left - at least they ADMIT that they hate the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: frankiep

"The US Constitution has no influence or impact on the mission? Oh, please. It has everything to do with it. In case you forgot, US soldiers are there to protect and defend the United States, and by extension the Constitution"

The soldiers haven't been transferred the UK. They're not our soldiers now. If George Bush happens to pop by and give them an order, they still answer to him. All that has happened is that the overall control of this particular operation is being held by a British officer.

"please tell me how you justify sending American soldiers, whose sole duty is to protect and defend it, into harms way."

I'm not American, so I'm not sure I have to justify it. I'm also not sure where the 'sole duty' part comes from. I don't see the word 'sole' in the Oath of Enlistment. It describes a duty to 'support and defend the Constitution' and also to obey the orders of the President and superior officers. It seems to me logically (again not claiming any kind of knowledge or expertise here) that, if the President has the authority to determine that operating in Afghanistan falls within that remit, then I don't really see why he shouldn't equally decide that operating in that same arena in support of and under operational command of an ally falls within the remit.

What would you advocate in practical terms here anyway? Should we (British), the French, Germans, Spanish, Belgians and multiple others all pull our troops out of Afghanistan? Or should they all be there operating independently? I'm not sure how that would be beneficial to the mission.


16 posted on 07/31/2006 11:10:07 AM PDT by Canard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Canard
The soldiers haven't been transferred the UK. They're not our soldiers now. If George Bush happens to pop by and give them an order, they still answer to him. All that has happened is that the overall control of this particular operation is being held by a British officer.

They have been transferred to the command of a British officer. Their lives have been placed in the hands of a foreign officer who is under absolutely no obligation to answer to the American people or government.

I'm not American, so I'm not sure I have to justify it. I'm also not sure where the 'sole duty' part comes from. I don't see the word 'sole' in the Oath of Enlistment.

The purpose of the US Army is to protect and defend the US Constitution. American soldiers take an oath to do so. Foreign officers take no such oath, and have no such duty. It's pretty clear that there is a conflict of interest here.

It describes a duty to 'support and defend the Constitution' and also to obey the orders of the President and superior officers. It seems to me logically (again not claiming any kind of knowledge or expertise here) that, if the President has the authority to determine that operating in Afghanistan falls within that remit, then I don't really see why he shouldn't equally decide that operating in that same arena in support of and under operational command of an ally falls within the remit.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. This authority is subordinated, by the President, to American officers. These officers are given a 'commission' to command and lead American soldiers. However, just becuase he is the CIC, it does not mean that he can give command of US soldiers to whoever he pleases. The President does not have the legal right to subordinate American soldiers to the command of officers of a foreign power. They have not been 'commissioned'. If he wished to do so he would have to go to Congress and get approval in the form of a law. Congress makes the laws.

Unfortunately, this practice of subordinating American soldiers to foreign commanders illegally is nothing new. It started in WWII under FDR, and has continued right on up through Clinton and Bush.

If there is a situation where it is necessary to place the command of US soldiers under foreign officers then there is a legal way to do so. Through Congress. However, Congress has managed to skillfully tap dance around these types of issues on the few occassions they have actually been brought up.

17 posted on 07/31/2006 11:34:51 AM PDT by frankiep (I respect Islamofacists more than the American left - at least they ADMIT that they hate the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: blam
Gen Richards emphasised that the opium trade was to blame for a major part of Afghanistan's violence. "That very evil trade is being threatened by the Nato expansion in the south," he said.

That it is. This isn't the first war involving Britain it has caused.

18 posted on 07/31/2006 11:35:20 AM PDT by Young Scholar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defender2
Instead of chasing down the Taliban, Nato forces will garrison key towns and villages.

Dien Bien Phu?

19 posted on 07/31/2006 11:41:58 AM PDT by Texas Jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: frankiep

I can see the force of your argument: but surely the more this argument is developed, the more the reverse must also hold true. It must logically be equally unacceptable for British troops ever to be under the command of an American officer. Or, indeed, that the troops of any one sovereign state should ever be under the command of an officer of any other sovereign state. For although the form of words may differ, the oath taken by the armed forces of any country is essentially equivalent to that which you describe for the US: to defend that country and that country alone. The logic of this is that an effective multi-national force of any kind would be impossible in any circumstances: for presumably we all agree that any force to be effective must have an overall command, which can't be a committee. Are you really being as absolutist about this as to rule out all such multi-national forces in all situations?


20 posted on 07/31/2006 12:47:14 PM PDT by Winniesboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Winniesboy

I understand what you are saying. I am not saying that troops from any one state should ever be under the command or an officer from another nation. In the case of Britain, I don't know what their laws are in such a circumstance so I can't comment on that. However, as far as the US is concerned there is a legal way to do this. For US troops to be placed under the command of foreign officers Congress must approve of it. American lawmakers, Congress, must come out and say that they authorize the President, the Commander-in-Chief, to place US troops under foreign command. This has not happened with good reason. I would imagine that very few members of Congress would go on the record as voting to allow American soldiers to be placed under non-American officers. If such a move were truely necessary to protect our national security, the President would bring the issue to Congress who would then decide if they wish to grant the President that power. Like I said, this hasn't happened for quite some time, going back for decades.


21 posted on 07/31/2006 4:03:26 PM PDT by frankiep (I respect Islamofacists more than the American left - at least they ADMIT that they hate the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: frankiep

Yeah - most countries feel that way about aliens commanding their troops. That's why forces like NATO which harness allies and so forth are tricky to get right...why should the Brits etc surrender their forces to US control if the favour is never returned?


22 posted on 07/31/2006 5:53:12 PM PDT by Androcles (All your typos are belong to us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam

Might as well resurrect Cornwallis and other British colonial generals to oversee our troops too.


23 posted on 07/31/2006 5:55:05 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (404 Page Error Found)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankiep
A British commander, or any foreign commander for that matter, has absolutely no allegiance to the United States other than what their superiors dictate. By doing this, we are placing US troops under the command of officers who do not have to answer to the President, Congress, or the American people, but rather to a foreign government.

By the same token any foreign government should quite rightly refuse to allow their troops to be under U.S. command?

It is the story of Michael New, a US soldier who was arrested and dishonorably discharged from the Army for having the audacity to believe that the Constitution and the oath of enlistment actually mean something, and that foreign officers have no legal authority over his status as a US soldier. His situation had to do with the UN, not NATO, but the principle is still very much the same.

New was a boob who thought that he knew more than the officers and NCOs placed over him. Turns out he was wrong.

24 posted on 07/31/2006 6:01:01 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
By the same token any foreign government should quite rightly refuse to allow their troops to be under U.S. command?

Like I said, other countries have the right to follow whatever laws they have in these situations. And I never said that we should refuse to allow our troops to ever be put under the command of an officer from an allied nation, only that it should be done legally. Meaning that Congress comes out and authorizes US troops to be placed under foreign command. Why is this so hard for some people here to understand?

New was a boob who thought that he knew more than the officers and NCOs placed over him. Turns out he was wrong.

Wrong. New was someone who realized that he was a US soldier sworn to protect US interests under the authority of the Constitution. Not a United Nations soldier under the command of UN appointed officers. According to the Constitution (remember that little document?) New was absoultely right. Had he been wrong he would have been prosecuted; yet he never was and never will be because it would mean that Congress would have to publicly say that it is allowable for American soldiers to be placed under foreign command and the American public would not stand for that.

25 posted on 07/31/2006 7:24:43 PM PDT by frankiep (I respect Islamofacists more than the American left - at least they ADMIT that they hate the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: frankiep
Like I said, other countries have the right to follow whatever laws they have in these situations. And I never said that we should refuse to allow our troops to ever be put under the command of an officer from an allied nation, only that it should be done legally. Meaning that Congress comes out and authorizes US troops to be placed under foreign command. Why is this so hard for some people here to understand?

Perhaps it's because I'm not aware of any Constitutional clause requiring Congressional approval. The President is commander in chief, not Congress. The Joint Chiefs anre the military commanders. Congress has no direct control over the day-to-day operations of the military.

New was someone who realized that he was a US soldier sworn to protect US interests under the authority of the Constitution.

And I'd ask again, exactly what clause was being violated by having U.S. troops in UN service. New took an oath to obey the orders of the officers placed over him. He violated that oath. He was punished for it. He got what he deserved.

Had he been wrong he would have been prosecuted; yet he never was and never will be...

I don't know where you've been but New was court martialed and convicted and given a bad conduct discharge in February 1996.

26 posted on 08/01/2006 3:50:41 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Read this and tell me that New was wrong:

105th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. CON. RES. 158
Condemning the deployment of United States military personnel in the service of the United Nations in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 25, 1997
Mrs. CHENOWETH (for herself, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, and Mr. HALL of Texas) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on National Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned







CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Condemning the deployment of United States military personnel in the service of the United Nations in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Whereas Article I, section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution of the United States prohibits any person holding an office of profit or trust under the United States from accepting any office from a foreign government without the consent of Congress;

Whereas all Federal employees, including all military personnel, hold offices of profit or trust under the United States;

Whereas the United Nations has been construed to be a `foreign government' under section 7342 of title 5, United States Code, a provision of law that prohibits the acceptance of gifts or decorations by Federal employees from foreign governments;

Whereas the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 expressly prohibits the President from deploying United States military personnel in service of the United Nations for actions taken under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter without the approval of Congress;

Whereas United Nations resolutions concerning all deployments in the former Yugoslavia, including the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, have relied upon Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter for its authority for the deployment of troops;

Whereas President Clinton has deployed United States military personnel to this battle-torn region and such personnel have been ordered to assume the additional office of `U.N. soldier';

Whereas all officers who command United Nations forces take the following oath of exclusive loyalty to the United Nations: `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';

Whereas Congress has not consented to the deployment of United States military personnel to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as required by the United Nations Participation Act of 1945;

Whereas it is the inherent right of every United States citizen to maintain a singular loyalty to this Nation;

Whereas it has been the high privilege and honor of many of our bravest citizens to serve alongside the military of other nations, but it is a grave violation of the rights of a citizen-soldier to coerce that soldier to become a member of any military other than that of the United States;

Whereas any legislative mandate ordering the President to comply with the applicable law may place United States servicemen and servicewomen into unnecessary difficulties; and

Whereas the Congress believes the best interest of both our Nation and our military personnel necessitates a deliberate path in seeking voluntary compliance with the law by the President: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress--

(1) condemns the deployment of United States military personnel in the service of the United Nations in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as a violation of both the Constitution and the laws of the United States;

(2) calls upon the President to perform his constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief by forthwith taking total command of all United States military personnel participating in United Nations operations, to take the appropriate steps to ensure that United States military personnel wear only the uniform of the United States without any items from the United Nations, and to carry military identity cards issued by the United States only and not by the United Nations; and

(3) calls upon the President to take expeditiously all steps necessary to resolve all existing conflicts with United States military personnel who have bravely stood for the right to be exclusively loyal to this Nation and who have refused to serve under foreign commanders in foreign uniforms consistent with the constitutional and principles of this resolution.




"I don't know where you've been but New was court martialed and convicted and given a bad conduct discharge in February 1996."

Here's a news flash. The military does not make law. Normally missing a deployment would be thrown in a military prison. New was only given a bad conduct discharge because the Army knew that they had no legal ground to stand on were they to try for a conviction.

I suggest you check up on the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 if you think that Congress has no say in whether or not American soldiers are given up to foreign command.


27 posted on 08/01/2006 8:51:16 AM PDT by frankiep (I respect Islamofacists more than the American left - at least they ADMIT that they hate the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: frankiep
Read this and tell me that New was wrong...

OK, New was wrong. I say he was wrong. A court martial said he was wrong. The miltiary appeals court said he was wrong. And the Supreme Court concured with the earlier decisions when it refused to hear the case. And I'm sorry but I don't see how a non-binding House resolution introduced a year after New was dishonrably discharged and which was sent to committee, never to see the light of day again changes anything.

Here's a news flash. The military does not make law. Normally missing a deployment would be thrown in a military prison. New was only given a bad conduct discharge because the Army knew that they had no legal ground to stand on were they to try for a conviction.

New didn't miss deployment since his infraction had occured before the unit deployed. He was, I believe, charged with a failure to obey an order. Which, if I recall correctly, is a violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, one of the punative articles. Punishment is as a court martial may direct. In this case the court martial directed that New be booted out of the Army with a dishonorable discharge.

I suggest you check up on the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 if you think that Congress has no say in whether or not American soldiers are given up to foreign command.

What part of the UN Participation Act specifically are you referring to?

28 posted on 08/01/2006 9:37:54 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: frankiep

Perhaps there is someone more expert than I am on constitutional issues, but I think that ratified treaties have quasi-constitutional status. The NATO treaty may have provisions for the assignment of military units to NATO missions. In addition, the CINC of NATO forces is an American General, U.S. Marine General Jones, if I recollect correctly. I don't know the the NATO CINC has to be an American General, but I don't think there ever has been a NATO CINC who was not American. We have had many Royal Marine officers on exchange tours with the United States Marines who have served as company commanders of United States Marine. The only limitation has been that the disciplinary functions under the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice are exercised by the Company Executive Officer under such a circumstance, rather than by the Company Commander.


29 posted on 08/01/2006 9:58:02 AM PDT by mathurine (ua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
OK, New was wrong. I say he was wrong. A court martial said he was wrong. The miltiary appeals court said he was wrong. And the Supreme Court concured with the earlier decisions when it refused to hear the case. And I'm sorry but I don't see how a non-binding House resolution introduced a year after New was dishonrably discharged and which was sent to committee, never to see the light of day again changes anything.

The court martial discharged him for disobeying an order. That is not being disputed. The crux of the matter is that the order was an unlawful one. Any civilian court that agreed to hear the case would have to examine the legality of the order itself, which is probably exactly why no court has taken the case; it would open up quite a can of worms, don't you think.

New didn't miss deployment since his infraction had occured before the unit deployed. He was, I believe, charged with a failure to obey an order. Which, if I recall correctly, is a violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, one of the punative articles. Punishment is as a court martial may direct. In this case the court martial directed that New be booted out of the Army with a dishonorable discharge.

Again, the fact that he disobeyed an order is not being disputed. The court martial only determined that he disobeyed the order and did not take in to consideration that the order was illegal to begin with. Once again, had the military done otherwise it would have opened up a huge can of worms.

What part of the UN Participation Act specifically are you referring to?

SEC. 6. The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter.

http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/un_participation_act.asp

30 posted on 08/01/2006 5:02:14 PM PDT by frankiep (I respect Islamofacists more than the American left - at least they ADMIT that they hate the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: frankiep
The crux of the matter is that the order was an unlawful one.

Several military and federal courts have ruled that it was a lawful order.

Any civilian court that agreed to hear the case would have to examine the legality of the order itself, which is probably exactly why no court has taken the case; it would open up quite a can of worms, don't you think.

No, I believe that no civilian court has taken up the case because they have no jurisdiction or they have found there is no basis for appeal.

Again, the fact that he disobeyed an order is not being disputed. The court martial only determined that he disobeyed the order and did not take in to consideration that the order was illegal to begin with. Once again, had the military done otherwise it would have opened up a huge can of worms.

Actually they did take that into consideration, and found that New was wrong and that it was a legal order.

SEC. 6....

Read on. "The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements."

31 posted on 08/01/2006 5:39:43 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Perhaps it is you who should read on.

UN Charter Chapter VII
Article 42 - Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43 - 1) All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2) Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3) The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm


Now, the UN Participation Act states that any agreements "shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution." Once the approval has been given by Congress, the President, as Commander in Chief, may then send the troops if he wishes. Congressional approval is needed for the special agreement, not for the subsequent implementation of that agreement.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm

Congressional approval was never given. New was absolutely right. Since Congress never gave approval to the agreement for US troops to be a part of this UN mission, the order was illegal.


32 posted on 08/01/2006 8:12:47 PM PDT by frankiep (I respect Islamofacists more than the American left - at least they ADMIT that they hate the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: frankiep
Congressional approval was never given. New was absolutely right. Since Congress never gave approval to the agreement for US troops to be a part of this UN mission, the order was illegal.

Congressional approval wasn't needed. New was wrong, and by refusing to hear his case the Courts agreed that he was wrong.

33 posted on 08/02/2006 4:15:17 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: blam

I would have expected something like this to happen if Clinton were President. We're just all ONE big happy group of states now. Very sad day.


34 posted on 08/02/2006 4:22:52 AM PDT by Modok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Yeah, ok. I just showed you written law that specifically says that Congressional approval is necessary and your response is 'no it isn't' and 'New was wrong'. Great argument there.

It cannot get any clearer than the law I just showed you. I don't know if you're choosing not to see it, or if you really can't make the distinction between serving under US law and serving under UN law. Regardless of how you think US soldiers should be allowed to be dispatched, the law says what it says. New was absolutely right.


35 posted on 08/02/2006 7:42:30 AM PDT by frankiep (I respect Islamofacists more than the American left - at least they ADMIT that they hate the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: frankiep
Yeah, ok. I just showed you written law that specifically says that Congressional approval is necessary and your response is 'no it isn't' and 'New was wrong'. Great argument there.

No, what you showed me was one section of a piece of legislation that you claim showed that it required congressional approval. What I said was that the courts obviously disagree with your interpretation and have declined to intervene in the case. You can make any interpretation you want, I'll go along with all the courts that have examined the matter and determined that New's case doesn't hold water, and that the verdict he received was fair and proper.

36 posted on 08/02/2006 8:14:33 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

This will be my last post on this matter since talking to you is like talking to a wall. I "claim" that it requires Congressional approval because it says "shall be subject to the approval of the Congress". It´s not as if I'm pulling this "claim" out of thin air; it´s right there in black and white, in plain English. There isn´t much to interpret here.

I also find it interesting that you keep bringing up the courts decision, or rather nondecision, in this matter. Are you telling me that courts in this country always hold true to the laws of this country? Are they not notorious for ignoring laws they don't like and basing their decisions on laws that don't even exist? I would think that anyone who has spent any amount of time here on FR would know better than that. Your arguement is extremely weak if you're basing the premise that New is wrong on the court's inaction. When the Constitution says that it is legal for the courts to ignore the law, and make up their own laws, I will go along with your arguement; but right now I'll just stick to listening to legal, Constitutionally supported, legislation.


37 posted on 08/03/2006 7:06:29 PM PDT by frankiep (I respect Islamofacists more than the American left - at least they ADMIT that they hate the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: frankiep
Are you telling me that courts in this country always hold true to the laws of this country?

No, what I am saying is that I trust the court's opinion on this matter over your's. I had thought I made that clear.

I admit that I haven't been following New and his abuse of the legal system lately so I'll confess that I'm a bit out of touch. Maybe you would know, since you're such a supporter of his. Did New ever get any prison time for that second drug arrest?

38 posted on 08/04/2006 4:19:53 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rahbert

Not sure on date, but it is for ease of identification of senior officers within NATO structure.


39 posted on 08/22/2006 2:53:40 PM PDT by Fletch357 (Je Maintiendrai!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: frankiep
It started in WWII under FDR, and has continued right on up through Clinton and Bush

Actually it happened in WWI as well.

40 posted on 08/22/2006 3:05:08 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (Islam is a subsingularity memetic perversion : (http://www.orionsarm.com/topics/perversities.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | 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