Supreme Court to decide whether to hear Michael New's case soon!

http://www.mikenew.com/ ^

[www.saveourguns.org]

On October 10, 1995, the 1/15 Battalion of the 3rd infantry Division of the U.S. Army came to attention at 0900 in Schweinfurt, Germany. All but one of the 550 soldiers were wearing a sky-blue baseball-style cap with a United Nations insignia on the front. One was wearing the olive-drab flat cap that is authorized to be worn with the Battle Dress Uniform. With this simple act of disobeying a direct order, Spc. 4 Michael New set the stage for a legal battle that has profound implications for the future of American soldiers into service of the United Nations without the constitutional permission of Congress.

[jude24]

gets it's marching orders from the un

That's certainly not true.

[processing please hold]

That's certainly not true.

How so?

[jude24]

The UN has no jurisdiction over NATO. It does not get to tell NATO what to do. There is no chain of command where NATO reports to the UN. Decisions are made by delegations from NATO member states, NOT the UN.

[processing please hold]

Mr. New was not in a position to question the validity of working with the UN.

That's where we'll have to just agree to disagree. Only congress can declare war, the un doesn't have the power to make American soldiers serve in a war. Well, at least they didn't.

[processing please hold]

For all intents and purposes, NATO works for and with the un.

http://www.nato.int/issues/un/index.html

Click on the link at the bottom as well. Out of principle I never capitalize the un. *spit*

[jude24]

NATO works for and with the un.

For? No. With? Absolutely.

Out of principle I never capitalize the un. *spit*

Well, that's certainly a mature attitude....

[processing please hold]

There is no chain of command where NATO reports to the UN.

Then please explain this from NATO's own site....

NATO’s Secretary General reports regularly to the UN Secretary General on progress in NATO-led operations and on other key decisions of the North Atlantic Council in the area of crisis management and in the fight against terrorism.

[processing please hold]

Well, that's certainly a mature attitude....,p>Never claimed to be mature now, did I?

The un charter was set up by Alger Hess. A communists, set on destroying the US. And it's working.

[freedomfiter2]

Uniformed soldiers can't make those determinations.


When the Nazi guards were put on trial for following orders the court decided differently.

[xzins]

This will not be the first time that American troops have been part of an international joint task force to accomplish a military mission in the interest of our country.

We had entire divisions under the Brits in WWII. We must always look to how any unit might be assigned to another unit.

Is it attached, op-conned, etc.?

However, I don't recall that US troops were ever asked to don the uniform of another nation.

[Nailbiter]

read later

[freema]

Delivered, dcwusmc!

[cgk]

BFLR

[Marine_Uncle]

Soldiers have to obey their chain of command's orders. It really is that simple.

[MrEdd]

Illegal orders do not have to be followed. It is really that simple.

The court in this case must determine whether the order was legal under the constitution, which was, when I served the final authority I swore to obey. If you don't think that the command has to obey the authority under which it operates, why would you assume this young troop needs to? To get a paycheck?

[Marine_Uncle]

The issue is with a soldier that did not follow his orders. Don't twist (most probabably with no malice nor ill conceived intent on your part) the issue at hand.
You sign up. You agree to follow the orders handed down to the best of your ability. The military cannot afford to have every soldier, airmen, sailor, aviator, Marine decide when to obey an order. Surely you can appreciate that.
I don't like this crap anymore then you do. American service personel should be allowed to wear their military designated dress. But the soldier did not follow his chain of command on this issue.

[verity]

You will not win your case.

[MrEdd]

I did not twist anything. I proposed that the government of the united states operates within a set of legal strictures, and is actually limited by them.

That is the very heart of this case. not the color blue. not the shape of the UN logo. the heart of this case is whether or not the government is limited under it's chartering constitution from commanding one of it's citizens to serve under an outside authority.

You don't get to dodge that question anymore than the Nazi troops tried for war crimes at Nuremberg did. Is there a limit to what the command may dictate, or is there not.

From the constitution:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

So as written personnel in our military serve in a chain of command of which their elected president is the direct head. at issue is whether or not they may be compelled to serve in a chain of command over which their president is not the direct head.

This is not some quibble of no substance. This is not some lazy ass sea lawyer scheme to get out of some work detail. If the command is not operating under the social contract our current government was founded under why should they be obeyed at any point ever? The concepts of duty and honor will no longer be applicable to the command structure, once it leaves the confines of it's empowering authority.

You have to put more intellect into this than absentmindedly mouthing "he didn't follow orders" His commanding officer had orders under Article Two, Section Two of the constitution that he directly abrogated. You seem to have no problem with that.

[Marine_Uncle]

"The concepts of duty and honor will no longer be applicable to the command structure, once it leaves the confines of it's empowering authority."
I agree most heartly on this concept. But it is not in the soldier's contract to decide when or when not to follow his commands lead. You should know. You served.