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.

[MrEdd]

I did indeed. And the contract that I signed first under the Carter administration had the constitution as the highest authority i served under. and just as my platoon sergeant could not over rule the dictates of the company commander, the battalion commander, or even the secretary of the navy can not over rule the strictures of the constitution. In the same way that I would not obey an order to lob mortar fire into a girl scout camp in an enemy territory, I would not do this either. you are still trying to dodge the issue at hand.

For you to be consistent in your reasoning you have to hold that the trials at Nuremberg were wrong. Do you honestly hold the position that lower levels of command can disobey the top levels of command by following intermediate levels. Either the constitution authorizes and somewhat structures the military, (in which case Michael New's point must be addressed)or the military is an extra-constitutional tool of the president that has no strictures and which can do what it wants wherever it wants.

Our practical knowledge material included a tiny red book copy of the constitution that I still have after all these years.

[Marine_Uncle]

It has occured to me I must have not read the article carefully. I will read it from scratch. I must be missing something, and are giving you a hard time un-intentially.

[Marine_Uncle]

My apologies and a big Semper Fi to you. After carefully reading the Fact section.....
"9. That on arrival to Camp Able Sentry, the soldiers of 1-15 In, to include SPC New had he deployed with them, were issued the "UN Peace-keeping force" identification card; and that, according to the Aide Memoire, the "UN Peace-keeping force" identification card is the only identity document required in the area of operation."

Things are rather clear to me what this soldier did was not unreasonable in the least.
Only thing to add or re-iterate. I don't like it one bit that our service personel have to serve under any joint commands, other then carefully orchestrated NATO missions, where all participants are on the same side.
Shame on me for not having clicked on the site and only having read the lead in...

[MrEdd]

NP. I've been following this one off and on since it began under Clinton.

[firewalk]

Very Best Wishes

[old republic]

Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice expressly states that soldiers are to obey all "LAWFUL" orders. Any unlawful order must be disobeyed. In fact, the "we were just following orders" defense has been ruled" invalid by the Supreme Court" as early as 1799 during the war with France. In this conflict the President ordered a Navy captain to illegally seize a Dutch ship. The result of this case was the courts decision that sometimes when soldiers follow orders "they act at their own peril" if the president's orders are illegal. Also he Court of Military Appeals held during the Vietnam war that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal."

[Marine_Uncle]

A nice add on at this point. Let us hope this soldier shall find his actions in good conscience as well as loyalty to our country, and of course pride in his branch of military freed of all wrong doing.