Posted on 03/24/2007 7:42:40 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at mikenew.com ...
You may view the Government's Brief on our website at http://www.mikenew.com/ as the latest entry under Legal Documents. Our Reply will be posted as soon as it is available.
bump!
If four Justices vote "YES", then our case will be scheduled for Oral Auguments. If fewer than four, then our legal fight for the sovereignty of our military and our nation may be at an end.
Hope you win. Good luck.
You and JG should see this.
1)However, in Kosovo, Bill Clinton has committed America's military might to the support of bin Ladin's Balkan allies, and the policy of the Clinton Administration seeks the creation of a Balkan outpost for bin Ladin's terrorist network.
2)Instead, Congress submitted to the usurpations of a corrupt, impeached President, and made itself complicit in his crimes against our Constitution and our national sovereignty.
Unbelievable.
Put it this way - if Lt. Watada can't claim that he was justified to miss troop movement because the war was unjust, then Michael New can't refuse to serve under UN command.
You don't get to pick where the military sends ya. Such is the price you pay in joining the military.
No sympathy for New or Watada.
PINGGGGGGGGGG!!!
I may not be clear in my explanation but hopefully you'll see what I'm getting at.
Not necessarily. He would have been under the command of Multinational Forces Iraq, which includes the US, but also Iraq and other Coalition authorities. But, to expand the example a little - what about a soldier under NATO command in Afghanistan?
You don't get to pick who commands your unit. Sometimes units are sent under the command of NATO or MNFI or the UN. Such is the life of the soldier.
Nope, New was a grandstander who violated a lawful order to make a political point. You're not allowed to do that in uniform. That's unacceptable, and he deserves whatever he got.
Nope, New was a grandstander who violated a lawful order to make a political point. You're not allowed to do that in uniform. That's unacceptable, and he deserves whatever he got.
No, New was a loyal American. Commander in Chief Clinton was a traitor when he used American soldiers to further an anti-American institution.
Uniformed soldiers can't make those determinations.
Watdada says the same thing about Pres. Bush.
He would have been under the command of Multinational Forces Iraq, which includes the US, but also Iraq and other Coalition authorities. But, to expand the example a little - what about a soldier under NATO command in Afghanistan?
Do any of our military under any circumstances you outlined above wear any other insigna or dress other than American?
I was looking for a picture of a NATO uniform and found this article.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/perspective/perspective2.htm
NATO was formed under the auspices of the United Nations' Charter,
Looks like nato works for the un. Am I wrong?
As opposite examples as I have ever seen. Watada was under US military orders, New would have been under UN orders. There is no country named un and New was not a citizen of that non country and has no fidelity to the un. Watada, can not claim the same.
NATO is authorized under the UN Charter (it's considered a "regional arrangement" under Art. 51 of the Charter), but it was established by its own treaties.
Do any of our military under any circumstances you outlined above wear any other insigna
Good question.
It was concieved by the un and gets it's marching orders from the un so yes, NATO works for the un.
Question...does an American president go to or get permission or at least discuss with the un possible missions before that mission is launched?
Nope, but the United States is a signatory to the UN Charter, a treaty which it itself promulgated. Treaties are the law of the United States. Mr. New was not in a position to question the validity of working with the UN.
The examples are intentionally opposite, but they share a common thread. Both are individual officers who believed they could disobey lawful orders to make political points. "Theirs not to reason why/Theirs but to do or die."
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.