Posted on 04/24/2007 12:42:28 PM PDT by rightalien
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by a U.S. soldier who received a bad conduct discharge after refusing to serve on a United Nations peacekeeping mission in the former Yugoslavia.
Former Army medic Michael New has been fighting his discharge for the past 11 years. New argued that he was not afforded all his legal rights in the course of the court-martial that stemmed from his refusal to wear the U.N. insignia on his Army uniform.
He was supposed to be among a few hundred soldiers who were sent to Macedonia, a former Yugoslav republic, to guard against the spread of unrest from other areas torn by ethnic turmoil.
The justices declined to hear his case without comment.
The case is U.S., ex rel. New v. Rumsfeld, 06-691.
TRAITOROUS GLOBALISTS.
GRRRR.
New's case seem strong to me. He pointed to "constitutional, statutory and regulatory provisions which prohibited the Army from allowing US soldiers to be assigned to the UN for military purposes without the specific approvial of Congress. (Clinton did this unilaterally).
He also pointed to numerous legal provisions which prohibit the display of medals or badges from other governments--including international organizations--on Army uniforms without the consent of Congress. One regulation prohibits all foreign insignia--even with the consent of Congress--on the Battle Dress Uniform (BDU). New was court-maritaled for his refusal to wear the UN insignia and badges on his BDU!"
He chose to honor his oath. It's dispointing to see him not exonorated. This is what happens when you homeschool your children--they don't go along just to get along. It's hard to assemble a freedom-destroying standing army if the participants refuse to violate their oaths.
(From an old Homeschool Court Reporter article, May/June 1997)
My constitutional law professor represented New in some of the previous cases over this some years back.
We also know that the phrase “I was just following orders of my superiors” doesn’t justify evil done in the name of those orders!
Michael New wasn't being ordered to do "evil" - he was being ordered to stand his flipping post.
Herb Titus?
You got that right.
Refer to http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1995/nov95/col-11-2.html
He can, and should, disobey an illegal order.
You're not very good at reading, are you?
At no point have I argued that soldiers should obey illegal orders.
I have pointed out that Michael New was not given an illegal order but a completely legal one.
Michael New does not get to decide which treaties Congress is allowed to sign and which ones they aren't allowed to sign.
Treaties, no matter how idiotic, are binding.
Article VI of the US Constitution.
New needs to call on Congress to revoke the treaty, doubt that will happen though.
Interesting thesis - you'd need to win the Democrats over in order to get enough votes for Congress to withdraw from the UN Charter.
And since Michael New is a whiny slacker coward, he is precisely the kind of guy the Democrats in Congress represent - so he might be more effective than one would think.
It's an alliance, and is explicitly anticipated under the US Constitution.
I agree 100%.
I’ll type slower.
The order is illegal.
Also, it is not a treaty. It is a Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD 25) issued by President Clinton.
No, it is not illegal.
It is not illegal under the US Constitution.
It is not illegal under the federal code.
It is not illegal under the UCMJ.
Also, it is not a treaty. It is a Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD 25) issued by President Clinton.
A directive issued pursuant to the treaty.
Entering into treaties is Congress' job. Enforcing treaties is the Executive's job.
You should already be aware of the seapration of powers - it's sad I have to teach these basics to you.
seapration of powers
What is basic is you.
Translation;
"I, Stark_GOP, know that I have no counterarguments to offer because I have no clue what I am talking about. Therefore, I will nitpick on spelling - hoping that people will not notice I have nothing intelligent to say."
Sad stuff.
No. I have other things to do which are more important than to get into an argument with a fool.
No, Mike Farris.
Yawn.
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.