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

Skip to comments.

Court turns down U.S. soldier who wouldn't serve U.N. peacekeeping mission
North County Times ^ | April 23, 2007 | AP

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.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: marines; michaelnew; military; soldier; un
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last
So my soldier takes the oath to the American Constitution and ends up under the blue helmet?? On "The Land of Freedom"!

By the way, instead of blue it should be red, the communist color. At least it would be more honest.

1 posted on 04/24/2007 12:42:33 PM PDT by rightalien
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rightalien

This guys should have been the first pardon. There isn’t a damn thing wrong with refusing to serve an organization that doesn’t report to the US Constitution.


2 posted on 04/24/2007 12:48:11 PM PDT by Idaho Whacko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

I have mixed emotions on this. I can sympathize with him. Make your reservations known and do your duty. Bush should pardon him and grant an honorable discharge after an appropriate time.


3 posted on 04/24/2007 12:50:32 PM PDT by depressed in 06 (Bolshecrat, the despicable party of what if and whine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

Michael New is right and the courts are wrong. If I were President, I would restore New’s status and change hsi discharge to honorable. I would order that the use of UN insignia be ended.

Tehre is NO leagal basis for putting the UN logo on US military uniforms.

How old is New? Is he 35 yeat? Maybe he could run for President. :)


4 posted on 04/24/2007 12:52:01 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

I don’t lke the idea of a soldier refusing to do his duty but in this case I can’t really call this his duty.


5 posted on 04/24/2007 12:55:19 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Peace without victory is a temporary illusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

Think the left will rally to this guy’s cause?

I don’t think so either.


6 posted on 04/24/2007 12:55:24 PM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: depressed in 06
Bush should pardon him and grant an honorable discharge after an appropriate time.

He's more interested in granting amnesty to 10,000,000 illegals.

7 posted on 04/24/2007 12:55:32 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rightalien
And once again the Supreme Court proves that it has no loyalty to America / Americans. He is a United States Soldier, not a United Nations (which is a contradiction in terms anyway) soldier. Someone needs to start a petition that we all can sign and send to President W.
8 posted on 04/24/2007 12:58:45 PM PDT by Shadowstrike (Be polite, Be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

Bush should pardon him.


9 posted on 04/24/2007 1:01:33 PM PDT by chaos_5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: depressed in 06

“Make your reservations known and do your duty.”


But his duty was to the United States of America, not the United Nations.
He enlisted in the United States Army.


10 posted on 04/24/2007 1:02:22 PM PDT by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rightalien
"and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

What part of this didn't he understand?

11 posted on 04/24/2007 1:06:10 PM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
And he was given orders to support a UN mission. Sorry, but I side with the supremes here.

I sympathize with those who think his assigned mission was crap, but so is latrine duty. We don't all get the assignments we want, but we must honor the chain of command. It is not an individual soldiers place to question the mission. This is not an unlawful order situation, anymore than having the UN in New York is unlawful. I don't like it, but its not unlawful.

12 posted on 04/24/2007 1:08:21 PM PDT by Magnum44 (Terrorism is a disease, precise application of superior force is the ONLY cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rightalien
This is a tough one.

As much as I despise the UN, if your commander orders you to join a multinational force, I don't think you have the right to refuse that order as a member of the military.

He should have done his best to serve with honor. If that put him at odds with his commanders while performing his duties, then he should have reported the situation up the chain of command.

I however have very little information on which to base my opinions, so it is quite possible that the circumstances justified his actions.

13 posted on 04/24/2007 1:09:14 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightalien
(1) As a soldier, Michael New reported to the Commander-In-Chief and took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

(2) The US Congress, as it is authorized to do by the Constitution, signed the Charter of the United Nations - a treaty which gave the US certain privileges and certain responsibilities as a party to the Charter.

(3) One of the responsibilities the US has under the Charter is to supply peacekeepers in certain contexts.

(4) The Commander-In-Chief is authorized by Congress to assign members of the US military to fulfill those treaty obligations.

(5) Michael New was selected.

(6) Michael New was insubordinate and violated his Constitutional oath.

(6) He is lucky he is not in prison.

14 posted on 04/24/2007 1:10:20 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
He enlisted in the United States Army.

Which is a country that holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and which has certain responsibilities in that role.

If he doesn't like the treaties Congress signs, he can take it up with his Congressman. He cannot disobey a legal order and get away with it because he is ignorant of how US law works.

15 posted on 04/24/2007 1:14:18 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

” ...I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...”
~~~~~
From the FAQ, Leatherneck magazine...
~~~~~

What are the oaths of enlistment and oaths for officers?

Enlisted: I (state your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Officer: (state your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.


16 posted on 04/24/2007 1:16:51 PM PDT by gunnyg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

If I were President, I would restore New’s status and change hsi discharge to honorable.

Too bad you or any other reasonable person isn’t president. This is the same president holding 3 US Border Agents in prison for politically connected Mexican drug dealers and is willing to extradite a US citizen bounty hunter for capturing a politically connected seriel rapist.


17 posted on 04/24/2007 1:27:16 PM PDT by TheKidster (you can only trust government to grow, consolidate power and infringe upon your liberties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheKidster

Not to mention that this President is holding our troops prisoner at Pendleton and elsewhere for doing their jobs and killing the enemy.


18 posted on 04/24/2007 1:31:43 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Well said. I’ve no love for the corrupt and incompetent United Nations. I’ve no love for the corrupt and degenerate President William J. Clinton.

However Spec. New was given lawful orders to carry out, he was also lawfully told what the uniform of the day was. He chose to unlawfully refuse those orders.

He deserves a dishonorable discharge. If he wanted to oppose US participation in UN peacekeeping, he should have not joined the Army. He should have run for Congress. It is not up to individual soldiers to decide the public policies of the United States or to determione what is and what is not the appropriate uniform of the US Army.

If he had been ordered to wear a uniform of pink polka dots and a tutu, the only appropriate response is “Yes, sir!”

19 posted on 04/24/2007 1:37:13 PM PDT by GreenLanternCorps (Past the schoolhouse / Take it slow / Let the little / Shavers grow / BURMA-SHAVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

The UN has no loyalty or concern for the soldiers forced to serve under them.

A while back a Canadian military doctor was shot in Haiti. Pakistani troops refused to take him to a hospital, instead taking pictures of him as he died.

On the Israel / Lebanon border a Canadian soldier serving the UN screamed to everyone that would listen, that the islamderthals were using them for cover. The UN refused to extract him then screamed when he was killed.

UN vehicles have repeatedly been filmed transporting terrorists in the mideast.


20 posted on 04/24/2007 1:37:50 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Peace without victory is a temporary illusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last

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