This is indeed the question.
His oath did not require him to obey the orders issued by foreign commanders (in this instance, a Turk)
It's not important- but it was a Finn. A Finnish General was in charge of UNPROFOR FYROM- not a Turk. I was there a short time before New was slated to go- there were no Turks whatsoever in theatre.
It is my hope that this case would be heard by the Supreme Court.
Yes, I would have liked to see the Supreme Court take it on as well. New was also reacting to hyperbole, although he may have had a good point. But the bottom line is- you cannot have the rank and file claiming Constitutional Violations every time they are given an order. Imagine a B52 Pilot refusing to drop his payload because he feared that it might be against the Constitution.
I went to Macedonia before New was ordered to go. I was in the same brigade (same town in Germany) as he. My platoon was in a special situation (we were the commanding General's personal protection force)- but the other soldiers in Operation Able Sentry never received an order from a foreign officer.
The thing that disturbs me about this discussion on FR is the distortion of the facts. I was there- in Macedonia and in Schweinfurt, Germany. Some parts to his argument had merit. But other portions (nowadays they have become gross distortions) of the argument have none. Just like in this article-
President Clinton´s order to U.S. troops to wear a U.N. uniform was extremely controversial, unpopular, and alleged to be illegal and unconstitutional.
It may have been extremely controversial in the USA but I can assure you in Schweinfurt, Germany- where New was stationed- it was not. It was treated as any other deployment. I recall the UN/Constitutional issue being brought up by fellow soldiers exactly "Zero Times". Bottom line- He was given a lawful order and refused to obey.
Had I been his commanding officer, I would have simply ordered him to be physically placed upon the airplane and that would have been the end of it. If he had wanted to take the political dissent route afterwards- so be it. The military is no place for politics- period. When the military gets involved in politics- woe to us all.
You have nailed the problem with FR in general. I just took the time to read the entire article (most people in FR respond to headlines, and rarely read the articles), and every response.
There have been several people, people in a position to give facts pertinent to this situation, explaining what this is all about. But no one is listening to them. The sad truth, the white elephant in the living room, is the fact that FReepers rarely concern themselves with the truth.
The vast majority of the posters here, including the Liberal jackass insisting on calling President Bush "shrub", have an agenda.
They are here spreading dissent, at the behest of their handlers, in the wake of elections.
To those of you that provided information to clarify the "author's" allegations, thank you for holding the truth above rhetoric.
Coto, you are an unadulterated ass.