Man, I can’t believe what I heard the other day. Micheal New(A United States Marine) was court marshalled for not taking some BS United Nation oath or something. What the Heck??!!!
Screw the United Nation we don’t need to be a part of them anyway. Why would a US soldier that swore alliegence to the United Stated be forced to take a UN oath for? And worse why would he be court marshalled for not taking it?
This is a bunch a crap. I heard this is going to the Supreme Court if they overturn this BS court marshall our country is going to Hell in a handbasket faster than we think!
And why the heck did Ted Turner Give a Billion Dollars to them bunch a foreing leaders instead of the place where he made it(the money) in the first place the good ole US of A?
Ted Turner You’re nothing but One World Govt LOSER!
Michael New is the posterboy of a bunch of paranoid militia leaders and white supremacists. Using him as a case to attack the UN is not going to win you any credibility.
He was court-martialed for disobeying a lawful order, not serving with the multinational force that he was assigned to. Now I understand that military law often is a violation of basic human rights principles as outlined in the UNUDHR (I was honorably discharged from the US Navy as a conscientious objector and certainly had to fight for legal recognition), but the US military was working with the UN in a peacekeeping effort and, according to the military’s view, he should have known that that was something he could have been ordered to do when he joined.
The United Nations is an honorable body and the United States is one of the few first-world nations who do not believe in its efficacy. Ted Turner gave money to them so that they may continue their mission of international arbitration and human rights education.
That’s right. You can’t. New was court-martialed for failing to obey a lawful order – specifically, he refused to wear a UN patch and a blue beret, and he refused an order to serve for a time under a foreign commander.
Personally, I think it’s a fascinating issue as to whether he can lawfully be forced to answer to a foreign commander, and I look forward to seeing it litigated. As to the patch and beret, his commander could tell him to wear a pink tutu and he’d have to obey.
There was no “oath” involved.
And his punishment was dishonorable discharge-- serious, to be sure, but it’s not like he’s doing hard time in Kansas.
Because he is insane and has bought into the population explosion myth. But what the hell, it’s his money.
Which, I hasten to add, won’t happen in this case. The issues on which he was convicted are too narrow, in all liklihood, for him to open the issue even if the Supremes take it, which they probably won’t. That will come another time.
Turns out you can’t believe what you hear from me, either. New received a “bad conduct” discharge, not a “dishonorable” one. Sorry about that.
Hmm, being ordered to serve under a foreign power. That is interesting, seeing as doing so without an order would mean any number of other offenses levelled against a person in itself.
Whether or not this guy was a looney it is a terribly interesting idea. Consider a direct order to break the law: follow the order and get in trouble, don’t follow the order and get in trouble.
What was this guy to do? There’s no doubt that there is plenty of “case law” style evidence that commanders have been ordering troops to do this for some time, but is that just because no one actually put it to the test? I mean, I thought serving under another nations military caused an automatic revocation of citizenship; surely a military cannot order someone to give up their citizenship?!
erislover, I don’t see this as anything particulary new; the military has been ordering people to do things that would normally be illegal since it has existed. If you shoot someone without being ordered to, that’s murder. If you go overseas without being ordered to, that’s desertion. If you scuttle a ship without being ordered to, that’s vandalism.
Not to mention that the UN is not a foreign power. It’s a coalition of nations who act in concert to achieve a common goal. You know, kinda like NATO. But you don’t hear about soldiers refusing to serve under NATO command, and you don’t hear American paranoids crowing about how NATO is a step toward One World Government.
Not true on many levels.
First, serving in the armed forces of another nation is not automatic anything; we still have due process of law in this country.
Second, the punishment for serving in the armed forces of another nation is not loss of citizenship; instead, it is a criminal offense.
Third, even this has exceptions. Someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but IIRC, a person with dual U.S.-foreign citizenship may serve in the armed forces of their second country.
Finally, to build on what necros said - U.S. military history is chock full of situations where U.S. soldiers/sailors were placed under the command of allied officers. WWII is the most obvious example.
Well, to be clear, I understood that this sort of thing had happened in the past. My concern was whether anyone had ever raised a stink about it before, or was this the first time.
Nato used to be a scapegoat for nefarious plans, but that went out with the 80’s. Its all about the UN now. I could personally give a shit about the UN, I just find this subject interesing.
>> Personally, I think it’s a fascinating issue as to whether he can lawfully be forced to answer to a foreign commander, and I look forward to seeing it litigated
Chronos, what makes you think he may not have an obligation to obey orders from foreigners if ordered to do so? I cannot for the life of me think of any reason. Where is it written that you do not need to obey orders from foreigners or that your superiors in the army have to be of your same nationality?
I think you could make a better case that you are not obligated to go fight in a foreign country, only to defend your homeland. (Not that I am saying you could make that case)
I’m pretty sure American soldiers were under the command of Baron von Steuben (Prussian), Tadeusz Kosciuszko (Polish), and the Marquis de Lafayette (French) back during a little conflict we just got finished commemorating yesterday.
Oh well, now that’s different. For instance, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic are always Americans. But furriners serving under Americans is the way God intended for it to be.
The thing is, these soldiers aren’t following foreign commanders; they’re following their own, American commanders. It’s just that their orders are: “do whatever that guy tells you to do.” The foreign officer is only a proxy.
Well, that’s exactly why this may get litigated at some point.
It’s pretty clear that a U.S. unit can operate under the “supreme command” of say, a British officer, as in WWII.
It it also seems pretty clear (or ought to) that the U.S. couldn’t just ship off a bunch recruits from boot camp to somewhere and tell them, “well, you enlisted, and we now order you to serve in the Freedonian army” for the term of your enlistment.
So somewhere in the middle lies what is lawful. I just think it will be interesting when and if it ever comes up, is all.
Just when I think it’s going to be a slow day, count on Wildest Bill to fly off the handle with another reactionary and ill-researched bit of invective. It’s almost tragic how quickly it’s brought back to solid ground by the self-correcting nature of the SDMB.
I could personally give a shit about the UN, I just find this subject interesing.