What is Wrong With Out Country...SCREW THE UN!!!

Great Debates
21

As far as I can determine, troops assigned to UN or NATO or any other joint-force missions are NOT legally considered serving “in” the military of the commanding officers nor “under a foreign power”.

You know what the underlying train of thought in the Michael New case reminds me of? The old pre-JFK argument that you couldn’t have a Catholic President because he would be “taking orders from the Vatican.”

Marines attached to UN forces continued to be members of the USMC, wear the US uniform (with the very minor addition of a patch/headgear that identifies them as part of that outfit), draw a paycheck from the US Treasury, are in a chain of command that goes up thru the Commandant of the Corps to the Prez of the USA. The American civilian and military officials are granting to a non-American commander (thru the UN) authority over him specifically for the ends and duration of the mission; and if and when the UN forces’ orders are incompatible with his service to the US, he is bound to refuse them. The Marine doesn’t like the mission he was assigned by the lawfully appointed officers of his Commander in Chief? T-O-U-G-H.

BTW this is also the status of every single member of a UN force, including the commander – HIS government has ordered him to that posting. Maybe he himself is not looking forward to it.

22

JRDelirious wrote:

Aha! That’s the secret! The pope shot JFK!!

23

I suppose it would be too much for the OP to do a bit of research into the facts before spewing forth.

24

That’s true. The only bit about serving in another country’s military, according to the State Department, is that serving a commissioned officer in that military may be grounds for revocation of one’s United States citizenship. You are correct that the due process of law must be followed for the revocation to occur.

I have to ask: Where’d you pull this one out of? If one is a civilian US citizen, one may go to any other country and enlist in that country’s armed forces. It is not an offense of any type. There are US citizens serving in the French Foreign Legion, and until they renounce their US citizenship, or become commissioned officers of the Legion and the US revokes said citizenship following due process of law, they remain US citizens.

Just as in the United States, other countries have foreign nationals serving in their military who do not also hold the citizenship of the country in whose armed forces they’re serving.

Agreed.

The New case was absurd on its face. First, New was not the promulgating authority for the regulation regarding composition and wear of the uniform. It was not his decision if a particular item of clothing was or was not part of the uniform. His lawful obligation was to follow the lawful order which was the uniform regulation. Second, he was not under foreign military command, nor would he be. He was still under the command of, yes, you guessed it, his United States citizen commanding officer! Third, given his not so high rank at the time, he very well may have been under the direct supervision of a foreign national serving in the United States military as a non-commissioned officer (remember, though, that to be advanced to the rank of Sergeant Major, or the equivalent in the other uniformed services with enlisted members, one must be a United States citizen).

25

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Monty *
**

Not according to the United States Code. 18 U.S.C.A. s. 959 states as follows:

The law does not apply when the country with which you enlist is at war with an enemy or the U.S., or if you are a foreign citizen only transiently within the U.S.

I am sure there are U.S. citizens in the French Foreign Legion, for example. I would strongly doubt they would be prosecuted if and when they return to the U.S., as France is an ally, but they could be. This law has been around forever, but it is only enforced when the U.S. doesn’t like the side you enlisted on.

Sua

26

There was a segment on TV about a guy in California who holds dual American-Afghan citizenship and is a pilot in the Afghan air force. He lives most of the time in California and goes back to Afghanistan to train. How that can be legal and allowed is beyond me.

27

Muffin: I suppose it would be too much for the OP to do a bit of research into the facts before spewing forth.

You suppose correctly, Muffin: they don’t call him “Wild-ass Bill” for nuthin’, ya know. :smiley:

28

I am personally acquainted with an American citizen who served with the Canadian army; he has a letter from the State Department that says “Don’t worry, Mr. Smith, there’s nothing wrong with serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, and you’re still an American citizen.” Furthermore, when he first joined he was not yet a Canadian citizen - he was an American, and only an American, in a Canadian uniform. Neither government had any problem with it.

29

The USA has some maritime boundary disputes with Canada (Dixon Entrance, Beaufort Sea, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Machias Seal Island) and it is only a matter of time before they go to war over this :wink:

30

Machias Island – that would be my Uncle Gordie (Canadian Navy, Retired). The Canadian Government keeps him there as a lighthouse keeper simply to assert Canada’s soverignty.

He puts up a good fight for Canada by offering tea, fresh fried fish, and enjoyable conversation to all comers.

Yay Gordie!

31

You know, Sua, it’s generally frowned upon to use the “…” to change the meaning of the stuff quoted.

Here’s the entire text of what you just cited:

32

Monty, I just read the relevant posts three times and I’m still baffled as to how you think Sua’s quote “changes the meaning” of the statute. He said that it’s against the law for a US citizen to serve in another country’s armed forces. You said it wasn’t. He cited the relevant statute criminalizing such service. You provided the text of the full statute, which basically says the same thing. I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

33

What I want to know is why he had to double space it.

OK, time for technicalities. If you read that carefully it seems to say (and I could argue that it does, in fact say) that it is illegal to enlist in a foreign army while in American jurisdiction or to travel to a foreign jurisdiction with the express intent of circumventing this. It seems to me if you are abroad for any other purpose and decide to enlist, then this would not be forbidden by this law.

34

WildestBill, are you coming back?

35

Well, I’d refuse to wear one of those baby blue berets, too.
I think the clash with the camouflage.

36

First, sorry about the double spacing above.

Second, the State Department (to which I keep referring people regarding questions about dual nationality or loss of nationality) states at http://travel.state.gov/military_service.html:

So, enlisting in a foreign military while one is outside the United States or its territories does not cause one to lose US citizenship automatically and I stand by my earlier assertion. Which, in case you missed it, is that Sua was wrong about this issue.

37

Huh? Am I missing something here? This is what Sua said. Very first post he made in this thread:

38

Try to keep up, B. You are missing something. That something is where Sua said that enlisting overseas in a foreign military is a criminal offense and that the US Supreme Court says that it’s not. Since Sua’s not the Supremes assembled in court, I’ll go with their take and not Sua’s.

39

What for?

40

  1. I take no amusement in your false accusation that I changed the meaning of 18 U.S.C.A s. 959 through the use of elipses. As Kimstu already noted, the portions I deleted did not affect the meaning of the statute.

  2. Guess what? You’re still wrong. Guess what else? The State Department website you referred to explicitly addresses citizens with dual nationality, which I have already acknowledged have different rules.

  3. Guess what else? The State Department web site misstates the date of Wiborg - it was in 1896, not 1985. As 18 U.S.C.A. s. 959 was enacted in 1948, and Wiborg, as I’ll discuss below, was only a case of statutory interpretation, it no longer has any relevance - the statute in question was replaced by 18 U.S.C.A. s. 959. Interpretation of an older law has no relevance when the law is changed.

  4. In any event, the State Department completely screwed the pooch - their statement of the holding of Wiborg is dead wrong.
    I took the time to read Wiborg. The case was about a foreign vessel that took on supplies in Philadelphia, some of a military nature, some civilian, and some “dual-use” (a machete was mentioned). The foreign vessel also hired some U.S. citizens (including the named Wiborg), then sailed off to Cuba to help the rebels there.

After they got back, the U.S. Citizens were arrested for violating the then-existant version of s. 959. The Supreme Court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the U.S. citizens knew at the time they hired on that the vessel was going to go to Cuba and support the rebels. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that it could not be proven that the U.S. citizens had the requisite intent to travel outside the United States to enlist in the armed forces of a foreign power, colony, district, etc., so that they acted criminally. The Supreme Court did not find that Wiborg and the other U.S. citizens could legally travel outside the U.S. in order to enlist in the armed forces of a foreign power.

  1. Monty, you got screwed up by a bad Web site. Fine, all is forgiven. But drop the holier-than-thou attitude, and please do not accuse me of trying to mislead people. Even when I’m wrong, I act with good intentions, and I am more than happy to admit error.

  2. As I don’t want to start a Pit thread, I will simply conclude with … neener, neener, neener.

Sua