A Soldiers case, the outrageous treatment of this American hero by our government

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I apologize if there is an ongoing thread about this topic (I am not aware of such) also, if this is not the appropriate thread then feel free to move it.
However this interesting case came to my attention today, and I though I’d share. I was shocked and outraged at the way this soldier was treated and how he was deprived of his rights. Every member serving in the armed forces takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States not, the UN charter.
They are also under the command of the US and not some foreign general. I support and agree 110% with what Michael New is fighting for.
I urge you to read the below links as they show how this soldier was treated and how he was denied of his constitutional rights granted to him by the US Constitution. His case is again set to go before a court on February 16th, the DC Court of Appeals will hear the case. Why is there no coverage and outrage of this in the media and public?


(District of Columbia) - The US Court of Appeals has denied the government's motion that would have ended a soldier's legal battle to overturn his court-martial, and to defend his right and duty to disobey an illegal order.

Specialist Michael New was court-martialed in 1996 for his refusal to wear a United Nations uniform, to deploy to Macedonia under United Nations command, and to serve under the command of a general officer from Finland.

At the heart of the issue is the question of whether an American soldier, having taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, may be forced instead to serve under the military command of a foreign power, specifically the United Nations. The military courts ruled that this was a political question, outside the jurisdiction of their courts. Thus, New was denied his day in court in order to protect the Clinton administration from having to justify the deployment.


Linky 1
Linky 2

[edit on 13-1-2006 by WestPoint23]




posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   



According to Lead Attorney Herbert W. Titus, of Virginia, who heads up the legal team representing Michael New and the Constitution, "We have here a case with serious implications for every American who ever wears a uniform. Michael New's stand is for them, and their right to defend their country exclusively, in accordance with the American soldiers Oath of Office."

www.mikenew.com...



I disagree. Michael New acted in his own interest. Had he acted in the interest of others, he would have filed the lawsuit and then followed his orders to outfit and deploy. That is a soldier's duty. If he had done so and his case had been decided in his favor, then he would have been a hero. As it is, he's just another scoundrel.

[edit on 2006/1/13 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

That is a soldier's duty.


I have to respectively disagree, Michael New requested to be moved to another unit so this conflict could be avoided, his request was denied. He was then later court-martialed for refusing to follow that specific order. Also, a soldiers duty is to follow a lawful order and not an illegal one. If the military disagrees, he is due his day in court, which I might add this man was not properly given since he did not receive a jury trial.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Well, in that case, he was ordered twice. I can understand New's position, but the best manner to carry out this matter would have been to obey the order and to file the lawsuit. He would have taken plenty of flak, but he wouldn't have a dishonorable discharge, either. The fact is that this is a political matter and cannot be compared to an unlawful order such as killing innocent civilians or abusing prisoners of war.

What New did was to decide that the national policy and legal precedent of forty or more years was wrong and that he was not required to deploy. In the end, the courts may side with him and he may be exonerated, but in my estimation, he did not act honorably or prudently in this matter.

To sum it up, it may have been illegal for the President to order him to wear a blue beret and send him abroad to serve under the command of the United Nations, but his doing so would have involved no illegal act on his part. Therefore, it was a matter for the courts to decide and not Spc. New.

[edit on 2006/1/13 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
The links I provided also address the points which you are trying to make.


In a surprising ruling, US District Court Judge Friedman conceded that Clinton may have broken the law, but that it is the duty of Congress to challenge the president, not a lowly soldier. This decision continues to astonish attorneys and Constitutional authorities when they hear about it. As one attorney recently said, "I have always been under the impression that the citizen possesses every right under the Constitution that exists. Perhaps that is no longer true."


Are you telling me that if this matter was being ignored by the Courts and Congress a US citizen has no right to bring it to their attention, and that it is not his duty to also stand up and challenge questionable orders, even if he is just a “lowly soldier”?



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
My point is this and forgive me if the armed forces have changed in the 35 years since I served, that every service member has the right to what we used to call "request mast." They call it something else in the Army. In fact, a service member can request mast all the way to the Commander-in-Chief. Moreover, the service member can employ the services of his Member of Congress to plead his case and all of that still leaves judicial action.

However, in the absence of a court ruling on such a matter of national policy, the service member is still obligated to carry out the order while he exhausts all other measures. News' goose was cooked on 10/10/1995 when he disobeyed what was considered to be a lawful order even if it was, in fact, not. It is these high matters of concern that individual soldiers do not have the right to challenge alone. When a service member is ordered to do what is blatantly illegal, he has the right to refuse, but in this matter no service member has that power. That would be the Congress or the courts. The "lowly soldier" does have the right to challenge even the Commander-in-Chief, but he must do so through the proper channels.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


[edit on 2006/1/14 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Here is my 10 cents bear in mind Im not an American.
Specialist Michael New disobeyed orders in order to futher a political agender. Imagn if a member of the NZ or Aust SAS refused to serve in Afghanistan because they might come under US command. Politics and the military dont and the military dosnt suit everyone I Michael New may be one of the people who shouldnt have joined the military.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 02:44 AM
link   
If this order was found to be illegal, what law was broken? What is the current law about this that makes it illegal or legal?

What political agenda might that have been? Telling us that the government was trying to make him do something un-Constitutional? He stood up for the principles that led him to join the military in the first place, a desire to protect the US to the exclusion of all others. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and its laws. If his commanding officer gives him an order that breaks a law, his obligation is to refuse the order. Our Constitution is the final authority, not his commanding officer.

The soldier did not volunteer to serve under the UN, and has no sworn obligation to fight under their command. Why should he be forced to risk his life for the UN, he has no allegiance to them does he?

If he had followed the order and his Finnish commanding officer gave him an order that was legal under the UN laws, but not the US, is it ok for him to refuse? or does he become obligated to follow the laws of the UN while serving in their uniform?



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm

If he had followed the order and his Finnish commanding officer gave him an order that was legal under the UN laws, but not the US, is it ok for him to refuse? or does he become obligated to follow the laws of the UN while serving in their uniform?

Constitution or no Constitution if you serve under the UN banner then you are subject to the laws of the UN and laws of the country you serve in. Feel free to correct me on this. The Constitution wouldnt apply outside of America so it is illrevlant in many cases.
Normaly some Americans stick to UN bashing in the form of words and political speeaches but Michael New was dumb enough to let his political views cost him his carrer.
Common sense should tell you that you cant breake the chain of command because of the flag a solider serves under.

You cant have it both ways Americans cant command troops from other countries and then chuck a wobbly when they have to serve under a non American.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   
I don't understand what grounds he has for complaint. He was ordered to serve under a Finnish commander as part of a multinational task force. Whats the big deal? I can't see the Finn's ordering some masscre of women and children!

The guy was an idiot, refusing to carry out the wishes of the country he had sworn to protect.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   

The guy was an idiot, refusing to carry out the wishes of the country he had sworn to protect.


A soldier does not swear allegiance to the Commander in Chief, he is commanded by the President, yes, but his ultimate obligation is to uphold the US Constitution which trumps the president. Why should anyone be forced to fight for the UN charter when it’s not their sworn duty to do so? Neither the Courts nor Congress has made this issue clear and I feel that until they do Michael New was justified in his stance.

Uncle Joe It’s the principle that counts here, I also don't think the Finnish would massacre women and children.

[edit on 14-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Westpoint23 how dose the Constitution apply outside of the US?
If a solider was given the order to serve under the UN banner outside of the US how dose the Constitution apply?
Do I have the right to walk into a US gun store and claim the guns are illegal under NZ law?
Of course not !
I could understand the point of view if New was going to serve under UN banner in the USA.
In future the US military could issue simila orders outside of America this would avoid the problem of the Constitution getting in the way of common sense.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Westpoint23 how dose the Constitution apply outside of the US?
If a solider was given the order to serve under the UN banner outside of the US how dose the Constitution apply?


The question here is what right does the military have to force a soldier to fight for the UN charter when it is his/her sword duty to fight for the US constitution.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Hmm, well why should any soldier from any country serve under the UN banner ? I bet if it were an AMerican rather than a Finnish general he probably wouldn't have had any problem with it.
I can only think that there is an ulterior motive to his actions.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of _ _ _ _ _ _ and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations.
LINK


An excerpt from the National Guard oath of enlistment. The solider has sworn to obey the orders of three different entities!

So obviously it is possible for a soldier to be under the command of different entities, at different times. Sworn to uphold the Constitution? It's not up to a soldier to interpret what that means, he follows orders, and if he doesn't like, he uses the chain-of-command to address the issue. It is up to civilains to protest any injustice we see our soldeirs face, to help them be heard.

"Clean toilets?! I swore to defend the Constitution, not clean urinals! I quit!"

Whether it's help the U.N. or help paint rocks. You may not like it, but you gotta do it, or face the consequences. Quibbling about a blue helmet? I didn't know the soldier was so fashion conscious!



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Oh so your saying that a soldier should follow orders for the sake of following orders?

From my sources.


"It is now going on ten years, since this perversion of the Constitution began in Mike's case," says his father, Daniel New, Project Manager of the Legal Defense. "They thought he would go away. He was a nobody to the government, which lives by the argument that, 'You must obey orders, no matter what.' Even though we hung German officers who used that as a defense following World War II, it appears now that we have come full circle and we find the Pentagon making the same arguments that their opponents made half a century earlier. Having forgotten our history, we are now forced to repeat it."


Look guys whatever your views on this, the main thing that irks me about his case is that this man was not given a proper Court Martial. If he was in the wrong then fine, have the trial, and set a legal precedent for future events to come. But don't deny him of his constitutional rights and hope that he shut up

[edit on 14-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Oh so your saying that a soldier should follow orders for the sake of following orders?
Like I said before if he broke the law why was he not given a fair Court Marshal?


Well then, let's salute more American heros then! Like Pablo Paredes!



Navy petty officer Pablo Paredes was convicted and sentenced for missing movement stemming from his refusal to board the Iraq-bound ship USS Bonhomme Richard. The sentence included two months restriction, three months hard labor without confinement, and reduction in rank to E-1. The sentencing came the day after his conviction by a judge trial in a special court martial held May 11, 2005, at the 32nd Street Naval Station in San Diego. Below are some highlights from the case.

"What I submit to you and the court is that I am convinced that the current war is exactly that (illegal). So, if there's anything I could be guilty of, it is my beliefs. I am guilty of believing this war is illegal. I'm guilty of believing war in all forms is immoral and useless, and I am guilty of believing that as a service member I have a duty to refuse to participate in this war because it is illegal." From Pablo Paredes statement during sentencing.
SwiftSmartVeterans


And other conscientious objectors like Kevin Benderman, Aidan Delgado,and Camilo Mejía, and whoever may be living in Canada now that we don't know about. Like Specialist Michael New, these soldiers had the courage to say what the government was doing was wrong, and disobeyed orders to prove it!

Men of moral courage, we salute you for refusing to fight in an illegal war, and not wearing a blue-helmet!

EDIT: I thought he was court-martialed in 1996?

[edit on 14-1-2006 by curme]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
What he should have done was to request a copy of the order in writing. They have to give you one. Obey the order under protest and then contact his representatives in Congress. Yes it is bull, but you have to cover your butt. No one else is going to.

mod edit: do not circumvent the censors

[edit on 15-1-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

I thought he was court-martialed in 1996?


Well you decide if this is a Court Martial.


dical departure from constitutional requirements of criminal prosecution, the District Court of D.C. had agreed with the military courts that there was no fatal defect when the military judge in New's court-martial refused to allow any evidence before the jury (panel). Legally, the Jury is the "trier of fact" and not the judge.


The Sixth Amendment reads.


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
And other conscientious objectors like Kevin Benderman, Aidan Delgado,and Camilo Mejía, and whoever may be living in Canada now that we don't know about. Like Specialist Michael New, these soldiers had the courage to say what the government was doing was wrong, and disobeyed orders to prove it!

Men of moral courage, we salute you for refusing to fight in an illegal war, and not wearing a blue-helmet!


Hmm, it takes alot of courage to run away to another country where you don't have to face the music. These men aren't courageous, they are cowards and therefore aren't deserving of any misguided respect.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join