It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
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."
Originally posted by Frosty
I think he signed to suit up for the US military to serve under an American officer, not suit for the UN under a Finnish officer. I don't blame him. Since when does the UN constitution override the US Constitution here in America?
Originally posted by WestPoint23
DW, NATO is a military alliance with agreements between each of it’s members, the UN is an international entity with it’s own constitution so to speak.
I for one don't think the US military should be under the command of this International Body, and don't think their Charter should override our Constitution.
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!
EDIT: I thought he was court-martialed in 1996?