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

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.

I dont think that a soldier has the right to question his orders unless they are manifestly illegal. The precedent is for US soldiers to fight under foriegn command should the situation dictate it, for instance Field Montgomery commanded US troops at the Battle of the Bulge, could parts of the US army have walked of the front?

Or again US troops have served under British command in the Iraq war, should they have refused?

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 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."

a captains mast and a court martial are two completely different things.

westpoint, the sixth amendment does not apply to military personal, who fall under the governance of the "uniform code of military justice." however, it does not sound like he got a fair courts martial.

jimc....while i agree with your take on this as far as requesting the order in writing, i think its pretty clear that he would already have had that. nobody gets deployed without written notification thereof in the form of "orders."

i respect the man for sticking to his gumption by not obeying what he felt was an unlawful order. having said that, if he loses his fight to prove the unlawfulness of the order in question, i hope he faces his punishment with honor.

westpoint....i do agree that this needs to be in the public spotlight. the fact that it has received very little press is quite disturbing.

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?

It doesnt, this is precisely the reason you never hear of US peacekeepers....
They have no problem serving under NATO and coalition command but they do for the UN?
Hell the commander of the Coalition naval forces for defending oil rigs is comanding the task force.....FROM A US WARSHIP.....so my question is wth is the problem?

snafu7700 I appreciate your candor on this matter, yes this is a sticky issue and I too feel that his court martial was unjust. However the final court decision my go I feel that this was a legit topic for Michael New to object.

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 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.

The UN is also a military alliance , NATO has its agreement and so does the UN.

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.

So then you think the US Coalition forces shouldnt be commanded by UK commanders is what your saying?

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?

No it's only if Clinton orders you to do something you feel is illegal, not when Bush orders you to do something you feel is illegal. Get with the program.

"I, Michael New, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"

Notice how it doesn't say American officers. All officers, legally appointed above you. That means anybody the president says, who holds an officer's commission. You serve at the President's pleasure, and you serve at his direction. If his direction is for you to suit up with the Finns and walk the line in Europe, then you had better well carry on. If the president call legally order you to go on a suicide mission in combat, then he can dang well order you to serve for NATO or the UN (although suicide might be preferable to the UN.....)

Sticky subject.
But I'll just go on record that I believe his court martial was unjust, but...I also agree that you better not disobey orders. You have a complaint, you file it later, but you do what your superiors tell you to do.
He probably should have obeyed orders, then filed for a captains mast or what not.

On a side note....(I was in the navy, so teminology may not be right on target)
If my CO told me I needed to head over to an allies base and help them fix their f-14 radars cause that's where they needed me, as those f-14's will be doing a joint strike with ours and we need them up and in shape before we head to battle.
I'm going there.
Once I get there, I may file to see the CO and complain all I want...and after, I may even burn some careers due to it. But that's where I am going because that's where my commander needs me and ordered me to go.

-"Dizzy" VF-41 Black Aces 92'-96'

The problem was not so much that he had to serve under a Finnish commander, (possibly legally appointed?) as it was having to fight as a UN-Soldier, stripped of his congressionally regulated US-uniform (AR670-1) and his US Army ID-card, under a Finnish commander sworn to uphold the UN Constitution.

So basically he was told, throgh his command by the commander in chief, to commit treason.
Plain. Simple.

Michael chose (after allowing his superiors adequate time to inform him of the legality of their orders, and getting only "because they [UN-uniforms] look fabulous" !!!) to protect our Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic by showing up for the formation in the only uniform that the US allows it's soldiers to wear!
This man deserves the honor of his discharge to be restored!

Besides, did anybode else notice, that the US has never since served under the UN again? A couple of times within NATO, yes, but never again under direct UN command!

I beleive the UN was trying to create a precedent of sorts. Thank [your] God that we still have people like Michael who are willing to stand up! Several SF troops too... all of whom got honorable discharges though. (one, a NCO, was even asked to resign ...something only allowed to officers! )

I don't care who the president was, or is! (I served in the Bush years)
It is the duty of every Fighting Man to question all orders for their legality!
While I might not have realized the legal situation, (had I been in his shoes) there would have been two soldiers supposedly "out of uniform" on that fateful day, had I had the opportunity to takl things over with him.

[edit on 200939 by Carlthulhu]