Upon enlistment in the United States Army, Specialist New agreed to perform all the duties of the office of a member of the United States Army, not all the duties of the office of a member of Task Force Able Sentry, the duties of which are determined by the United Nations Security Council, not by the United States President and Congress according to the United States Constitution. For example, Specialist New was provided with a set of rules of engagement identifying him as "U.N. personnel and subjecting him to U.N. rules."
At the time that Specialist New signed his enlistment contract, he executed an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic and to obey orders of the President and other military officers also bound by oath to uphold the Constitution. Deployment of Specialist New to Task Force Able Sentry would place him under the command of foreign officers who have not taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
To place Specialist New under the authority of officers not bound by the same oath of office is a breach of New's enlistment contract. As a breach of contract, the order deploying Specialist New to Macedonia is unlawful. The order to wear U.N. insignia, the lawfulness of which depends upon the lawfulness of the deployment, is also unlawful. The charges against Specialist New should, therefore, be dismissed. Dated: December 6, 1995
Originally posted by stumason
There is no UN army.
These are US troops.
I never understand why some Americans are so ignorant about the UN. All Un forces are made up of troops donated by member states, including the USA! Or do American soldiers automatically find it acceptable to shoot US citizens once they don the blue beret? If you believe that, I'd be more concerned about the US military than the UN.