New sounds like he got exactly what he deserved. In his attempt to "defend his oath" he broke his oath and defied a direct order and for what? A 12 month tops "deployment" with the UN?
In the mid 1990's a US soldier was ordered to turn in his issued article of uniform and wear UN patches, badges and head gear. SPC New refused. He was court martialed and dishonorably discharged. I can't seem to find out if any if his appeals were heard or what the outcome was. Anyone heard or seen anything?
The Court Martial of Michael New
I read a few articles and cannot find if there was ever a resolution. I remember, at the time, there were two soldiers that bucked the system. I can't see the legality of these order now and was troubled when I first read about the incident in the mid '90's.
We'll just have to disagree. I took the same oath and there was nothing in it about taking orders from anyone else except those of the President and those appointed over me. I believe the President WJC was found to have overstepped his authority in this matter. Thanks for your reply.
No, serving with the UN does not violate his oath. His oath is to protect and defend the Constitution and obey the orders of the President and those appointed over him. Being part of a temporary assignment with an ad hoc formation underneath the authority of a non-state entity (since the UN is an international organization with no sense of nationality or distinct identity, he is not acting for a foreign power) does not violate either of those elements of the oath. Refusing to obey a direct order from his chain of command, one that does not violate this oath, does on the other hand, constitute a violation of his oath.
SPC New's argument is based on a faulty interpretation of what constitutes "serving a foreign power". He is not doing so with the UN.
And if your superiors order you to take the command of others appointed over you? If you are truly a veteran, than you would know the UCMJ and how it feels about people who disobey lawful orders like Specialist New did.
ad hoc formation underneath the authority of a non-state entity (since the UN is an international organization with no sense of nationality or distinct identity, he is not acting for a foreign power) does not violate either of those elements of the oath.
"No sense of nationality or distinct identity"
The above portion of your post and especially the requoted part make me question what the US Contitution has to do with the UN.
We'll just have to disagree. I took the same oath and there was nothing in it about taking orders from anyone else except those of the President and those appointed over me. I believe the President WJC was found to have overstepped his authority in this matter. Thanks for your reply.
Can't see why this is a problem. Lots of Canadians in Afghanistan served with American outfits and took orders from Americans, including our Minister of Defense...
View attachment 67219987
Should those Canadian soldiers have had the option of refusing to serve?
Simple. Serving under the UN does not constitute a violation of the part of the oath "to support and defend the Constitution..."
SPC New's argument basically boiled down to the idea that by serving under the UN he was not serving the US. This is by definition incorrect. Operating under UN jurisdiction does not constitute service to a foreign power.
Can't see why this is a problem. Lots of Canadians in Afghanistan served with American outfits and took orders from Americans, including our Minister of Defense...
View attachment 67219987
Should those Canadian soldiers have had the option of refusing to serve?
We'll just have to disagree. I took the same oath and there was nothing in it about taking orders from anyone else except those of the President and those appointed over me. I believe the President WJC was found to have overstepped his authority in this matter. Thanks for your reply.
Ummm took the same oath- 11bush. If an officer seconds you to another nation's unit, you obey. Military History is filled with troops being put under other nation's command systems. US troops have served under other countries' generals repeatedly through history. Only since the end of WWII and the rise of a massive US Military force has the US command dominated but even then seconded personnel are send to other units outside direct US command are more common than I guess you have seen.
Back in the bad ol' Warsaw Pact days troops exchanges were rather common. During a REFORGER (think it was in 1977) our mech company was attached to the Belgians and maneuvered with their armor. Guess we should have refused...eace
According to the articles I've looked into, SPC New's unit ended up under the command of Finnish officers. This doesn't strike me as correct. SPC New did not refuse to serve, he refused the trappings of the UN. If there is a need for US troops, why can't they serve as US soldiers and be commanded by US officers?
Can the military send people TAD? Yes. In the case here, serving under Finnish officers does not mean he is not also under a US chain of command, he just has an expanded chain of command. Legally, New's argument fails on that grounds. Soldiers do not get to choose their uniform, that happens above their paygrade. Refusing to wear the assigned uniform is refusing a legal order. Argument fails.
Once again, I wish people spent more time thinking about how to do their best on deployment, instead of thinking about how to get out of deployments.
What uniform were you required to wear?eace back atcha!
Were the Canadians required to remove their national symbols and add US emblems, badges, headgear?
SPC New did not refuse service, he refused to remove the American flag, change his issue headgear and wear UN insignia?
This would fall under Article 5 of the NATO agreement, would it not? UN and NATO are not the same,eh?
Simple. Serving under the UN does not constitute a violation of the part of the oath "to support and defend the Constitution..."
SPC New's argument basically boiled down to the idea that by serving under the UN he was not serving the US. This is by definition incorrect. Operating under UN jurisdiction does not constitute service to a foreign power.
Can't see why this is a problem. Lots of Canadians in Afghanistan served with American outfits and took orders from Americans, including our Minister of Defense...
View attachment 67219987
Should those Canadian soldiers have had the option of refusing to serve?
That depends on their Canada's constitution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?