US Army Specialist Michael New

[Helmut Von Moltke]

Remeber this soldier who was court martialed by Bill Clinton for refusing to wear UN uniform? His case is finally headed to the Supreme Court..

Here is an old one..

There is Nothing American About Doing Whatever You're Told
by Charley Reese

Michael New, a young American soldier from Conroe, Texas, is being court- martialed for refusing to wear a United Nations uniform and serve under foreign command.

That is an outrage.

New, a medic, is scheduled to be sent to Macedonia as U.N. peacekeeper under command of a Finnish general. It is important to understand what this young man is willing to do and what he is refusing to do. Already, his own congressman, Rep. Jack Fields, has tried to confuse the issue.

New is willing to go to Macedonia and to serve there as an American soldier. He is not willing to wear a United Nations uniform and serve under the command of a foreign officer. His position, which is absolutely correct, is that he took an oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution. He owes no loyalty to the United Nations.

His court-martial ought to cause a national uproar, but the only national figure I've heard raise the issue as of this date is Pat Buchanan. Forty or so conservative congressmen have written President Clinton, asking what constitutional authority he has to order American soldiers to don a foreign uniform and serve under foreign officers.

The lame excuse is that a soldier must obey his orders. In fact, however, soldiers must obey only lawful orders, just as the commander in chief must obey the Constitution. The president's courtesy title is Mr. President, not Your Majesty or Your Royal Highness. Clinton and several others have had a difficult time remembering that.

It's too bad and too obvious that members of Congress don't have the courage of this young man. It's too bad the presidential candidates, with one noted exception, are ducking this issue.

Why should any American soldier be compelled to serve under the command of a foreigner?

They should not. Americans should serve only under the command of Americans. If the president wishes to send troops to Macedonia, as stupid an idea as that is, then he should send them to Macedonia as American soldiers in American uniforms under the command of American officers, presumably to accomplish an American mission for the benefit of Americans. There is nothing altruistic or globalistic about the Constitution. It is for Americans only.

What young Michael New is pointing out, by the sacrifice of his military career -- which has been honorable -- is how utterly contemptuous President Bill Clinton, the foreign-policy establishment, most congressmen and a lot of people in the press are of the American Constitution.

In better days, when we had a better-educated group of Americans, such blatant contempt for the Constitution would be the end of a public career. Now many Americans seem to think the duty of a citizen is to do what he is told. Nothing is more revealing of ignorance of American history and tradition than this dreary, pathetic, heel-clickers' attitude.

Young Michael New is being loyal to the Constitution at a time when most of the institutions are not. Thus, he is being punished not because he's wrong, but precisely because he is right.

It is Clinton, not New, who should face charges, because Clinton could fulfill any treaty obligation to the United Nations by dispatching American soldiers in American uniforms under American command. Instead, he is turning over control of American soldiers to a foreign organization. That he clearly has no constitutional authority to do.

We, the people, ought to rise in defense of New and bombard the White House and Congress with protests.

We should not allow this young man, a good and faithful American soldier, to be crucified on the cross of internationalism by people whose intent is to rob Americans of the very independence and liberty for which their ancestors fought and died.

"He (President Clinton) refused to wear the U.S. military uniform and was elected President of the United States, but when I refused to surrender my U.S. Army uniform to wear the uniform of another government, he had me court-martialed." —Spc. Michael G. New, U.S. Army

K

[wajdi]

Any information on the result of this? My opinion, just my opinion, is that American soldiers have the duty, and the right, to serve under an AMERICAN command structure, in an AMERICAN uniform. Anything else would be simply working as a mercinary, even a government sponsored mercinary. I served for 22 years, but never in anything but an American uniform, and never under anyone but an American commander. I'd like to think that I would have done the same as Specialist New. This almost makes me want to implement Heinlein's idea of non-veterans being second class citizens; unable to vote or hold public office. This does make me want to puke. Even worse are the Marines now facing charges for doing their duty in Iraq; following established proceedure and accidently blowing away civilians. My understanding is that they are now to be tried for murdering those civilians. Certainly, international law allows citizens of an occupied country (and Iraq IS an occupied country) to engage in combat operations as partisans, without the necessity of a uniform, or even a command structure. However, the occupying forces are allowed to respond to the partisans as combatants, which basically means blowing them away. Operating in a hostile environment (as Iraq surely is), mistakes will be made. BUT, the fault lies not with the individual combat soldier, but with the semi-idiots who implemented the faulty proceedures.

bill

[sniper1shot]

Well, having served on 3 UN missions I can tell you that you don't change any uniforms.

simply working as a mercinary, even a government sponsored mercinary

This quote tells me you know nothing about the UN or what they stand for....since you were in the military for 22 years you should at least understand the UN, their policies and the US position on it.

I have served under Canadian, British, Dutch, and even US commanders. I am still there under my Canadian command. The General running the "show" is usually the foreigner.

US forces under a foreign command are nothing new. Go back to WWI and WWII. What you are saying is that US forces can command foreigners but should not let their soldiers be commanded by foreigners??

A commander has to follow the UN directive. All the commander does is try to make the best decisions on how to do it.

My opinion is that the US military should throw the damn book at the young Private for disobeying his orders.....it was his Gov't orders and there is nothing "unlawfull" about that.

[sniper1shot]

Even worse are the Marines now facing charges for doing their duty in Iraq; following established proceedure and accidently blowing away civilians. My understanding is that they are now to be tried for murdering those civilians

Are we watching the same news stories here?? Are you talking about the Marines that went into 3 houses and executed some families and also hauled 3 guys out of a car and shot them down??? All because an IED blew up a Veh in their neighborhood.

Or are you talking about another story??

[Helmut Von Moltke]

ah. Speaking about the UN, had it not been created in the first place then there would be no trouble and armed forces of nations wouldn't have to risk their sodleir's lives running around the world in fights which have nothing to do with them...

About the Marines, which case is it? The rape case?

Speaking of which, partisans in Iraq are being given too much mercy. Maybe adopting WWII anti-partisan methods like executing illegal combatants might be a start. After all, they aren't protected by the Geneva convention right, and they themselves don't abide to the rules of war...

can only imagine the world wide reaction to that.....

K

[Klaus]

"Maybe adopting WWII anti-partisan methods like executing illegal combatants might be a start. After all, they aren't protected by the Geneva convention right, and they themselves don't abide to the rules of war..."

Good idea. Let's start executing everyone who is suspected to be a partisan. Starting with some small villages. Shooting about a 100 civilians, which are of course partisans and then burn down the village. Yeah, great idea...

They may have not signed the Geneva convention. But some other countries have.

Sorry if I sound a bit harsh. But I think it is in no way a good idea to introduce the German/Russian behavior they showed during WW2 to the Iraq. Or into any war indeed.

Sorry Helmut if I misinterpreted your post.

[Helmut Von Moltke]

I wasn't talking aobut extreme methods, like those used in the Balkans, etc. The US Army in WWII executed illegal combatants, for example German saboteurs in the USA, and Werewolf partisans, who weren't entitled to the same protections as Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS POWs. Same with terrorists, who aren't entitled to the same protections as Iraqi POWs.

And people complain about Abu Ghraib? Haven't they seen how the Iraqi partisans behead prisoners? Or how a few months ago 2 US soldiers were cut in half?

Speaking of the Geneva convention, they only protect captured enemy soldiers, not partisans.

Speaking of partisans, imagine you are in the boots of a WWII German/ modern US officer. Several of your men have been found, killed, bestially mutilated and burned alive. You now have to write letters to their families of those boys you were assigned to command and protect. Next day you capture the partisans who are responsible. What would you do?

K

[Klaus]

I get your point Helmut. And it is valid. But we all know how these sort of things like to get out of hand. Someone shoots a civilian and claims afterwards it was a partisan. Someone shoots a soldier and claims he killed civilians. Shooting a partisan is fine with me. It's the countermeasures for a shot soldier I am afraid of.

When I saw the partisan shooting. Or there is some other clear evidence. Shooting them during action is ok. But not lining them up and executing them. There is no black or white in that case.

"Next day you capture the partisans who are responsible. What would you do?"


It's hard to say. Infact I can't answer that question. I've never been in such a situation and hopefully never will be.

My point is, that even if they are not protected by the GC it should not be an excuse to execute them. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Helmut Von Moltke]

About terrorism, etc though, here's an old case of how the US Army dealt with Islamic terrorism a long time ago. Seems to some that it was a 'urban myth', could have happened, could have not.

Once in US history an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so "Black Jack" told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a lesson.

Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The US soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs' blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.

All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.

Pointing a gun into the face of Islamic terrorists won't make them flinch. They welcome the chance to die for Allah. Like Gen. Pershing, we must show them that they won't get to Muslim heaven

I also saw some sort of 'newspapre clipping' posted on MCF aobut this:



LOL, you could only imagine how some hippies would react if they knew aobut that one!?

Of course, about partisans, executing, etc, should be only done after a court martial, especially to see if the captured partisan/terrorist commited war crimes.

Regards,

K

[Klaus]

Well it was a good idea of Pershing. Would it work today? Probably not. You can't even draw a cartoon of Mohammed without getting stepped on the toe.

"Of course, about partisans, executing, etc, should be only done after a court martial, especially to see if the captured partisan/terrorist commited war crimes."


I'm glad we figured that out at last.