| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| SCOTUS turns down U.S. soldier who wouldn't serve U.N. peacekeeping mission |
| 2007-04-24 |
| The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by a U.S. soldier who received a bad conduct discharge after refusing to serve on a United Nations peacekeeping mission in the former Yugoslavia. Former Army medic Michael New has been fighting his discharge for the past 11 years. New argued that he was not afforded all his legal rights in the course of the court-martial that stemmed from his refusal to wear the U.N. insignia on his Army uniform. He was supposed to be among a few hundred soldiers who were sent to Macedonia, a former Yugoslav republic, to guard against the spread of unrest from other areas torn by ethnic turmoil. The justices declined to hear his case without comment. The case is U.S., ex rel. New v. Rumsfeld, 06-691. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #9 Any army has protocols or regulatory heiarchies on how to legally = morally protest an order for - but, once the final policy or decision has been made, and all protocols followed, he should've gone. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-04-24 21:47 |
| #8 There are Euro armies whose soldiers have long hair+ beards, or whom have organized unions including contracts on what PUBLIC/NATIONAL orders to obey, versus what NOT of same to obey. Instead of being super-powers or hyper-powers, their nations are part of benign "dying Europe" = future "Eurabia". A US SOLDIER SERVES BOTH PUBLIC AUTHORITY, PUBLIC POLICY AS DECIDED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY, AS WELL AS PUBLIC ORDER/STABILITY WHICH INCLUDES PROTECTION AND SECURITY FROM FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC ANARCHY-HARM. Nations without reliable, disciplined armies cannot defend = won't defend themselves - must rely on others while hoping the latter don't try to take over. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-04-24 21:43 |
| #7 I kind of agree with the soldier, but if he was on a UN peace keeping mission, they do need a way to distinguish that. Then again I rather they tow the UN building out into the harbor and sink it, but thats me. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2007-04-24 20:59 |
| #6 I can understand him not wanting to wear the UN insignia, but, having been sent there as part of a UN peace-keeping mission and in order to identify that he is a member of that UN mission I think it's appropriate to wear the UN insignia. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-04-24 20:32 |
| #5 Phomogum Poodle7199: Different guy. This one began before the war. He basically said that he signed up for his country, not to be under the command of some foreigner. I have to agree with him, that in future, the only US personnel assigned to UN command should either be volunteers, or specifically hired for that purpose. In the best of all worlds, I imagine the US hiring mercenaries for our international obligations, much like the French Foreign Legion. No survey has been done on the subject, but I suspect a LARGE portion of our military would join with this guy in refusing to wear the baby blue beret. They equate it with being ordered to surrender because your commanding officer has decided to turn chicken. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-04-24 20:30 |
| #4 I might be thinking of a different guy but I remember a medic who allowed the US military to pay for his medical school and then simply didn't want to go to war. The UN insignia is a new edition, probably spinning if it's the same guy. |
| Posted by: Phomogum Poodle7199 2007-04-24 20:02 |
| #3 Do not forget elimination of the electoral college. |
| Posted by: newc 2007-04-24 19:26 |
| #2 Uncle Luther didn't sign on to defend Germany either, but he damn sure did. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-04-24 19:23 |
| #1 I'm very conflicted about this one. The soldier, like all American military, took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States not the UN Charter. By failing to address this very fundamental issue, SCOTUS lays open the Nuremberg defense of 'only obeying orders'. Its good for military command and control, but can be very bad in the long term. If American military are to subordinate the oath to the Constitution to something else, then the final traditional and cultural check on power is removed. One more step to Caesar. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-04-24 19:17 |