• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael New Refuses to Wear UN Articles of Uniform

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
62,805
Reaction score
52,332
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
I think I remember this case, but do not know how it was ever resolved.

A soldier who refused orders and won was 1Lt. Ehren Watada USA.
 
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?
 
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?

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.
 
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.

As best I can tell, SCOTUS refused to hear his appeal. He lost. It was pretty straightforward case, so it makes sense SCOTUS did not bother. I wish people would stop looking for excuses to get out of deployments...
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

As much as I dislike the UN and find it a worthless organization, I agree with you. You don't get to pick your assignments. He can express is disagreement with it through proper channels if he likes but in the end you do what your assigned to do.
 
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.

In my OP I asked a question. In my answer to your post, I stated that I had taken the oath administered to service members. We disagree as far as the application of the UCMJ. Why do feel the need to question my veteran status? Is your service in the military tied to the administration of the UCMJ?
 
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.
That is too much of a 'gray area', and there were some noted omissions and unallowed evidence in the courts martial according to the reading I have done. Sorry to edit your post, wanted to get to the area I disagree with.
 
"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.

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.
 
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...

sajan.jpg

Should those Canadian soldiers have had the option of refusing to serve?
 
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?

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?
 
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.

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'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?

This would fall under Article 5 of the NATO agreement, would it not? UN and NATO are not the same,eh?
 
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... :peace
 
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... :peace

What uniform were you required to wear?:peace back atcha!
 
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.
 
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.

Thanks for your opinion re: refusing a 'legal order.' From what I have read SPC New served in Kuwait. He enlisted in 1993 and had at least two years time in service. I didn't get the impression his actions were an effort to avoid a deployment.
 
What uniform were you required to wear?:peace back atcha!

What we wore has ZERO to do with the oath to support and defend... where in the oath does it say while in our national service uniform?

If we remember our oath it doesn't specify US officers appointed over me- just officers. Again if an officer seconds you to another country's military and you are told to wear their uniform- guess what you will be wearing...

But to be clear where did it say the medic had to wear the 'UN uniform', he had to wear a few UN symbols ON HIS US UNIFORM, the old BDU... :2wave:

Now about the uniform I wore when playing with the Belgians and later with the Italians (their M113's still had gas engines) was a mixed bag as we swapped uniforms- whole or part as part of the tradition of cooperation... Officers on both sides did minor swaps and looked the other way at our mixed bag turn-out.
 
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?

No, far as I know they wore Canadian insignia.
Guy I know here did 32 years as a tech in the Air Force and he wears his UN beret and UN medals (as well as his Canadian decorations) for the Remembrance Day ceremony at the Legion. We may have a different regard for the UN here.

edit- It's not the same, but I've seen pictures of Canadian special forces with nothing on their camos, no flags or insignia, nothing. Their faces were covered but there still was a bit of uproar about the pics. There also was a thing where US special forces working with YPG wore Kurdish flag shoulder patches.
 
Last edited:
This would fall under Article 5 of the NATO agreement, would it not? UN and NATO are not the same,eh?

I don't know from articles but no, the UN and NATO are not the same.
 
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.

Personally I am a veteran who has no respect whatsoever for the United nations. I would gladly urinate on the UN flag.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom