• 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 said:
Yes, that is what the oath demands be defended.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces_oath_of_enlistment
Click to expand...

Ya know, this just reinforces my opinion that constitutions are just a cumbersome burden. I know that for Americans the constitution represents their guarantee of the rights and freedoms that were fought for in the Revolution but to me, all it represents is the pride and hubris of the authors. Here we are, talking about the constitutionality of a situation that the authors of the constitution couldn't have possibly imagined.
But probably this is a subject for a different thread.
 
Redress said:
That oath proves New was in the wrong, you know that, right?
Click to expand...

I raised my right hand in OCT72. I (perhaps due to the passage of time), have no recollection of the UCMJ part. According to the oath your position is firm. My opinion still stands that it is wrong and should be amended.The are laws on the civil books that are wrong/outdated as well.
 
Grand Mal said:
Ya know, this just reinforces my opinion that constitutions are just a cumbersome burden. I know that for Americans the constitution represents their guarantee of the rights and freedoms that were fought for in the Revolution but to me, all it represents is the pride and hubris of the authors. Here we are, talking about the constitutionality of a situation that the authors of the constitution couldn't have possibly imagined.
But probably this is a subject for a different thread.
Click to expand...

Totally in agreement!
 
Rexedgar said:
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?
Click to expand...


What does "refuse the trappings of the UN" even mean? The UN is not a foreign military power.

Serving as UN peacekeeper does not stop someone from being a soldier of their nation. A UN peacekeeper is a role, not a job or military service.

As for why he was under Finish authority, who cares? That doesn't mean he's now serving Finland.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
What does "refuse the trappings of the UN" even mean? The UN is not a foreign military power.

Serving as UN peacekeeper does not stop someone from being a soldier of their nation. A UN peacekeeper is a role, not a job or military service.

As for why he was under Finish authority, who cares? That doesn't mean he's now serving Finland.
Click to expand...

AS for 'trappings', https://www.google.com/search?q=trappings+definition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

I used the word to keep the post briefer. According to my reading, SPC New was ordered to remove the US flag from his shoulder, replace it with the UN standard, wear the blue headgear with badging and two or three other articles identifying the soldier as a UN soldier to include surrendering his US military ID and carry a UN ID. My reading has further pointed to instances of a UN service member being captured and not having the same protections/protocols as a US serviceman.

I find myself in disagreement with your second paragraph, I find acting as a UN peacekeeper to be all three, role, job and military service.

In regard to the third point: This is not WW 2, in the invasion of the European continent, conditions dictated that the campaign be a multi-national effort. Entire units were attatched to allied armies. There was no change of uniform items other than those 'traditions' and ceremonies touched on by another poster in this thread. Anyone assigned to serve under an allied command, served in the uniform of his country and was commanded at the lower unit levels by the officers they had trained/served under during training and whatever combat they had participated in up until that time.
 
Rexedgar said:
AS for 'trappings', https://www.google.com/search?q=trappings+definition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

I used the word to keep the post briefer. According to my reading, SPC New was ordered to remove the US flag from his shoulder, replace it with the UN standard, wear the blue headgear with badging and two or three other articles identifying the soldier as a UN soldier to include surrendering his US military ID and carry a UN ID. My reading has further pointed to instances of a UN service member being captured and not having the same protections/protocols as a US serviceman.
Click to expand...

Because he is operating as a peacekeeper he needs to be identifiedas one. This is to avoid confusion because peacekeeprs operate under a different set of rules and guidelines than combatants.

I find myself in disagreement with your second paragraph, I find acting as a UN peacekeeper to be all three, role, job and military service.
Click to expand...

What you find is irrelevant. Peacekeeping is a role;it is not a job or permanent position. Soldiers assigned to act as peacekeepers only so so temporarily. It is not military service because UN Peacekeepers themselves are not part of any standing UN military force. There is no UN Army.

In regard to the third point: This is not WW 2, in the invasion of the European continent, conditions dictated that the campaign be a multi-national effort. Entire units were attatched to allied armies. There was no change of uniform items other than those 'traditions' and ceremonies touched on by another poster in this thread. Anyone assigned to serve under an allied command, served in the uniform of his country and was commanded at the lower unit levels by the officers they had trained/served under during training and whatever combat they had participated in up until that time.
Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant. Peacekeeping is not war. Peacekeepers are not by definition soliders, it is a role that may be filled be soldiers but peacekeepers themselves are not the uniformed service members of the UN. They are temporary assignments for the purpose of maintaining UN mandates.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Because he is operating as a peacekeeper he needs to be identifiedas one. This is to avoid confusion because peacekeeprs operate under a different set of rules and guidelines than combatants.



What you find is irrelevant. Peacekeeping is a role;it is not a job or permanent position. Soldiers assigned to act as peacekeepers only so so temporarily. It is not military service because UN Peacekeepers themselves are not part of any standing UN military force. There is no UN Army.



Completely irrelevant. Peacekeeping is not war. Peacekeepers are not by definition soliders, it is a role that may be filled be soldiers but peacekeepers themselves are not the uniformed service members of the UN. They are temporary assignments for the purpose of maintaining UN mandates.
Click to expand...
I am certain that the families of the over one-hundred peacekeepers who have been killed (since 1948), will find comfort that their family members were not killed because there was a war.





http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/fatalities/documents/stats_5amay.pdf


As to our opposing views, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Cheers
 
Rexedgar said:
AS for 'trappings', https://www.google.com/search?q=trappings+definition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

I used the word to keep the post briefer. According to my reading, SPC New was ordered to remove the US flag from his shoulder, replace it with the UN standard, wear the blue headgear with badging and two or three other articles identifying the soldier as a UN soldier to include surrendering his US military ID and carry a UN ID. My reading has further pointed to instances of a UN service member being captured and not having the same protections/protocols as a US serviceman. I find myself in disagreement with your second paragraph, I find acting as a UN peacekeeper to be all three, role, job and military service. In regard to the third point: This is not WW 2, in the invasion of the European continent, conditions dictated that the campaign be a multi-national effort. Entire units were attatched to allied armies. There was no change of uniform items other than those 'traditions' and ceremonies touched on by another poster in this thread. Anyone assigned to serve under an allied command, served in the uniform of his country and was commanded at the lower unit levels by the officers they had trained/served under during training and whatever combat they had participated in up until that time.
Click to expand...

I read that website, I believe it is the one using Major Higgins as the example, problem is of course the enemy could give a damn US Marine or UN Observer. Now just what difference would it have made??? Would the Red Cross demand a visitation??? :roll:

You confuse 'traditions' with regulations. Regulations state we wear green 'tabs' to denote combat leader, tradition says we don't on two way ranges... ;)

SP4 New never 'surrendered' his US ID, the UN ID was issued as the only one required.

Seconding is not always entire units as liaison, translators, electronic specialists, guides are often 'units of one'...

There is ZERO, I say again, not a damn thing in the Oath we swear to serve in the armed forces that precludes being seconded to other militaries and when it is UN service then identifiers that ID that force. He wore his BDU that shows he is a USofA soldier. He still had his USofA ID, and DOG TAGS- lest the quibbers conveniently forget that key form of ID ALL Infantry men wore to include while on top of Betty back on the Block... :)

I am somewhat puzzled by your position. He stood alone for some principle everyone else saw as non existent- to include the others who were seconded to the UN force. Many other men stood when others didn't and paid the ultimate measure for their stance. New got off pretty lucky as he didn't take a stand on a two way range but a Military Court. I was trained to take the lick if the charges stick, no whining to the public.

Times have changed... :peace

This is just a rabid right anti-UN rant and this medic isn't a very good poster boy... :peace
 
Rexedgar said:
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.
Click to expand...




Former Army Specialist Michael New files for Honorable Discharge



He's rightfully still fighting to get the bad conduct discharge upgraded to honorable. He lives in Texas and works as an IT consultant.

"
Former Army Specialist Michael New files for Honorable Discharge

Conroe, Texas: Former Army Specialist Michael New has formally made an application to the Army Board ofCorrections for Military Records (ABCMR), requesting that his Bad Conduct Discharge be upgraded to Honorable Discharge.

SPC New was convicted in 1996 of disobeying an order to wear a United Nations uniform and to deploy into Macedonia on Operation Able Sentry, under the command of a general officer from Finland. His objection was that he joined the United States Army, not the United Nations Army, and that his loyalty was to the United States Constitution, not to the United Nations Charter.

Michael New, a native of Conroe, Texas, is now 42 years old, lives in the Houston area, and works as an IT consultant.

SPC New is the only American ever convicted of the crime of wanting to serve his own country, exclusively. Until the ruling is overturned, whether by court of by legislation, the precedent has been established that no member of the US military can refuse to serve the United Nations when ordered to do so.

According to Herb Titus, lead attorney for Mike’s case, there was “prosecutorial misconduct undermining New’s efforts to prove that order was unlawful by denying access to classified documents.” Several errors by the Army prior to, and during the court-martial should justify correction of the discharge, even at this late date.

Michael New Action Forum (MNAF)
P.O. Box 100
Iredell, Texas 76457"
 
CMPancake said:
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?
Click to expand...




That's bull****. He signed up to be in the US army, not in a UN peacekeeping force. I would have refused as well and almost had the opportunity to. One pledges an oath to defend the US constitution, not the UN charter under foreign control.
 
CMPancake said:
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.
Click to expand...



wear a blue helmet and serve under foreign commanders? that is not a lawful order.


"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962)."
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Former Army Specialist Michael New files for Honorable Discharge



He's rightfully still fighting to get the bad conduct discharge upgraded to honorable. He lives in Texas and works as an IT consultant.

"
Former Army Specialist Michael New files for Honorable Discharge

Conroe, Texas: Former Army Specialist Michael New has formally made an application to the Army Board ofCorrections for Military Records (ABCMR), requesting that his Bad Conduct Discharge be upgraded to Honorable Discharge.

SPC New was convicted in 1996 of disobeying an order to wear a United Nations uniform and to deploy into Macedonia on Operation Able Sentry, under the command of a general officer from Finland. His objection was that he joined the United States Army, not the United Nations Army, and that his loyalty was to the United States Constitution, not to the United Nations Charter.

Michael New, a native of Conroe, Texas, is now 42 years old, lives in the Houston area, and works as an IT consultant.

SPC New is the only American ever convicted of the crime of wanting to serve his own country, exclusively. Until the ruling is overturned, whether by court of by legislation, the precedent has been established that no member of the US military can refuse to serve the United Nations when ordered to do so.

According to Herb Titus, lead attorney for Mike’s case, there was “prosecutorial misconduct undermining New’s efforts to prove that order was unlawful by denying access to classified documents.” Several errors by the Army prior to, and during the court-martial should justify correction of the discharge, even at this late date.

Michael New Action Forum (MNAF)
P.O. Box 100
Iredell, Texas 76457"
Click to expand...

"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Was he ordered to the Peacekeeping contingent?
 
Fledermaus said:
"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Was he ordered to the Peacekeeping contingent?
Click to expand...




unless it's an illegal order. it's illegal because it is outside the scope of defending the US constitution of the United states. One cannot bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states if you are serving under a foreign commander as part of a foreign peace keeping force.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
unless it's an illegal order. it's illegal because it is outside the scope of defending the US constitution of the United states. One cannot bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states if you are serving under a foreign commander as part of a foreign peace keeping force.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

There are military members assigned outside the US military every day. A friend of mine was Marine Liaison to the Botswana Army. Please explain what Marine Liaison to the Botswana Army has to do with defending the US constitution of the United states.
 
Fledermaus said:
Nonsense.

There are military members assigned outside the US military every day. A friend of mine was Marine Liaison to the Botswana Army. Please explain what Marine Liaison to the Botswana Army has to do with defending the US constitution of the United states.
Click to expand...



Liaison? Did he have to don the botswanan uniform and answer to a bostwainian commander?
 
Fledermaus said:
Botswani uniform = Irrelevant

Answer to a Botswani Commander = Only if he didn't want the USMC to smash his bag.
Click to expand...




Michel knew was instructed to wear the UN uniform, blue beret and had been assigned to answer to a foreign commander.


So it's completely relevant. where in the the regulations does it discuss the wear and presentation of a US Army soldier's wearing of the botswani uniform.


In Michael News case he was instructed to become a UN peace keeper wearing UN insignia, beret, etc and answer to a macedonian commander.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
unless it's an illegal order. it's illegal because it is outside the scope of defending the US constitution of the United states. One cannot bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states if you are serving under a foreign commander as part of a foreign peace keeping force.
Click to expand...

Scrubbing a ****er is outside the scope of defending the US constitution...Rev, you are showing why barracks lawyers should be ignored.
 
Lol! Why is this even a debate? He didn't swear to protect the UN or answer to a foreign commander.
 
Redress said:
That oath proves New was in the wrong, you know that, right?
Click to expand...

Really? Where in the oath? You did catch the part about according to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, didn't you? Can you point to anything in that code that allows our troops to be put under foreign command?
 
Rexedgar said:
I raised my right hand in OCT72. I (perhaps due to the passage of time), have no recollection of the UCMJ part. According to the oath your position is firm. My opinion still stands that it is wrong and should be amended.The are laws on the civil books that are wrong/outdated as well.
Click to expand...

I took the oath in February of 72. I have no respect for the UN and would urinate on it's flag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom