Mike New Loses Legal Battle

Art said:

That was a UN effort, for all that the US bore the brunt of it.

Click to expand...

Ah. So since it happened years ago and it went relatively unnoticed then, that we have to put up with it now?

AntiqueCollector, should we not have done any fighting during the Cold War era? Was the fear of the USSR all some gigantic charade?

Ever hear of Korea? Have any idea of the whys and wherefores?

That was a UN effort, for all that the US bore the brunt of it.

Click to expand...

It was a justifiable war given the threat of the USSR. We simply should not have been involved with the UN in it. The USSR was on the Security Council and thereby obtained military secrets (to which they were entitled as it was going through the UN) they should never have known (and wouldn't have if we kept it out of the UN and only btwn. us and allies) and many troops were endangered through that.

Of course, given that it was Truman, chosen by socialist FDR as running mate, who also got rid of MacArthur, who meddled with anti-Communist investigations, it's no surprise he got the UN in it. And he got us into a mess we never really won. War can erupt again if N. Korea wants it to, technically the war is still on.

Had we not used the UN as we did, there are reasonable odds that we'd have been worse off than we were during the Cold War years. We used the UN as a tool to gain allies for our containment policy against the USSR, as well as the separate efforts at alliances. Run the comparative numbers, had we not done so--whether you measure it by populations or divisions.

Please understand: I'm no UN supporter, overall. I think we should work out some way to get out and to eject that building full of phonies. As far as I'm concerned, the UN building could be a homeless shelter for our own people, not for those who'd be walking targets in their own countries.

Off topic, but Truman was correct in his action against MacArthur. MacArthur over-stepped the bounds. And, had we followed his ideas about crossing the Yalu, we'd have lost far more than the 50-some thousand we did lose. (We lost as many in three years in Korea as we did in ten years of Vietnam.) Mao was readily prepared to accept a loss rate of 400:1. A "win" in MacArthur's terms would have been as Pyrrhic as any imaginable.

Overall, I guess my point is that one should separate "the military" from "the politicians' misuse of the military". The problem for a potential enlistee is that he has no way of knowing ahead of time. But, nobody ever really has...

Art

If this had been the attitude during WWII we would be speaking either German or Russian

Click to expand...

No, we wouldn't. The Germans wouldn't have a prayer, and all the Russians would get is Alaska - and since we all know that polar bears are immune to all but super-magnum cartridges, the Red Army would've been annihilated to a man.

Back to the topic at hand...

There's a reason they say that enlisting is 'signing your life away'. You give up an awful lot of rights.
The Nuremburg business - seems that the idea is thusly: if the order given you would lead to the Army getting a popular-opinion black eye(as in, torture folk, burn a few towns, burn Geraldo at the stake), it can be refused. Otherwise, you'd best shut up. The army doesn't care about constitutional issues. It's not a legislative body.

Undeclared wars are extremely popular. The congress avoids any big pronouncements/responsibility, and the president can claim it's a war on Communism/terrorism/drugs/spam/mall ninjas/flying squirrels, not a war on any particular country.

duplicate

duplicate - bug in the computer, sorry

Edmund Burke said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’ The minute people like Mike New no longer exist, our U.S leaders will have names like Adolph, Joseph, Che, Fidel, Mao, Yasser and Napoleon to name just a few. Men like Mike New stand where few can even see.
Yes, he very well may have broke the law, but so did the people of Athens TN, and those of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, and the students in Tiananmen Square, and Paul Revere, George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr, Moses the Egyptian and Jesus Christ.
Hurrah for all you abiders of law.

Harry Peterson said "The surest way for evil to triumph is for well intentioned people to behave irrationally, ignorantly, and stupidly." Harry Peterson is still alive. Edmund Burke has been dead for a long time.

Sage of Seattle: "Fighting under a foreign flag has nothing to do with this country's defense, even if ordered to by one's superiors." Oh. So life isn't a river?

"And I strongly suggest that no one in the US fail to fight any injustice, even if it is only an undeserved speeding ticket." Don't forget to change into your super hero costume first so that other people don't think you're just an ordinary crank. Blue tights with a red cape is a bit dated, and there are ever so few telephone booths in which to change clothing nowadays.

"Nice dodge." I haven't seen a nice Dodge in years. But what do cars have to do with this subject? Focus.

Snippets and proclamations are not a substitute for wisdom or intelligence. They are merely the Internet's version of sound bites.

To every thing there is a season.
No matter how dark and stormy the night you can't shingle a roof with stewed prunes.
I know not what course others may take but, as for me, give me engineering.

Where to begin:

What does this ruling mean to Americans?
If you are in the military, it means that you and your attorneys have no right to present evidence in your defense in courts-martial, for evidence has suddenly become "discretionary element" of the prosecution. This means that, if the judge and the prosecutor want the jury to see your evidence, they will allow it, and if they don't, they will deny it. And the bottom line on this issue is that no member of the Armed Forces can mount an effective legal defense. They will be denied due process, and the "standard of review" that has been recognized by all Appellate Courts for over 40 years has just been shredded. Lawyers will understand the legal chaos and confusion that has just been upheld.

Click to expand...

Determination of an "illegal order" is, and always has been, a matter of law for the judge to decide... not a matter of fact for deliberation by the members of the court. It isn't an opinion or issue of truth or fact, it's an issue of military law. Even in civilian courts judges decide matters of law, and juries decide matters of fact. Nothing new there.

If you are in the military, or considering enlisting, it also means that the Executive Branch now will feel completely at liberty to ignore the US Constitution, and place you in a United Nations uniform, under the command authority of a foreign officer, to pursue a military policy that is distinct from the legal and official policies of the United States of America.

Click to expand...

I am unaware of any section of the Constitution that would prohibit this. Congress is given the right to regulate the military forces of the US, and no regulation prohibiting this has been passed. US servicemembers do not serve under the command of foriegn offiers, though they may be placed under the operational control of such officers. There is a difference between command and operational control... though I wouldn't expect someone making the arguments made here to understand it... which is why E4's shut up and soldier instead of thinking about things they don't understand... and where such thinking can get them in a heck of a lot of trouble.

"Command" indicates certain perogatives that operational control does not. The right to promote certain servicemembers, discipline servicemembers for various infractions and so forth is a perogative of command. No foriegn officer has these perogatives. Operational control gives the right to set military objectives and direct the use of unit resources. Foriegn officers may have these rights as set out in the agreement which places a US unit under foreign operational control.

In effect, you may be turned into a mercenary at the discretion of the President. You are for sale, rent, hire, or loan, as determined by the political party of the moment, and you, or your children, may be ordered to fight, bleed and possibly die for the United Nations, without due process.

Click to expand...

You fight and die at the order of the Commander-in-Chief. Why those orders are given and to what purpose is not a Soldier's concern... unless the orders are blatantly illegal or contrary to the Constitution. If you feel they are you make your stand and take your chances with a military judge. S it always has been and should be. Obviously these orders were not such, as determined by the military judge.

If you are a Member of Congress, or are represented there, it means that the Executive Branch may now send our soldiers into war, (under the UN), without bothering with little inconveniences like getting a Congressional Declaration of War. This, thanks to Presidential Decision Directive #25, which was touted as the legal basis of the order to send Michael New under the UN, in apparent contradiction of existing law and precedent. The balance of power between the branches of government, as intended by the Founding Fathers, has just been destroyed.

If you are a tinhorn petty dictator, posing no real threat to the United States, it means you no longer have to threaten the USA with words or action - that the President can send troops to invade you without a formal declaration of war.

Click to expand...

There has been no declaration of war by Coingress since 1941. Even prior to WWII the military was often used without a decaration or war... the Barbary Pirate actions, Nicaragua, Panama... the list is pretty endless. Even so, New's trial wasn't about an invasion or war... it was about deploying for a peackeeping mission.

In any case it is not an E4's job to decide that somebody needs invading, or not.

There is more, but that's enough to demonstrate that the USA has just experienced a figurative shifting of the tectonic plates of our very existence, and the USA is not what we have all been led to believe it is - our Constitutional Republic is no longer simply sick - it appears to be dead. If the President can force Americans to fight, without a declaration of war, under foreign powers, then the Republic no longer exists.

Click to expand...

It has been thus since the Republic was formed. Nothing has changed, except that a junior enlisted Soldier thought he would play bunkroll lawyer and got his butt in a sling.

Of course, given that it was Truman, chosen by socialist FDR as running mate, who also got rid of MacArthur, who meddled with anti-Communist investigations, it's no surprise he got the UN in it. And he got us into a mess we never really won. War can erupt again if N. Korea wants it to, technically the war is still on.

Click to expand...

1. McArthur publicly defied his superior, the Commander-in-Chief. Truman was correct to remove him regardless of any other factor.

2. N. Korea can declare war regardless. They are a sovreign nation with the right to wage war as the see fit, just like us.

Getting sent to Macedonia under UN command wearing a blue beret has exactly ZERO to do with defending this country. What, you think if everyone refused to go that we'd all be speaking Macedonian?

Click to expand...

Whether New agreed with the deployment, or whether the deployment had anything to do with defending the country, is not the point. The orders were not contrary to any US military regulation, they were not contrary to the US Constitution; therefor they must be obeyed.

There are LOTS of orders given in the military that don't seem to make sense down at PVT Snuffy's level. Servicemembers do not get to pick and choose which they follow and which they disregard. They certainly don't get to decide whether a war or deployment is legal or illegal, just or unjust, justifiable or unjustifiable. Do you think that mowing grass, painting rocks or pulling weeds is contributing to the defense of the nation? Perhaps Soldiers assigned to these tasks should ignore their orders until they get some they like?

New was a pot smoking slacker who didn't want to do the job he signed up for (ie: shut up and soldier) and when he got in hot water he started playing the public sympanthy card... in other words, doing essentially what got MacArthur relieved.

Uh...

What about the part where he says the prosecution in courts martial will have sole discretion in all evidence presented? That's a pretty nasty accusation, is that actually happening now? No child or relative of mine is going to put themselves in that kind of situation. Ever.

"The country would be without a military defense if everyone follows your advice."
Oh, what a shame. We might actually have to follow the strictures of the constitution vis-a-vis standing armies. Can't have that, you know, gotta keep that military beaurocracy rolling.
Guess what, chum, each and every one of us constitutes this nation's military defense, 'militia' and auxiliaries all. Some of us get to wear pretty uniforms and get sent off to this decade's sandbox, some of us stay home for whatever reason and practice for the dark day.

"Servicemembers do not get to pick and choose which they follow and which they disregard"
The heck they don't, soldiers aren't drone bees. They all get to weigh the consequences of non-compliance, whether the order is legal or not. That cases like this appear is a good sign- it means that we have thinkers in our military, not simply a sea of doers. When we have the latter, freedom will suffer.

"such thinking can get them in a heck of a lot of trouble."
Be that as it may, it is their right.
Putting on a foreign uniform (UN counts as foreign, by any means) may not be technically illegal, but it is distasteful, and SHOULD be illegal, by this patriot's swift musing on the subject. American soldiers should not be beholden to the orders of a foreign commander, regardless of the particular conditions that brought them to that situation. They did not pledge an oath to the UN, or its charter, they pledged their oaths to America, and its Constitution. As far as I'm concerned, this man did right, and is being punished for being an honorable man and a patriot.

Robert Hairless, we all have to live with the decisions we make. Some of us don't care to live with cowardice or worse hanging over our heads. Sometimes that means accepting consequences, but we each in our own hearts have to discern how far we will go to live by our principles.
I really don't appreciate your derision, it is not helpful.

I love our soldiers, but the people that lead and make decisions about their lives and liberties... not so much.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
— Edmund Burke, English statesman and political philosopher (1729-1797)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke


Perhaps Robert Hairless could direct us to links on who this Harry Peterson is and what are his accomplishments.

I try to not insinuate or make false accusations, but I have found that Liberals, men of little accomplishment and my ex-wife cannot stay on topic when discussing a legitamate point, furthermore, they feel the need to take everything on a personal level.

Michael New may be everything nasty said about him, the point being not who is Michael New but what he stands for in the public eye.

Maybe he did smoke pot Tanksoldier, so did half the troops in the Nam, but we didn't lose because of the ground troops smoking pot, but because of weak politicians and kiss-ass brass.

Michael New swore an oath to protect the United States of America, not to protect United Nations interests. In refusing the order to comply to wearing (and thereby representing) a UN armband, Michael New is guilty of not following an order by an officer (I left out the word superior on purpose).

Michael New felt the Army had broken it's contract with him and he was under his rights to leave, the Army felt differently. This is a volunteer army and in 1979 my friend demanded and got a general discharge after serving only 4 months after the Army changed his MOS against his will. I believe the same applies here but the NWO people needed to make an example. Few men know how to take an unpopular stand (read all of Thomas Jefferson's quotes to understand that back then, the few and the proud were in the minority, just like today) the amount of people blasting Mike New is not surprising.

Getting sent to Macedonia under UN command wearing a blue beret has exactly ZERO to do with defending this country. What, you think if everyone refused to go that we'd all be speaking Macedonian?

Click to expand...

I agree, but it was a political decision made by those who were empowered to do so by the constitution. Those who swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution and obey the lawful orders of their superior officers need to follow them. If you don't want to obey orders, don't join the military.

I also question the wisdom of the US having anything to do with so called peacekeeping missions, especially those organized and run by the UN. In fact I question the wisdom of even being a member of the UN sometimes, since it is so anti-freedom. But that is an entirely different matter from obeying lawful orders.

What about the part where he says the prosecution in courts martial will have sole discretion in all evidence presented? That's a pretty nasty accusation, is that actually happening now? No child or relative of mine is going to put themselves in that kind of situation. Ever.

Click to expand...

1. So your children and relatives won't have the same ability to think for themselves that you praise in Michael New below? How do you plan to prevent that?

2. The defense attempted to enter evidence that the order was illegal. The prosecution objected, stating (correctly) that such was not an issue for open court and the members of the court but an issue of law for the judge to decide. Judge agreed, heard evidence from both sides on the issue, and ruled that the orders were not illegal.

Oh, what a shame. We might actually have to follow the strictures of the constitution vis-a-vis standing armies. Can't have that, you know, gotta keep that military beururocracy rolling.
Guess what, chum, each and every one of us constitutes this nation's military defense, 'militia' and auxiliaries all. Some of us get to wear pretty uniforms and get sent off to this decade's sandbox, some of us stay home for whatever reason and practice for the dark day.

Click to expand...

Which strictures against a standing army would those be?

Even the militia, when called into the service of the United States, is subject to regulation by Congress. That's actually the legal basis for the draft... everybody is already in the unorganized militia, and is merely being called into federal service.

As for "the dark day" I suspect that militia members who lack the self discipline to obey orders that they dislike, and who lack the ability to discriminate between orders which are unpleasant and those which are unconstitutional, would be ineffective on the modern battlefield. Modern combat requires teamwork, and teamwork requires submission of your personal ego and desires to that of the team leader. There are not and cannot be democracies on the modern battlefield. Performance and coordination of "militia" individuals with an AR15 in the closet, and armchair notions of combat skills at best, on the battlefield is likely to be... suboptimal.

"Servicemembers do not get to pick and choose which they follow and which they disregard"
The heck they don't, soldiers aren't drone bees. They all get to weigh the consequences of non-compliance, whether the order is legal or not. That cases like this appear is a good sign- it means that we have thinkers in our military, not simply a sea of doers. When we have the latter, freedom will suffer.

Click to expand...

Correct in a sense. Nobody can make a Soldier stop thinking that his orders are stupid, or boring or that the guy at the top is an idiot. Frankly, they think these things quite often. There is a difference between thinking these things, or complaining about them (another thing troops like to do is complain) and actually defying or refusing to obey them.

Nobody can physically stop a Soldier from disobeying or disregarding an order, short of shooting him on the spot. Soldiers are also expected to use initiative to interpret their commander's intent... and sometimes this results in things happening that the commander didn't foresee... the idea is to do what the commander WOULD have ordered if he had the information you have now. This does not mean deciding that if the commander had a brain he wouldn't have ordered an attack at all, but does incude such things as attacking a different hill when the enemy is discovered not to be on the hill originally in the attack order.

Further, based on the oath of enlistment and the commissioning oath, enlisted members are morally obligated to follow the orders of superiors, while commissioned officers are not. This means that it is the commissioned officers job to determine that even a perfectly legal and logical order must be disregarded sometimes... at the risk of legal consequences. An enlisted Soldier like New does not have such an obligation. HIS duty is to obey orders absent their being obviously illegal.

In short, they have the ABILITY to do many things... they do not have the legal right to do them.

"such thinking can get them in a heck of a lot of trouble."
Be that as it may, it is their right.
Putting on a foreign uniform (UN counts as foreign, by any means) may not be technically illegal, but it is distasteful, and SHOULD be illegal, by this patriot's swift musing on the subject. American soldiers should not be beholden to the orders of a foreign commander, regardless of the particular conditions that brought them to that situation. They did not pledge an oath to the UN, or its charter, they pledged their oaths to America, and its Constitution. As far as I'm concerned, this man did right, and is being punished for being an honorable man and a patriot.

Click to expand...

1. It is not their right to disobey lawful orders. Ever.
2. Soldiers are required to do many distasteful things. Indeed, killing human beings (the ultimate goal of military organizations) is distasteful. The distastefulness of a task does not alter their duty to perform it.
3. Soldiers pledge their oath to support and defend the Constitution, and to obey the lawful orders of those appointed over them. His orders were not illegal or unconstitutional, therefore New violated this oath. If your commander orders you to wear a clown suit, guess what?
4. New is not and was not acting out of a sense of duty or honor. He is and was an oath breaking piece of hippo crap. He didn't want to go do the job he was paid to do and signed up for, because is suddenly wasn't fun anymore and he might actually get HURT. HE was happy to take the paycheck, wear the uniform, impress the pretty girls and utilize the benefits of being a US service member, but when it came time to hold up his end the coward tried to wiggle out.

He deserves only scorn and contempt from those in uniform who actually ARE honorable, patriotic and dutiful... and from civilians who actually understand the issues at hand, which are not many. He also deserves to spend a long, long time at the US Disciplinary Barracks & Military Theme Park.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MbeT7_ARm8&mode=related&search=

I love this John Cleese skit from Fawlty Towers, note how he goes from the word Hors d’œuvre to Order's and how being a mindless order-follower is associated with being a Teutonic Goose-stepper.

I served and I followed orders, this is the reason the armed forces has age restrictions, the younger they can get you the easier they will be able to mold you to their manner. Where did I hear the line, "There is nothing more dangerous than an 18 year old American with a uniform and gun", it had to do with Vietnam.

One must remember that a flock of sheep need only few guard-dogs, so naturally those sheep that evoluted to standing on their hind legs outnumber these fewer guard-dogs that also evoluted to standing on their hind legs. Thus, there are more homo sapiens with sheep-like quality (all together now, "baaaaaa"), than there are homo sapiens with canine-mentality. The Sheep outnumber the Canines and therfore they set the rules, pass the laws, elect the officials, set the tone and as sheep, when one goes "baaaa", they all go "baaaa, baaaa".

Maybe some of you should read "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.

Tanksoldier, you're quite right that taking the military oaths means that you're subject to military jurisprudence, and are obligated to follow orders.

HOWEVER.

If you believe these orders to be improper, or illegal- if YOU believe them to be so, you are morally bound to disobey them.
If you have a moral objection to the orders you have been given, you have a DUTY to disobey them.
That doesn't mean that disobedience should be rewarded, or even ignored- however, spitting upon a man's sense of propriety, morality, and honor, is despicable. Especially when he has sacrificed a great deal for his beliefs.

God so help me if I have children or relatives dumb enough to put themselves in a situation where they may be subject to military 'justice'. I would be morally remiss to allow them to do so willingly.
Doesn't mean I can stop them, of course, but I'm certainly not going to drive them to the recruiting office.

Robert said:

Harry Peterson said "The surest way for evil to triumph is for well intentioned people to behave irrationally, ignorantly, and stupidly." Harry Peterson is still alive. Edmund Burke has been dead for a long time.

Click to expand...

Oh. I didn't realize that. Let me make a note.

Sage of Seattle: "Fighting under a foreign flag has nothing to do with this country's defense, even if ordered to by one's superiors."
Oh. So life isn't a river?

Click to expand...

Life sure is a river. While sometimes I worry and peer ahead so I don't slam into rocks, sometimes I love just floating on my back, gazing at the sky. Now would you like to address my point, or would you like to continue issuing snippets of Robert Hairless wisdom? After all, this is the internet.

Don't forget to change into your super hero costume first so that other people don't think you're just an ordinary crank.

Click to expand...

Oh heavens. I am only an ordinary crank. There's really nothing super about me.

Blue tights with a red cape is a bit dated, and there are ever so few telephone booths in which to change clothing nowadays.

Click to expand...

Actually, blue is my favorite color. Maybe two different shades of blue, rather than the red/blue thing? And since my wheelchair is blue, it would match very nicely. And I really don't need a telephone booth to change in because the handicapped stalls in the men's room works for me quite well.

"Nice dodge." I haven't seen a nice Dodge in years. But what do cars have to do with this subject? Focus.

Click to expand...

Focus? Why do you mention a Ford Focus? I thought we weren't talking about cars.

Snippets and proclamations are not a substitute for wisdom or intelligence. They are merely the Internet's version of sound bites.

Click to expand...

What can I say? I love pith.

If you believe these orders to be improper, or illegal- if YOU believe them to be so, you are morally bound to disobey them.

Click to expand...

This is true. The problem is, the orders actually have to be illegal... which is a matter of law that will be decided by a judge after the fact. Thinking they were illegal when they were actually not is not a defense or mitigation of any kind.

If you have a moral objection to the orders you have been given, you have a DUTY to disobey them.

Click to expand...

Commissioned officers, yes; enlisted Soldiers, no. There is nothing in the oath of enlistment or military regulation that allows an enlisted Soldier to refuse orders on moral grounds, only legal grounds.

That doesn't mean that disobedience should be rewarded, or even ignored- however, spitting upon a man's sense of propriety, morality, and honor, is despicable. Especially when he has sacrificed a great deal for his beliefs.

Click to expand...

If he had a sense of honor you would be correct. He hasn't sacrificed anything that he didn't lose the moment he refused to obey the lawful orders of his superiors. Everything since has been a tap dance to justify himself and wiggle out of the punishment he deserves.

When he discovered that he would be deploying to Macedomia he didn't say to himself: "Gee, I think that's against the Constitution." He said: "Gee, that sounds dangerous and I might get hurt. How can I get out of doing my sworn duty?"

God so help me if I have children or relatives dumb enough to put themselves in a situation where they may be subject to military 'justice'. I would be morally remiss to allow them to do so willingly.

Click to expand...

As long as you are sure they understand that they will be held to their oath and expected to fulfil their duties there won't be a problem. Many people think that it is "dumb" to sacrifice something for the good of others. Military members sacrifice a bit more than most. Perhaps that's why such a small percentage of citizens are willing to make that sacrifice, and why so few outsiide the military understand the demands of the proffession.

What you fail to realize is that military justice is very similar to civilian justice. You can be charged with things under the military system that are not crimes in the civilan world, it's true... but the evidence and trial procedures are very similar. Nothing happened in New's case that hasn't happeded in thousands of similar trials both civilian and military. The judge at the trial is a military officer, but he's also a lawyer who was a prosecutor or defense lawyer before that, just like the civilian system. They also, unless they have prior service, aren't infantrymen or logistics officers... they are just lawyers. Military law is all they do.

His defense lawyer isn't even in the same chain of command as the judge or prosecutor in order to prevent undue infuence.

The members of the Military Court of Appeals are civilian judges just like any federal judges found anywhere.

Just because the "article" that started this whole thing claims he didn't get a fair trial doesn't mean it's true. The military bends over backwards, literally, to ensure they can't be accused of unfairness or harsh sentencing.

Miranda rights are actually stronger for servicemembers than they are for civilians, for example, and I've seen drug dealers who would serve years in prison in the civilian system get off with a BCD and time served in the military system.

Doesn't mean I can stop them, of course, but I'm certainly not going to drive them to the recruiting office.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you would change your mind if you learned more about the military than what you read in a sour-grapes article from a forsworn bunkroll lawyer.

Just because a junior enlisted Soldier claims that something is unconstitutional and REALLY wants it to be so, doesn't make it so.

When you join the military, orders are orders and you are compelled to carry out the order. The option you now have is not to join. If you question an order the debate should start tomorrow, not now. The military is not a democracy, take it or leave it.

Wow! This country shall soon fade away... It saddens me to read the anti-Constitution/Bill of Rights comments here. The Anti-Federalists would surely consider you enemies of freedom - and correctly so.

whether the deployment had anything to do with defending the country, is not the point.

Click to expand...

It should always be the point when it comes to the big picture.

Wow! This country shall soon fade away... It saddens me to read the anti-Constitution/Bill of Rights comments here. The Anti-Federalists would surely consider you enemies of freedom - and correctly so.

Click to expand...

Please point out the portion of the Constitution, Bill of Rights or US military regulations that were violated by the orders SPC New received. Jefferson himself would laugh at the idea of a serving soldier or sailor deciding for himself which orders he likes and which he doesn't.

If you don't like how th etroops are being used, elect someone that will use them in a manner with which you agree... or ammend the Constitution or pass a law that suits you. Absent such a law or ammendment you really haven't a leg to stand on here.

It should always be the point when it comes to the big picture.

Click to expand...

As long as no laws or the US Constitution were violated there IS no big picture for a Specialist E4 in the US Army. His "big picture" consists of perfecting the skills of his MOS and gaining the skills required to take the next step and become a noncommissioned officer and leader of Soldiers.

If you don't like US troops being used on UN missions that's fine... I don't either... but absent a gross violation of US law, the US Constitution or the customary laws of war enlisted Soldiers are expected and required to follow orders. Even orders they don't like, even orders which will certainly result in their deaths. That's what being a Soldier is.

The framers of the Constitution were not idiots; many were military men. They DID NOT put anything in there that says a private soldier (what they would have called someone in New's position) has any say in what battles he fights, what latrines he cleans or where he does these things... or whether his belief is that the orders he's given are beneficial to the defense of the US or not. In Washington's Continental Army a soldier who did something equivelent to New would have gotten lashes at least.

The US Constitution does not say what you want it to say. Trying to twist it; believing that if you shout loudly enough the words on the page will somehow change is no different that what the liberals try to do to the Second Ammendment. You cannot change the words written over 200 years ago to mean what is convenient to your beliefs today.

Several posters have gone on about the Constitution and such. PLEASE point out the section you're talking about. I can't find it.

I think it has been mentioned that we are a SOVEREIGN people/nation. As such how is it the President (who is CINC ONLY in time of war which Congress must enact) send the standing army (also unconstitutional) to serve under a foreign entity (not even a nation) that another president signed as a treaty (which must be between two nations and the UN is not)???? What don't you see??

There is the spirit of the law and the letter of the law de facto and de jure. If you cannot decipher it then ALL is lost for you.