Mike New Loses Legal Battle

When I enlisted in the Navy in 1982, while in boot camp, these two things were explained to me VERY succinctly;

1. You are here to defend the Constitution of the United States. But that document does NOT apply to you while doing military service. We deal with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) here, that is the document which we use in any military court.

2. With only two exceptions, chaplain and medical, each and every one of you will leave this basic training, and any advanced schooling you take as TRAINED KILLERS. That is why we are here, to cause the death of enemies to the United States. I don't care if you turn a wrench, or pull a trigger, the end result will be the death of somebody.

If you stop and think about those 2 things, they are SENSIBLE. The Constitution grants freedoms that sometimes cannot be applicable in military service. Think about that.

If anyone doesn't like those things, they need not enlist. I just wish that had been made clear to me BEFORE I enlisted, though I still would have done so, willingly.

Since someone asked, Harry Peterson is my barber. He doesn't have a web site. He gives a great haircut, doesn't comment on matters about which he knows nothing, and is more familiar with history than most other people.

Despite the outrage here at the thought that a unit of the American military was ordered to serve with foreign units, the practice is neither new nor unusual. It is a common practice and essential too. Units of the United States military have served under foreign command since World War I and the United States of America has benefitted from the practice.

II Corps (the Second U.S. Army Corps), commanded briefly by Gen. George S. Patton during World War II, was formed during World War I specifically to serve under British command.

As for the awfulness of a U.S. military unit wearing the emblem of a foreign power (interpreting the U.N. as a foreign power) the II Corps shoulder patch was specifically designed to incorporate both the U.S. eagle and the British lion to symbolize the cooperative spirit behind the unit's origin:


Those who have seen the movie Patton should recognize that patch. It is--horrors!--multinational in concept. And it was worn proudly by the U.S. soldiers who were the first American troops to invade North Africa. They suffered such terrible losses at the Kasserine Pass that they were demoralized for a time, until Gen. Patton restored their discipline and pride. The movie shows a reasonable version of that situation. In the military, discipline is the foundation of pride and honor. More about discipline and pride and honor below.

During World War II, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of all allied forces in Europe. British and American forces served under his direction, with commanders such as the British Gen. Bernard Law Montgomery in charge of joint operations that included units from the U.S. and other countries. It was a multinational war of the kind that sends shivers down the spine of some people here.

The term "United Nations" was coined during WWII, probably by the U.S., to describe the multinational Allies' cooperative efforts. Here is a poster produced by the U.S. Office of War Information in 1942 to proclaim those cooperative efforts of several countries:


That poster is one of many that informed patriotic Americans that our nation was united in a global effort with many other nations to resist the tyranny of a few nations. It is unlikely that the United States could have prevailed alone in World War II.

Pride is an outgrowth of discipline in the military. There is a difference between orders to massacre the occupants of a village or exterminate people of other religions and an order to serve under authorized command and wear the special designation ordered to mark that service. Those who do not understand the difference will not understand it no matter how it is explained or how often.

Spec 4 New, the willful young person who is the subject of this message thread, is not a "cause" of any kind or significance. It is no less willful to attempt to make him one. Spec 4 new is merely a willful young man who does not understand the military but wants to impose his will upon it. He was given a lawful order by his superiors, refused to obey it, and refuses to accept the consequences of his refusal. He has done nothing in the least honorable. He has dishonored himself. Were I in the military now I would not want my life to depend on Spec 4 New and would be concerned if he were at my back.

The suggestion that Americans refuse to serve in their country's military as a way to protest Spec. 4 New's conviction for refusing to obey orders deserves nothing more than scorn and derision.

The founders of the UN were ALL charged and prosecuted for being COMMUNISTS. The Global Elite - thru the UN - wish to destroy the sovereignty of all nations including the US. They will be the sole military force to be reckoned with (they'll be the only nation with nukes); they decide what we keep and what we forfeit. I don't know about you but to Hell with Brussells and The City (Financial district in London). Didn't George Washington warn us about entangled foreign alliances?? I recall that he did.

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.

Click to expand...

Show it to me in the Constitution in black and white.

Didn't George Washington warn us about entangled foreign alliances?? I recall that he did.

Click to expand...

After enlisting the help of France to defeat the British.

During World War II, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of all allied forces in Europe

Click to expand...

And Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner as well as a great individual.

Just cus it's history don't make it right or even germaine to the topic.

The UN is one of freedoms enemies, I wouldn't wear the patch if I were still in the Army either. Some time, one has to stand on principal.

"The founders of the UN were ALL charged and prosecuted for being COMMUNISTS."

I know where you can get a tinfoil hat.

All these countries? They founded the UN. From the UN Charter:

"The present Charter shall come into force upon the deposit of ratifications by the Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, and by a majority of the other signatory states. A protocol of the ratifications deposited shall thereupon be drawn up by the Government of the United States of America which shall communicate copies thereof to all the signatory states.

The states signatory to the present Charter which ratify it after it has come into force will become original Members of the United Nations on the date of the deposit of their respective ratifications."

sorry, those nations did NOT found the UN. And so what if they did? One man, by signing this "treaty" subjected every citizen in the US to the dictates of this foreign body. And, yes, they were Communists.

Posted by pacodelahoya:

During World War II, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of all allied forces in Europe

Click to expand...

And Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner as well as a great individual.

Click to expand...

Actually pacodelahoya is right on this one. Eisenhower was CALLED "Supreme Commander" but he didn't exercise command authority over any of the units in his "command"... they actually were merely under his operational control, even the US units.

Posted by Chui: The founders of the UN were ALL charged and prosecuted for being COMMUNISTS.

Click to expand...

1. Cite?

2. So, they were prosecuted for belonging to an unpopular political party, but the US Senate still went along with the UN. Seems the right hand didn't know what the left was doing....

3. Prosecuted for belonging to a political party. That was a bright era for the Constitution. So you agree should have every freedom imaginable in the US, except the freedom to be a Communist? Not very libertarian of you...

Posted by Chui: sorry, those nations did NOT found the UN. And so what if they did? One man, by signing this "treaty" subjected every citizen in the US to the dictates of this foreign body. And, yes, they were Communists.

Click to expand...

1. The Senate ratifies any treaty which a representative of the US signs. If there's no ratification, the treaty is void (again per the US Constitution). It may or may not be true that the US was sold out, but if so it wasn't one man... it was the entire US Senate.

2. We're only subject to the dictates of the UN if we choose to be. The member nations of the UN are still sovereign.

For someone who harps and whines about the constitutionality of various issues, you don't seem to know much about it. I'm still waiting to see in black and white were the Constitution prohibits the deployment of troops without a declaration of war AND/OR where deploying US troops under "foreign" control is prohibited. The Constitution has to be read in black-and-white plain English. If you start "interpreting" it or trying to figure out what the framers "meant" by something, you're doing just what the anti's do with the 2A.

The UN is an alliance of nations just like the Axis in WWII or NATO and the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. It just happens that most of the nations of the world belong to this one. We would still be "subject" to the "dictates" of the UN even if we weren't a member. UN resolutions represent the will of the nations in the alliance, just as if the EU passed a resolution demanding something of the US. We can tell them where to stick it as long as we're willing to irritate all the members of the alliance... the NATO, the EU or the UN, whomever it may be.

At least by belonging to the UN and having a seat on teh Security Council we can try to control the headless chicken a bit, rather than merely being on the outside looking in.

"sorry, those nations did NOT found the UN. And so what if they did?"

They didn't, but so what if they did?

That doesn't make any sense.

John

Guilty of being communist spies, it wasn't the mere fact of being in an unpopular political party tanksoldier. Alger Hiss ring a bell?

Btwn. the Venona cables and documents from soviet archives opened in the 1990's, nearly all that McCarthy and others said in the 50's was proven true. The govt. was (and likely still is) full of commie spies working against our freedom.

We can exert more control over the UN by leaving it and kicking them out of the US and cutting all funding for them. It'd effectively destroy it.

Nearly all McCarthy said was proven true?

Yeah, sure. That's a fantasy.

John

Guilty of being communist spies, it wasn't the mere fact of being in an unpopular political party tanksoldier. Alger Hiss ring a bell?

Click to expand...

1. Hiss was convicted of perjury, not espionage.
2. Considerable evidence has come to light since making his prosecution questionable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss
3. Chui stated that ALL persons involved in the founding of the UN were convicted of spying. Cite please.

Btwn. the Venona cables and documents from soviet archives opened in the 1990's, nearly all that McCarthy and others said in the 50's was proven true. The govt. was (and likely still is) full of commie spies working against our freedom.

Click to expand...

Cite please.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with the original point of the thread. The UN could be the tennis club of Satan himself. None of that makes deploying US troops on UN missions illegal or unconstitutional.

The UN is one of freedoms enemies, I wouldn't wear the patch if I were still in the Army either. Some time, one has to stand on principal.
__________________
Go sell crazy somewhere else... we're all stocked up here.

Click to expand...

Maybe, then, it would be good if recruits to the military provided a list of their conditions. Something like "I won't wear a U.N. armband, I don't work after 5:00 PM or before 9:30 AM, I don't fight on Sundays, I don't like dirt, I won't dress the way everyone else does, I wear Birkenstocks and not boots, I insist upon being addressed as 'Sir,' I want three months paid vacation in Hawaii ...."

And perhaps unit commanders should be required to say "Who wants to participate in this attack? Everybody who wants to go, please raise your hand. Anyone whose principles would be violated by it are excused, of course." Or, perhaps, "Tangos approaching. All those whose principles prohibit participating in the defense, please move to the rear now." Or maybe "I'm sorry to interrupt your poker game, gentlemen, but I've received orders to take that town. Anyone whose principles allow leaving the table at this point is invited to join in. Those who principles do not allow it are excused."

Hiss was convicted of perjury, not espionage.

Click to expand...

Only because of the statute of limitations prevented the espionage charge, so they charged him with perjury instead to get him into jail anyways, rightly so too.

A couple short excerpts from some quick research I did on McCarthy a year ago:

"At one point during the hearing, McCarthy interrupted Welch saying that Welch “has in his law firm a young man named Fisher...who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named...as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party.” Fisher was in fact a member of the pro-Communist Party National Lawyers Guild. However, Welch’s response, “have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” destroyed McCarthy after Welch left and those present broke out in applause."


"Murrow gave an excerpt from McCarthy’s questioning of Reed Harris ( who worked in the State Department). McCarthy’s allegations concern some problems Harris had in 1932 at Columbia University and a book he wrote ( which contained pro-communist ideas) during which time he was helped in his defense by the American Civil Liberties Union. McCarthy states that “the Civil Liberties Union has been listed as ‘a front for, and doing the work of,’ the Communist Party.” Edward Murrow (after giving some more of this hearing) then goes on to say that this demonstrates McCarthy’s techniques and that the ACLU had never been listed by the federal government as Communist and that it was not a Communist organization. This is rather misleading. The ACLU was founded by Communists, including Roger Baldwin. Roger Baldwin said in 1935 in his Harvard Class Book that “I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal” and at another time he said “do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise. We want also to look like patriots in everything we do...” Norman Thomas was another early founder of the ACLU and was also Marxist in his ideas and stated that “the American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” It is easy to see why McCarthy would have called the ACLU Communist when these quotes are examined. The ACLU was originally founded by Communists and Socialists with the purpose of helping their own cause. It can be debated whether or not the ACLU has remained pro-communism, but McCarthy’s allegations center around events of the early 1930's in this particular case, and the ACLU was still pro-communist in nature at the time, while pretending to be patriotic. Edward Murrow in this case deliberately mislead people to believe that the ACLU was not an organization involved in Communist activities when at the time period in question in the case of Harris, it was a pro-communist organization and defended Harris, who himself wrote a book that was pro-communist. Joseph McCarthy was correct in being suspicious of Reed Harris in this case while the opponents of McCarthy were incorrect. This is not all of the evidence in McCarthy’s favor.
In 1943, the U.S. Army’s Signal Intelligence Service (the forerunner of the National Security Agency) began a top secret program code named the VENONA Project. This project translated and deciphered encrypted Soviet diplomatic communications. The project was slow in its progress but as it progressed, it revealed that a KGB message sent to Moscow “contained a list of the leading scientists working on the Manhattan Project.” As it progressed further, it was discovered that someone in the War Department was giving the Soviets highly classified
information, and it confirmed the clandestine activities of the Rosenbergs, Harry Gold, Klaus Fuchs, and David and Ruth Greenglass. In addition to this short list, more than 200 people in the U.S. were named or cover named as assets of the Soviet Union, including many in the highest levels of the government. It is often claimed that McCarthy never found an actual Communist however this is inaccurate, because Mary Jane Keeney, Cedric Belfrage, Franz Newman, Leonard Mins, Gustavo Duran, and some others named by Joseph McCarthy were in fact Communist spies working for the Soviet Union. McCarthy’s belief that the government was filled with Communists was not baseless. The government was filled with Communist spies working for the Soviet Union."

Some of the sources I used:

Coleman, Clark. “Favorite Quotes.” University of Virginia Department of Computer Science. Web page. Updated 9 July 2002; accessed 5 April 2006. Available from http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~clc5q/quotes.html.
Murrow, Edward. “See it Now.” The Beat Begins: America in the 1950s. Transcript online. Updated 1 April 2006; accessed 6 April 2006. Available from http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540309.html.
National Security Agency. “The VENONA Project.” VENONA Archives. Database online. Accessed 5 April 2006. Available from http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps33230/www.nsa.gov/docs/venona/monographs/monograph-1.html.
Sabia, Joseph. “Stand by Your Ann.” Cornell Review Online. Review online. Updated 13 July 2003; accessed 5 April 2006. Available from http://www.cornellreview.org/nsogart.cgi?num=143.


Info. on Hiss trials (evidence is pretty convincing if you ask me): http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/hiss.html

Back on topic, the govt. has no power given to it to put our troops under foreign control:

Powers of the president (rather limited at that):

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Congress relating to the military: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Ammendment 10:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Since the power to give away our sovereignty or give our troops away to froegners is not given to the feds in the Constitution, they have no right to do so.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States

Click to expand...

He can give orders to the military. Nothing in the Constitution say there has to be a declaration of war from the Congress for him to do so, and indeed laws passed by Congress give him the power to use military force without such a declaration.

Since the power to give away our sovereignty or give our troops away to froegners is not given to the feds in the Constitution, they have no right to do so.

Click to expand...

Membership in the UN is a treaty. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal govt the power to enter into a treaty to build and maintain a canal in Panama either, or any other specific type of treaty, just the general power to make them.

So, New was to be deployed to Macedonia IAW our membership treaty in the UN, ratified by all the Communists in the Senate.

The order to do so was found to be lawful by a military judge, the civilian judges of the Military Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court. However, since you don't like the UN, all of those jurists are wrong and you are right. The Constitution says what you want it to say, and not what's actually written on the paper in black and white.

Members of the military are supposed to decide for them selves where they will go, what they will do and whether they want to get out of bed in the morning. BTW: That isn't a military organization, it's a mob.

I still haven't seen anything in teh Constitution that:

1. Prohibits a standing Army.
2. Prohibits the US from entering into alliances and treaties.
3. Prohibits the President from giving orders to the military absent a declaration of war.
4. Anything that would justify New's actions as anything other than a dirtbag slimeball who, when push came to shove, didn't want to do his job.

Only because of the statute of limitations prevented the espionage charge, so they charged him with perjury instead to get him into jail anyways, rightly so too.

Click to expand...

Really? He deserved to go to jail because of the espionage of which he was never convicted?

A couple short excerpts from some quick research I did on McCarthy a year ago:

"At one point during the hearing, McCarthy interrupted Welch saying that Welch “has in his law firm a young man named Fisher...who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named...as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party.” Fisher was in fact a member of the pro-Communist Party National Lawyers Guild. However, Welch’s response, “have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” destroyed McCarthy after Welch left and those present broke out in applause."

Click to expand...

I suppose you miss the irony in your own quotation.

The point is that these people were persecuted for their political affiliation. Now that we have a Democratic Congress I suppose you'd be ok with them hauling in Green party members or something?

Actors were being blackballed, leaders of industry and politicians were being "denounced" as Communists by their enemies... and you want to believe that everything was on the up-and-up?

Really? He deserved to go to jail because of the espionage of which he was never convicted?


Quote:
A couple short excerpts from some quick research I did on McCarthy a year ago:

"At one point during the hearing, McCarthy interrupted Welch saying that Welch “has in his law firm a young man named Fisher...who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named...as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party.” Fisher was in fact a member of the pro-Communist Party National Lawyers Guild. However, Welch’s response, “have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” destroyed McCarthy after Welch left and those present broke out in applause."

I suppose you miss the irony in your own quotation.

The point is that these people were persecuted for their political affiliation. Now that we have a Democratic Congress I suppose you'd be ok with them hauling in Green party members or something?

Actors were being blackballed, leaders of industry and politicians were being "denounced" as Communists by their enemies... and you want to believe that everything was on the up-and-up?

Click to expand...

Correct, Hiss couldn't be charged with espionage because of the statute of limitations--he was doing his spying while working for FDR, in the State Department during his presidency. He played an important role in the UN too.

The real irony is that McCarthy's last statement was correct and yet it has been portrayed by the media as a lie. Why do you suppose the media is so concerned with telling everyone he was a liar, etc., when he was correct? Perhaps they're afraid of you finding out something?

Giving aid and comfort to our enemies is treason, so, regardless of what you may think, it was right to search out communists who had given aid to our enemies.

He can give orders to the military. Nothing in the Constitution say there has to be a declaration of war from the Congress for him to do so, and indeed laws passed by Congress give him the power to use military force without such a declaration.


Quote:
Since the power to give away our sovereignty or give our troops away to froegners is not given to the feds in the Constitution, they have no right to do so.

Membership in the UN is a treaty. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal govt the power to enter into a treaty to build and maintain a canal in Panama either, or any other specific type of treaty, just the power to make them.

Click to expand...

The president is the executive, he executes the laws of Congress. Executes. Carries them out. Since only Congress is given the power to declare war, the president may not. The president is commander of the military, but he must carry out congress' will with the military. He can only order troops to wherever congress has declared war on. The notion of the president being able to start a war on his own, is contrary to the Constitution and its original intent. But this should not surprise us. The govt. has also ignored the second ammendment, so what's to stop them from doing whatever they want elsewhere as well?

The UN may be a treaty, but, it is not the kind of treaty that existed prior to it that the founders had in mind. The UN involves giving away sovereignty, giving in to the control of a non-elected, non-republican government. Giving influence over our country to foreigners. It even gave territory away to this world govt. attempt. The panama canal is nothing like this, it did not give away any sovereignty or give power to foreigners, and it did not give away land in the middle of a state to foreigners. Actually, TR overstepped his bounds in many things he did.

Washington warned against foreign entanglements. The alliance with France was only a sad necessity at the time, but notice he resisted helping the French as president.

Correct, Hiss couldn't be charged with espionage because of the statute of limitations--he was doing his spying while working for FDR, in the State Department during his presidency. He played an important role in the UN too.

Click to expand...

1. Apparently he was the 1st Secretary General of the UN.

2. So he spied while working for FDR, then quit?

3. Since he was accused of the crime, he was obviously guilty.

4. Chui Stated that ALL persons involved with the founding of the UN were convicted of spying. So far, nobody has mentioned a single one.

Giving aid and comfort to our enemies is treason, so, regardless of what you may think, it was right to search out communists who had given aid to our enemies.

Click to expand...

1. Then why didn't they charge Hiss with treason for being a Communist & spy? There is not statute of limitations on treason as there is for espionage. They went to all the trouble to investigate the supposed espionage and get the perjury conviction... then quit?

2. Even IF the UN is chock-full of Communists (and allegation yet to be proven) there is nothing in the Constitution against making treaties with those who are otherwise your enemies.

3. He wasn't searching out communists who have given aid to our enemies, he was searching out supposed Communists period. He didn't ask "Are you a spy" or "are you aiding the enemies of the US", he asked "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party". Are you a member of a particular political party... period. Members of this party were considered enemies of the United States by default and without any actual proof of wrongdoing my the individual. What if he had asked if they were Jewish?

4. Even if the US Senate has Communists stacked like cord wood, the citizens of the US elected them IAW the Constitution. We get the government we elect. That's the whole idea.

The president is the executive, he executes the laws of Congress. Executes. Carries them out.

Click to expand...

Congress has passed several laws giving the President the power to deploy troops just as was being done for Macedonia. So, he was deploying the troops IAW the law passed by Congress.

Since only Congress is given the power to declare war, the president may not.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

He can only order troops to wherever congress has declared war on.

Click to expand...

I don't see that in writing anywhere. In any case, Jefferson sent the new US Navy against the Barbary Pirates in 1801 without a declaration of war by Congress. The Second Barbary War was fought in 1815, authorized by Congress but again without a formal declaration of war. Since these actions were taken while the framers of the Constitution were still alive, and indeed with many still in office, I suspect that we can do away with the idea that military force can only be utilized after a formal declaration of war by Congress.

The UN may be a treaty, but, it is not the kind of treaty that existed prior to it that the founders had in mind

Click to expand...

That may be true... but if so then the Constitution needs to be amended. Absent that, we have to go with what is written in black and white. If you start arguing about what the founders envisioned or failed to foresee, or what they did or didn't intend, then you are playing the same game as the liberal Democrats: "The founding fathers didn't envision machine guns when they wrote the 2A!"; "The founding fathers didn't envision the Internet when they wrote the 4A!", etc, etc.

The notion of the president being able to start a war on his own, is contrary to the Constitution and its original intent.

Click to expand...

1. New was being sent on a peacekeeping mission to Macedonia.

2. I fail to see any difference between current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Second Barbary War (1815) where US forces were deployed with the approval of Congress, but not a formal declaration of war.

3. Can you even declare a formal war against an organization that has no national identity, such as Al Queda?

To recap:

1. The UN may be unpleasant, it may even be the source of all evil... but membership as things stand today is not unconstitutional.

2. Participation in UN operations, or any other military operation, is neither unconstitutional or illegal.

3. Deployment of US forces without a declaration of war is clearly not unconstitutional and IS legal IAW various laws passed by Congress.

4. Still no information on all the spies involved with the formation of the UN and their convictions for such.

5. SPC New didn't do any of this research or even care about his, the constitutional issues were raised because he didn't want to go somewhere potentially dangerous or unpleasant and do his job.

To convict of treason, two witnesses to the same overt act are needed (the Burr trial affirmed this fact). A rather difficult thing to do with spies.

I guess you're ignoring all the evidence against him huh? The Venona cables, the Pumpkin Papers (some documents handwritten in his own writing, other types on his own typewriter), the fact that he initially denied knowing Mr. Chambers, and then it was proven that Chambers and Hiss knew each other (Chambers knew all about Hiss' personal life, had rented property from Hiss, had gotten a car from him, etc.), and the guilty verdict in the perjury trial is defacto guilty verdict of his espionage, since he committed perjury in denying his spying activities among other things during the investigation. You are not willing to even accept that Hiss was guilty?

If by making "treaties" with our enemies our enemies are aided or comforted, then treason has taken place by definition in the Constitution.

The Communist Party itself was involved in helping our enemies, working against our country, etc., so by being a part of it, you were in fact part of its treasonous activities.

Even elected officials can be removed and also charged with treason.

One branch may not give its power to the other branch in violation of the separation of powers. Hence, congress may declare war, but it may not give another branch of govt. that power.

Treaty versus type of guns are two completely different issues. The right to bear arms was an unlimited right under the Second, there is no right to give away our sovereignty and submit to the power of foreigners over our govt. In fact, the Constitution gurantees a republican form of govt. for all US states and territory, submitting to the UN (an un-elected body made up of foreigners) is thereby un-Constitutional.

The peacekeeping mission was illegal, see above.

The govt.'s of Afghanistan and Iraq did not actually attack us, never did they actually attack us. OBL was NOT the govt. of Afghanistan, we never should have been involved in the M.E. anyways regarding GW 1 and 2. The barbary pirates actually were attacking US vessels fairly often. Strictly self-defense in that case, unlike Afghanistan.

Yes war can be declared on any enemy, be they a foreign country or organization.

New's job does not include defending a foreign govt. or foreign countries unless in a declared war by Congress.