American soldier in court for refusing to don U.N. Emblems over his uniform.

[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23261[/url]

What a sad place this is  when our soldiers are being court martialed because they refuse to wear the emblems of oppression.

Yet another example of someone going down for doing the right thing.

A lot of people say that if something is unconstitutional they will take up arms when the Supreme Court rules it constitutional.  This is [b]DEFINITELY[/b] unconstitutional.  Will people take up arms against the government if this makes it to the Supreme court and they rule it constitutional?

...no. Lot's of talk, talk, talk.

Choose your battles.

this guy is my hero! he stood up and stand tall!

He took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and the US, not the UN or the UN's interests.

The guy is an insubordinate f*ck who doesn't have a clue what it means to be a professional soldier.

Look, sometimes our military gets assigned to peace-keeping and other non-traditional duties.  As long as you are not given an illegal order you are bound by your oath of service.  

Like it or not, our government has authorized the military to participate in UN missions in pursuit of legitimate foriegn policy goals.  there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

Also, the uniform regulations are not like the ten-commandments.  If the Department of the Army orders you to wear special insignia you pretty much have to do it or face the consequences.

I'd rather have solders like Mike New defending THIS country than solders like you Gus Laskaris.

I applaud him for making this stand.

It is because of soldiers like him that it would be unlikely for a repeat of Nazi Germany here in the US.

You wouldn't say that to Gus's face.

Soldiers like Mike don't win wars.  

The patch is no different than the "^"s painted on the allied coalition vehicles during the Gulf War.  They're merely a means to recognize friendly forces.

I'll bet there's not one ACTIVE DUTY service-member here who is stupid enough to do the same thing as Mike the "hero".

Lots of talk from those who haven't served, wouldn't serve, or have forgotton what it means to serve, in the armed forces.

Fools.

Major Murphay, you tend to be condescending and judgmental in your posts.  These tones don't win supporters to your beliefs and only detract from your position.

And yes I would say "that" to anyones face.  It is my position and I support it.

You know with one of the most advanced militaries in the world.  Accually I think it is the most advanced.  Why are we fooling around with the UN.  Statistically 80% of its officer core is British.  Working with them in my books is fine but the UN thing is crap.  Sure it does some good.  We supply most the troops and equitment and they supply those that will be in command.  Anything seem odd here????

Just wonderin cause I think people like Mr. New have a desent idea.

I agree that soldiers are supposed to follow orders but at the same time, there are some orders that need questioning.  After all, the Germans in WWII were just following orders when they killed millions of Jews.  Look at who makes up the UN.  The UN accepts countries as members that routinely do the same thing the Nazis did on a smaller scale, yet we are the ones who are demonized because we still allow private gun ownership.  The UN looks away when state sponsored genocide occurs in other countries but piles on us for God given gun ownership.  

I read the post his contetion  it is a 2 fold arguement

1) The POTUS can't send US troops anyplace w/o Congress' approval.

2) He can't subordinate himself to  serve in a UN force.

A) He's is just wrong, POTUS says, soldier does.

B) As I read it the UN didn't require an oath of allegince, didn't deploy him w/o US command structure, and didn't try to issue orders contrary to US interests.

Those of you that hate the UN will see validity in his arguemnts. I think he is just a "whiney boy" that woke up and realized he was going to be deployed someplace where there might be actual shooting going on. Whether or not he has a UN patch on he is a US soldier. If for some reason the UN decided to do something involving US troops contrary to US interests, I believe that POTUS would be saying, stop. If POTUS  didn't the chain of command at that unit would stop the anti-US orders.

When I was in the Army I was assigned to a US infantry division in Germany. The unit was there as our part of the US's commitment to NATO. There was a NATO command structure that we were part of. Are you saying that was un-Constitional? it seem like a very similar situation.

I wasn't a "soldier," I was a Marine, by God.

I won't lie to you and say that  I was the best Marine in the Corps, or the strongest, or the bravest, but I had the self-discipline to obey orders without making a federal case out of them.

Sounds like you and your ilk are a bunch of "barracks lawyers" always looking for a way to scam out of doing your duty.

Mike isn't defending his country.  He's just putting his narrow xenophobic opinions ahead of his oath of service.

A lot of you wannabes have these twisted ideas about the military.  Don't get me started.

He should be tried for treason for not assisting the humanitarian and internationally recognized benevolent organization of the UN. Any true global citizen would proudly wear the symbols of worldwide freedom.

Read the Consitution sometime, let me know where it says YOU get to decide what is un-Constitutoinal. I remember it saying the US Supreme court gets to make that determination. And just so where clear the only crime listed in the Constitution is TREASON. When you say that you want others to take up arms against the US gov't that is TREASON, and un-Consitutional.

...I guarantee there's not one ACTIVE DUTY or former ACTIVE service member who would feel this way.

My beliefs here are not about whether or not the UN is evil.  It's about whether or not Mike, "the hero", is a good soldier.
He is not.  
This is not the same as refusing to slaughter civilians.
NOR is it the same as refusing to confiscate weapons from Americans.

It's a patch.

Well, your wrong. US troops are NEVER commanded by foreign nationals.

In WW-I the British and French wanted to use US troops as "replacements" in their divisions. The US said basically nothin' doin'. The Germans attacked hoping to get break the Allies before we were able to depoly. When they did the shattered French Armies folded and ran. The Germans thought they had a chance. They ran into the MEF-USMC. The Marines were in a bad spot, they had counted on the French to hold their flank. The Germans tried to go around to encircle the Marines. The ran into the US Army 3rd Inf Div., they got the nickname "Rock of the Marne" because they had to hold the Marne to secure the Marines flank. Gen. Pershing commanded all US troops in Europe.

In WWII Montgomery wanted US troops under his command because he felt he had too few soldiers. Gen. Patton said "nothin doing". That's part of the Patton/Montgomery fued, and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe was Ike.

In Korea the UN force was commanded by US generals/admirals. Gen Macarthur ring a bell?

In Desert Storm the Allied force was commanded by who?? That's right US Officers. Gen. Schwarzkopf and Gen. Powell.

Please quote for us the section of the Constitution to which you refer.  

Article III section 2 and 3

I don't think it says anything in that oath about protecting Viet Nam...or Arabs and their oil wells...or Panamanians from there own leader...or whom ever...

Besides only congress can declare war which they haven't done since WW II.  Are all these policing actions unconstitutional.  I do think so but...

BTW, an interesting thing I learned from my daughter who was doing a report on the 2 "Policing Actions" following WW II, Viet Nam and Korea.  She wanted to list similarities and differences (one difference I told her and she put in her report was that the standard battle rifle for Korea was the M1 Garand and in Viet Nam is was the M16, bet she's the only one with that in her report).

I read her report after and one of the most hypocritical things I ever read was that after the separation of North and South Viet Nam, free elections were to take place in the south.  The free world (read USA) widely knew that the democratic regime of South Viet Nam was going to lose to the communist party.

The US encouraged them to withhold having elections and the south did.  The US recognized the "new" (old) government as legitimate.

another example of an individual with strong will that is misguided.  

no wonder jesus/god/allah/elvis (or whom ever left us here)will never come back - we're all too screwed up!

one planet - one people.  (yeah, right!)  we live on a really small grain of sand on the outer egde of the milky way. (kinda living in a gas station on a rual route miles from nowhere)  our lives are not a blink in the span of the universe.  if we don't all get along- we'll never get off this berg and figure out what the hell we are really doing here.  

all this petty bickering will get us 'know' where!

steve

YES he should refuse unlawful orders, (read killing unarmed or other non combatants)...

NO deployment to 'other' areas is not, at face value, to ANY ordinary soldier, unlawful...

YES his ass should be on the way to Leavenworth...

IF you follow his line of logic, 'Dont Ask Dont Tell' could be grounds for refusal of service since sodomy is illegal in my HOME state of record...

A soldier does not have the legal power to apply logic or reason to the meaning behind a decoration on his uniform. He is ordered by his command to affix certain items to his uniform. PERIOD. Nothing more, nothing less...

Hope he enjoys club fed...

"Flame On!"

This is one of those topics so ripe to get locked.

(begin rant)

Personally, I admire his stand for what he believes.  Were I him, I would do the same.  Some say its "just a flag" or "he just needs to obey orders."  So I ask this question and do so asumming most of us concede our rights are being rubbed away little by little.

How is this any different than a colonist being forced to serve a British Government?  Our Flag, Old Glory is sacred to us, we salute it.  How do you expect an American patriot to wear a UN flag?  Would you feel different if they just wore British Jacks?  At what point do the people of this country say "Stop..that is far enough?"  

This man is a soldier, his oath is to protect my country and my constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  I consider US soldiers under the command of a foreign service, not in battle or dire circumstance, but in course of daily duty and assignment a sever conflict of interest.  Especially when the UN charter and agenda (and I don't mean some secret thing, just the plain paper obvious UN) is so counter to MY Constitution.  And as far as NATO, we always wore US colors

Don't mistake this as a statement that soldier shouldn't follow orders.  This is not a combat order, this is not an order to lump your ruck 25miles. This is an order that should not even be given.  

This is not about orders, this is not about his 'duty'.  These are the actions of men who freed this country. So I respect the views of those who served and think he is wrong.  But I tell you it all comes down to:  "if not us, who?  If not now, when?"

Zaz

for those curious or who don't remember:

I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

 I just can't resist saying someting here.
That Soldier is a little Pussy. You don't pull the kind bullshit he did and call yourself a good soldier. I don't like the U.N. anymore than the rest of you guys do. But I am a Soldier and like it or not Soldiers follow orders. Period. I would not want that guy in my Battery. Well I take that back, Yes let us have him for a while. He'll straighten up or get his ass kicked untill he does. I am in the National Guard and I am proud of my uniform and I will wear whatever I am instructed. I hate the Idea of the Black Berets for the entire Army. What an I Suppossed to do. Refuse to wear it. Not!!
I'll do what I am told and I won't discrace Myself, my family, my fellow Soldiers or my Country. If you can't follow orders and live up to the standards of a Soldier then get the hell out of Army and go back to your old job at Walmart!!! My .02 worth on the subject!!

What is the bid deal to wear UN insignia while participating in peacekeeping operations to atleast try to help people around the globe.

Finnish forces have been participating in UN operations since the 50s and has been doing the job well, not a single case of "i dont want to wear the evil gun taking UN organisation beret".

Since the US has also done a lot to help people around the world, this kind of BS just makes the different branches look like amateurs.

Amen, buddy.

What this country needs is a professional military, not a glorified vo-tech full of whiney bitches.

You people better get used to the fact that your 200 year old piece of paper is outdated and the needs of the less fortunate deserve help from the U.S. Get with the program and help your global brothers and sisters.

Well the UN isn't a country, Britain is. Plus the US is a member of the UN. So aren't we serving ourselves? If the POTUS assigns US troops to UN missions. Isn't that in futherance of US goals? Your right there could be a conflict of interest, but there can be no question that they are US troops and there first, second, and third duties are to protect the US and US interests without exception.

The orders are being issued along a US chain of command. The UN asks the POTUS if US troops can be avialable for a mission. POTUS reviews the mission and checks if it fits US needs. If POTUS commits troops he decides how many, what type, etc. The POTUS then gives the US officers in command of the force guidelines on how to conduct the mission. The US officers run day to day operations following the POTUS's guidelines.

I remember an Oath I think there is something  about "following the orders of those appointed over me".

If I tell a PFC to wash my car, it's not a legal order, it's servitude.
HOWEVER, he should just do it and complain about it later.

This guy made his choice, he rolled the dice.
Now he can be a "hero" to Anti-UN-paranoids.
Fun.

So do you think Lon Hourichi(sp) should get off the hook just because he followed orders?

You are [b]OBLIGATED[/b] to question if an order is legal or not, [b]Its your DUTY!![/b]

RipMeyer. An order to wear a canvas patch on your arm, illegal order, right.

This soldier disobeyed, as in directly REFUSED to wear an insignia, an order from his superior.  Your uniform can be donned with any insignia deemed necessary or fit by your XO/CO.  This man deserves the court-martial he received, and will most likely be ejected from service (and who knows what other punishments) if he does not comply.  He got what he was coming to him...


But don't think for a minute that I like it.  He questioned the purpose of the patch because he was an intellegent individual.  Unfortunately, enlists are not trained to be intellegent and logical, they are trained to follow the orders and bidding of their commanding officers - and rightfully so.  However, I am proud of this soldier's discretion against something that would, in the end, oppress the very likes of people like himself.  He deserved to be punished, and he will NOT win his appeal in court, but he should also be looked to as someone who stood up for what he believed in.  He gained nothing but honor and respect that day.

[brown]Evil Jewbroni~[/brown]

Not hardly.  I bet he was some kind of malingering shit-bird and was using this as an excuse to avoid service.

Let me give you another situation:

I had a black Marine "malingerer" in my platoon who one day decided that he wasn't going to "fight in the white man's wars."  After he refused my order to draw his weapon and the Platoon Commnaders identical order he was charged, court-martialed, and convicted under the UCMJ.

I suppose you guys would applaud that kind of behavior.

You only have an obligation to follow illegal or immoral orders.  What exactly is illegal or immoral about wearing the prescribed uniform for duty?  Right or wrong your commander in chief or his officers appointed over you has ordered you will go somewhere and wear a specific uniform.  What next troops not wearing there CPOG or Flak because it is hot?  Troops allowed to miss PT because it makes them sweat?  Troops not deploying oversees because they are xenophobes.  Troops not wearing the stupid beret because they don’t like it?  No that cannot be allowed to go on, like it, don’t like it, you signed a contract saying you will abide by our rules.  No one forced you to join and we are not ordering you to kill non-combatants, burn churches or shoot prisoners. You are seeing a lot of people getting out of the military today by doing BS things like this. Just like a decade ago, you saw a lot of conscientious objectors when they were told of all things, “you have to earn that college money you were given, you are going to war.”  

This one incident is indicative of the service losing its warrior spirit.  We should be more worried about how to fight a battle rather than what we should wear to it.  

Essayons!