Wednesday, January 11, 2006

US Military Under UN: Question of Legality

I'd never thought of this, but this case is about an American soldier on trial for refusing to wear the UN uniform and fight under control of the UN.
Michael New was among several hundred troops sent to Macedonia by President Clinton in 1995 on a U.N. peacekeeping mission. But New refused to obey the order, calling it illegal for him to serve under a foreign power.

New's attorney, Henry L. Hamilton, argued both Clinton's order to deploy troops to Macedonia and his order for soldiers to wear the U.N. uniform were illegal, because deployment required congressional approval, and the U.N. uniform is not authorized by either the Department of Defense or the U.S. Army.

Now the former Army specialist is preparing for oral hearings Feb. 16 in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

His attorneys says the issue is whether an American soldier, having taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, may be forced instead to serve under the military command of a foreign power.

Military courts ruled this was a political question, outside their jurisdiction. New argues he has been denied the right to have the legality of the order addressed by a jury.

U.S. District Court Judge Friedman, who ruled against New, conceded Clinton may have broken the law, but contended it's the duty of Congress to challenge the president, not a soldier.

New's lead attorney, Herbert W. Titus, of Virginia, says the case has "serious implications for every American who ever wears a uniform."

"Michael New's stand is for them, and their right to defend their country exclusively, in accordance with the American soldier's oath of office," Titus said.

I think he has a very strong point here. His oath is not to protect the UN or to obey orders regarding action that doesn't protect the United States. Though the oath does contain more than just protection of the US. Obeying the President and officers is specifically outlined.
"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."
I suppose though that there had to be some other way of bringing this protest, but I can't think how.

This will be interesting to watch, that is if the MSM will give it any play.


No comments: