« well. all rightie then. | Main | Shabbat Shalom »
January 24, 2008
Presidential Decision Directive #25
What happens when the President of the United States decides to ignore the Constitution, ignore Congress, ignore statutory law, and send America's sons and daughters into a military setting under the authority and the command of a foreign entity?
Ask SPC Michael G. New:
On August 21, 1995, my seniors in the U.S. Army chain of command informed me that my unit and I would soon be ordered to significantly alter our uniform by sewing a United Nations patch on my right shoulder and wearing the blue beret and/or helmet of the U.N. These are important insignia. If they were unimportant, then I would not have been threatened with courts-martial, imprisonment, or less than dishonorable discharge when I expressed my reservations about wearing them. I interpret the wearing of a uniform, or the accoutrements of a uniform, as a sign of allegiance and faithfulness to the authority or power so signified, or which issues that uniform. I am an American citizen who was recruited for and voluntarily joined the U.S. Army to serve as an American soldier. I am not a citizen of the United Nations. I am not a United Nations Fighting Person. I have never taken an oath to the United Nations, but I have taken the required oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I am not trying to avoid a difficult or dangerous assignment or to get out of the Army. I served in Kuwait last year and have offered to serve anywhere in the world, in my American uniform, in my capacity as a U.S. Army medic under American command and U.S. Constitutional protections. I have worked diligently to be a good soldier. I have previously been offered a "Green to Gold" program to an Army Commission, and I am still seriously considering that offer. In order to avoid controversy, or to avoid placing the Army in a bad light, I have requested a transfer to a unit that is not required to wear the U.N. uniform. I was told that such is not possible, and I was even reluctantly willing to accept an honorable discharge, and I was willing to sadly and reluctantly withdraw from the U.S. Army quietly. However, I will not wear a U.N. uniform or serve under U.N. command, and I will strongly contest any discharge that is less than honorable.
I simply cannot understand the legal basis of the Army order to change my uniform against my oath of enlistment, against my conscience and against my will. Despite my requests for information up my chain of command, my questions about the lawfulness of such an order or about how my allegiance can be transferred without my approval have gone unanswered.
My chain of command has directed me to study the history and objectives of the U.N. My knowledge of, and my research into the United Nations, (which continues even as I prepare this statement), indicates to me that the U.N. Charter is based upon manmade principles which are incompatible with the Constitution of the United States, and the U.N.'s authority and principles are diametrically opposed to the founding documents of my country. The more I study the U.N. history and American history, the more incompatible they appear to me.
My studies indicate to me that there are those who would see my country assimilated or brought under the authority of the United Nations, which I interpret to mean a corresponding loss of sovereignty, which is a departure from our Founding Principles and a loss of independence for all Americans. Boutros-Ghali, for example, has written, "The time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed." (1992, An Agenda for Peace) I should expect EVERY American soldier to be concerned about serving under such a Secretary General.
I believe that the Constitution is the fundamental law of America, and if there is any ambiguity or conflict with treaty or international agreement or organization that the U.S. Constitution would prevail. My oath is to the Constitution. I cannot find any reference to the United Nations in that oath. That oath includes a statement that is more than a passing reference to God Almighty, it is a prayer, "...so help me God." It is no secret that our nation is founded upon Biblical principles. {~" ) Our Founders reflected this fact in their speeches, correspondence and documents from the Mayflower Compact to the Declaration of Independence, and other more recent documents, all of which recognize certain rights such as life, liberty and property as being bestowed from Above, and as, therefore, "unalienable." I believe I will lose something precious and more valuable than the U.N. can possibly grant me, by surrendering my status as an American fighting man.
Without a response from the Army about the legality of any orders to become a U.N. soldier, I do not intend to surrender my status as an American soldier to wear the uniform of a foreign power. If you wish to convene a courts-martial and send me to jail for standing upon my oath as an American soldier and for defending my wearing the American Army uniform, and its historic significance, then I cannot prevent that action, and I will accept it as a price I am willing to pay, rather than submit to an order to obey or render allegiance to any foreign power, including the United Nations.
"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."
Powerful words, clear and consise, it is the oath Michael New took to defend the constitution of the United States. An oath so many brave and honorable men and women have taken with pride, determination, courage and honor.
It was not, and is not, an oath to server under the command of the United Nations or any other foreign entity.
Michael was told the order to wear the UN uniform was lawful because,"The President says so, therefore it is." But nobody provided a legitimate, legal or rational basis for the order. Eventually, a battalion briefing about the deployment offered the justification that, "We wear the U.N. uniform because it looks fabulous."
SPC Michael G. New refused. He refused to discard the uniform of the United States Army and to don the uniform of a foreign entity.
Today is the anniversary of his court-martial. The panel of seven, including three officers, returned a "guilty" verdict on charge of disobedience. They denied the Army's request for a prison term and Dishonorable Discharge, giving Michael a "Bad Conduct" Discharge instead.
"Right is right, and wrong is wrong. They can argue until the end of time, but I will never serve the United Nations." - Michael G. New
A decade of fighting, Michael's appeals have all been denied, and today, the conviction stands. In December of 2005, Judge Paul Friedman upheld the military's conviction, ruling that the U.S. military can force its personnel to wear the blue beret of the United Nations and serve under the world body's command.
That decision stands today.
But... its not over. President Clinton's Decision Directive #25 to place American troops under a foreign command is now 13 years old and eligble for declassification. In August of 2007, Michael New requested just that. Why? Well, it could mean a reversal.
Does it matter? Hell yes, it matters, especially since America could very well be facing another Clinton Presidency. What happened to Michael New could very well happen again, to our troops in uniform today.
American Troops should not be forced to serve under a foreign power. I pray Michael is successful.
Want to help? There's more here.
Posted by LindaSoG at January 24, 2008 11:30 AM
Comments
Every Marine Officer, upon receiving a commission or promotion, recites the Oath of Office:
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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose or evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Quite the same, but quite different than the Army Enlisted Oath. I can see the "legal logic" of the Army's stance.
I cannot see it's Moral Logic.
Your post this morning Pi$$ed me off. Made me think....again. Guess that's why I love LindaSoG.
I'll definitely link.
Dammit.
Wollf
Posted by: howlsatmoon at January 24, 2008 12:45 PM
Precisely why I cut short a promising Army career after 9 years and three enlistments. Look at the wording of pre 1966 enlistment forms then compare them to those from 1969 onward. As an enlisted soldier my six year contract or terms of enlistment clearly stated that I couldn't be ordered to a war unless that war was a declared war. President Lyndon Johnson did just that, orderd me to war, a breach of contract, William O Douglas was retained to hear our case but the liberal bastard drug his feet until after we were deployed before he dismissed our case as too late to act on. Subsequent enlistment contracts are revised.
It's what was done not why it was done. Bill Clinton should feel the sting of the bayonet buried to the hilt in his breastbone for his malfeasance of office.
We all signed on to serve our country, not as chattel for the U.N. Communists.
Posted by: Jack at January 24, 2008 08:39 PM
"Bill Clinton should feel the sting of the bayonet buried to the hilt in his breastbone for his malfeasance of office"
A little over the top, don't you think. Do you guys have any complaints about Bush? Clinton bashing? Seriously, move on! What is this 1999?
Yawn
Posted by: concerned at February 10, 2008 07:49 AM