Posted on Mar 11, 2015
United States vs. Spc4 Michael G. New: what are your thoughts?
29.2K
95
88
3
3
0
Twenty years ago, Spc4 Michael New refused to wear a United Nations uniform. For this he was court-martialed, and received a Bad Conduct Discharge.
Was he right, or wrong?
Was the court right, or wrong?
Please don't say that the issue was settled by the court case; SCOTUS has reversed itself dozens of times.
http://www.mikenew.com/facts.htm
http://www.mikenew.com/thecase.html
Was he right, or wrong?
Was the court right, or wrong?
Please don't say that the issue was settled by the court case; SCOTUS has reversed itself dozens of times.
http://www.mikenew.com/facts.htm
http://www.mikenew.com/thecase.html
Constitution
UCMJ
Law
Court Martial
Edited >1 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 19
8
8
0
Wow, this is a pretty interesting topic for discussion. I think if it were me, I would do the exact same thing. As I signed up to serve in the US Military not some charter organization that in my opinion serves to usurp or Constitution in the first place.To have my leadership tell me to go play dress up with a bunch that resembles the French Foreign Legion, yeah, we would have a problem.
I would think the orders would be both Un-Constitutional and in direct dis-regard to my Oath to Serve and Protect our Nation. This is for a Charter Organization that I feel falls into the camp of wanting to subvert or Constitution at every turn and we should just boot their asses out of the US all together. I would have to approach both JAG, the UCMJ and whatever means at my disposal to counterman this Order.
I would think the orders would be both Un-Constitutional and in direct dis-regard to my Oath to Serve and Protect our Nation. This is for a Charter Organization that I feel falls into the camp of wanting to subvert or Constitution at every turn and we should just boot their asses out of the US all together. I would have to approach both JAG, the UCMJ and whatever means at my disposal to counterman this Order.
(8)
(0)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
I think I agree with you, SGT (Join to see).
SPC New sought guidance on the lawfulness of his order; he was told that it was lawful because the President said it was. But nobody provided a legitimate, legal or rational basis for the order. An unusual battalion briefing said that they should wear the UN uniform because it looked "fabulous."
SPC New sought guidance on the lawfulness of his order; he was told that it was lawful because the President said it was. But nobody provided a legitimate, legal or rational basis for the order. An unusual battalion briefing said that they should wear the UN uniform because it looked "fabulous."
(2)
(0)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
MAJ Carl Ballinger, if "Constitutionality is not a matter for uniformed Soldiers," then why do both enlisted and officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same"?
You say that "A Soldier can legitimately refuse an order if it compels him to violate law;" the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
You say that "A Soldier can legitimately refuse an order if it compels him to violate law;" the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
(0)
(0)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
MAJ Carl Ballinger, I certainly disagree on the criteria by which the Constitution must precede an order. The oath to "support and defend the Constitution" precedes the oath to obey orders; I believe this is by design. For the Constitution to nullify an order, the order must simply violate the Constitution. In a way, this is the same as what you said, but I don't think it's what you meant.
I understand that every USG official takes a similar oath to the Constitution. I believe that if such an oath is to have any meaning, it must at least mean that the oath-taker is compelled to understand and comply with the Constitution.
As far as "no Constitutional principle at stake," I encourage you to read SPC New's letter to his chain of command, and consider the Constitutional principles that he believed were at stake. I provide here the relevant portion.
"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.
"America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. 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."
http://www.mikenew.com/letter.html
"An illegal order one is justified to disobey is one that compliance would expose the Soldier to criminal liability." I'm not aware of any penalties in the Constitution, but it is a law that all in the USG are bound to comply with above all others. After all, we can't very well keep our oath to "support and defend the Constitution," while violating that same document. You are saying that if a soldier could get in trouble for obeying the order, then he should not obey it, but if he will not get in trouble later, then he should obey it. Don't nitpick, but please correct me if I misunderstand.
I understand that every USG official takes a similar oath to the Constitution. I believe that if such an oath is to have any meaning, it must at least mean that the oath-taker is compelled to understand and comply with the Constitution.
As far as "no Constitutional principle at stake," I encourage you to read SPC New's letter to his chain of command, and consider the Constitutional principles that he believed were at stake. I provide here the relevant portion.
"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.
"America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. 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."
http://www.mikenew.com/letter.html
"An illegal order one is justified to disobey is one that compliance would expose the Soldier to criminal liability." I'm not aware of any penalties in the Constitution, but it is a law that all in the USG are bound to comply with above all others. After all, we can't very well keep our oath to "support and defend the Constitution," while violating that same document. You are saying that if a soldier could get in trouble for obeying the order, then he should not obey it, but if he will not get in trouble later, then he should obey it. Don't nitpick, but please correct me if I misunderstand.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
Here is gem when talking regulations.
https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/Active/tagd/awards/Message_Reference_Index/Subfolder_1_-25_/11.pdf
This is the MILPERS message for the award of the UN Medal for the UN Peacekeeping mission in Somolia in 1993-1994 (a year earlier then New's issue). Note the award criteria.
"THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR AWARD OF THE UNM REQUIRES THAT AN INDIVIDUAL SERVE UNDER THE COMMAND OF A UNITED NATIONS FORCE COMMANDER; WEAR THE NATIONAL OR UNITED NATIONS UNIFORM, INCLUDING BLUE BERET; AND SERVE A MINIMUM OF 90 DAYS UNDER UN COMMAND."
I am pretty sure the Army wouldn't issue an award with the criteria being against the governing Army regs.
https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/Active/tagd/awards/Message_Reference_Index/Subfolder_1_-25_/11.pdf
This is the MILPERS message for the award of the UN Medal for the UN Peacekeeping mission in Somolia in 1993-1994 (a year earlier then New's issue). Note the award criteria.
"THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR AWARD OF THE UNM REQUIRES THAT AN INDIVIDUAL SERVE UNDER THE COMMAND OF A UNITED NATIONS FORCE COMMANDER; WEAR THE NATIONAL OR UNITED NATIONS UNIFORM, INCLUDING BLUE BERET; AND SERVE A MINIMUM OF 90 DAYS UNDER UN COMMAND."
I am pretty sure the Army wouldn't issue an award with the criteria being against the governing Army regs.
(6)
(0)
4
4
0
GySgt Joe Strong
MAJ Carl Ballinger,
Sir, thank you for the best reply I think has been written on this thread.
While I am not sure that I am in complete agreement with "all" of your explanation, it is the first that has actually attempted to give a good faith explanation.
Thank you!
Sir, thank you for the best reply I think has been written on this thread.
While I am not sure that I am in complete agreement with "all" of your explanation, it is the first that has actually attempted to give a good faith explanation.
Thank you!
(1)
(0)
GySgt Joe Strong
My profile page pretty well sums it up. Currently working on adding Crestron Control System Programmer to the resume.
(0)
(0)
GySgt Joe Strong
For myself, it would be the kind of assignment I was seeking, in terms of finding different experiences and doing the things others could have, but didn't.
My problem with this KIND of thread is the continuous sit down and shut up answers rather than addressing the underlying questions.
Preface: I realize that in this case it may have been a Political action and subject to backlash - but in my humble opinion, Guidance such as MAJ Carl Ballinger gave a few posts above this may never have been given to Mr. New, and if it had, he would have had no recourse but to follow the orders or show his hand that it was PURELY a Political action.
However, the actions "known" show the Command as unresponsive and dismissive of a properly formatted request for guidance "if it was in fact a good faith question". I simply wanted someone/ anyone to address what should have been said other than sit down, shut up and wear the hat - everyone else is doing it. That is a horrible precedent and leads the Troops to distrust leadership. If you have a good faith question, no matter how misguided, and use the proper channels to ask your question, then it should be dealt with, not cast aside with no concern for the state of mind that is created in the Troops or the individual service member.
My problem with this KIND of thread is the continuous sit down and shut up answers rather than addressing the underlying questions.
Preface: I realize that in this case it may have been a Political action and subject to backlash - but in my humble opinion, Guidance such as MAJ Carl Ballinger gave a few posts above this may never have been given to Mr. New, and if it had, he would have had no recourse but to follow the orders or show his hand that it was PURELY a Political action.
However, the actions "known" show the Command as unresponsive and dismissive of a properly formatted request for guidance "if it was in fact a good faith question". I simply wanted someone/ anyone to address what should have been said other than sit down, shut up and wear the hat - everyone else is doing it. That is a horrible precedent and leads the Troops to distrust leadership. If you have a good faith question, no matter how misguided, and use the proper channels to ask your question, then it should be dealt with, not cast aside with no concern for the state of mind that is created in the Troops or the individual service member.
(1)
(0)
GySgt Joe Strong
MAJ Carl Ballinger,
I'm going to agree with you on the specifics of Mr. New.
And, in relation to the word owe, will stipulate under regulations, it is probably incorrect.
But in terms of Good Faith questions, and Loyalty being owed both ways, Up & Down a Chain of Command, in this latter context feel that a proper response is, in fact, owed to a properly asked and timed question.
I'm going to agree with you on the specifics of Mr. New.
And, in relation to the word owe, will stipulate under regulations, it is probably incorrect.
But in terms of Good Faith questions, and Loyalty being owed both ways, Up & Down a Chain of Command, in this latter context feel that a proper response is, in fact, owed to a properly asked and timed question.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google