Pet Peeve: NATO Service

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Gunny, Jul 23, 2006.

  1. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Time for my annual rant ......:banana2:

    When one signs the documentation for entry into the US Armed Forces, the statement "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States" stands out pretty clear.

    However, nowhere in any of the documentation does it say one agrees to be farmed out to an international entity (NATO) as a government-subsidized mercenary to the New World Order.

    In the past, I have received the blanket resonse, "You have to follow orders." That does not address the right or wrong of it, nor whether or not it is a LAWFUL order.

    IMO, the order is unlawful, as it is in breech of the terms set forth in the enlistment documentation, "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    Takers?
     
  2. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    I don’t know about illegal, but it sux!
    We shouldn’t loan our troops to a bunch of incompetent boobs, or anyone else for that matter.
     
  3. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    It's not a matter of whether or not we should loan our troops, IMO. Of course we shouldn't.

    But I believe a servicemember has a legal right to refuse to serve under the NATO flag. Where they always get nailed is for refusing to obey an order, but IMO, that's just because they don't play the legal game right. IMO, the order is not lawful since serving anything other than the US is not part of the written agreement between the US government and the servicemember.
     
  4. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    I understand what you're saying, but lets not forget what "GI" means.:)
     
  5. Semper Fi
    Offline

    Semper Fi VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,772
    Thanks Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Ratings:
    +130
    Not to play devil's advocate or be your adversary, but what's wrong with playing an active role in NATO? I'd rather have that than have our soldiers don the blue helmet.
     
  6. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    The part that you missed is donning the blue helmet IS playing a role in NATO. That's what the blue helmet is for.

    What you are saying is that it is okay for a bunch of New World Order bureaucrats to dictate the policies under which you are allowed to fight; which, are VERY different that US military policy, and possibly being at the mercy of a European officer or two in your command.

    Perhaps serving in a command with musical chair leadership and waffling bureaucrats who make the command decisions is okay with you, but not me..
     
  7. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    I addressed that in my first post. That's how these troops that get nailed go down -- refusing to obey a lawful order. I think with the right civilian lawyer, that charge could be beaten, because again, it is my opinion that being ordered to do something outside the parameters of US military enlistment documentation is not lawful.

    Playing politically correct cop for an international body of government is hardly "supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States."
     
  8. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    I thought the blue helmet was the UN.

    I would have to dig real deep into the DOD regs to find it, but there is a requirement that all Americans have an American chain of command. IOW the law says US Troops cannot be placed under foreign command.

    Having said all that, I never did get the joint duty ticket punched. So I might be talking out my ass.

    I did joint ops, but it was always a unit thing.
     
  9. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    I got Joint Services, but nothing outside the US except same as you -- a handful of exercises, but we were always under the command of the US military.
     
  10. CockySOB
    Offline

    CockySOB VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    709
    Thanks Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Ratings:
    +108
    Any idea if this has been tried yet? It sounds logical enough.
     

Share This Page