Pet Peeve: NATO Service

[Gunny]

Time for my annual rant ......

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?

 

[Mr. P]

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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.

 

[Mr. P]

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.

I understand what you're saying, but lets not forget what "GI" means.

 

[Semper Fi]

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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..

 

[Gunny]

I understand what you're saying, but lets not forget what "GI" means.

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."

 

[pegwinn]

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.

 

[Gunny]

I thought the blue helmet was the UN.

It is.

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.

Now that you mention it, seems I heard that at one time as well.

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

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.

 

[CockySOB]

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.

Any idea if this has been tried yet? It sounds logical enough.

 

[Semper Fi]

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..

I never said I thought it was ok, was just wondering what was wrong with it. You told me what was wrong with it, and now I know. I think NATO is good, but under the command of the US military, not NATO commanders. I didnt think of command when I thought of NATO.

 

[pegwinn]

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.

We did lots of cross training with the Brits and Aussies in Hawaii. The ROKS in SKorea and the Thais and Phillipinos. But the units were always segregated except for liberty.

 

[Gunny]

I never said I thought it was ok, was just wondering what was wrong with it. You told me what was wrong with it, and now I know. I think NATO is good, but under the command of the US military, not NATO commanders. I didnt think of command when I thought of NATO.

What about NATO is it that you think is good?

 

[Gunny]

We did lots of cross training with the Brits and Aussies in Hawaii. The ROKS in SKorea and the Thais and Phillipinos. But the units were always segregated except for liberty.

Same for us, except I never did anything with the Brits or Aussies but some serious drinking.

 

[Mr. P]

NATO=Blue helmets? Nahhhhhhhhhhh
Apples/Oranges

 

[Annie]

I thought I remembered some arguements about US troops and US command regarding 'international troops' years back. Was it Bosnia?

 

[Gunny]

I thought I remembered some arguements about US troops and US command regarding 'international troops' years back. Was it Bosnia?

I keep forgetting his name, but there was an Army Sergeant who refused to serve under NATO command. I think he was court-martialed and is pending appeal. Or maybe it's that he was court-martialed, served his time, and is STILL trying (as of last time I checked) to clear his name.

Problem is, when you refuse to obey a a lawful order, they can charge you for that. Most military personnel don't have the money for a civilian lawyer, then finding one versed in military law.

The only challenge the servicemember has in his defense in the case of refusing to obey a lawful order is to challenge whether or not the order was indeed lawful.

Most military defense council are rookie lieutenants, who have a vested interest (their prospective careers) to not upset the applecart too much, and bascically defying the establishment would be just that.

 

[Annie]

I keep forgetting his name, but there was an Army Sergeant who refused to serve under NATO command. I think he was court-martialed and is pending appeal. Or maybe it's that he was court-martialed, served his time, and is STILL trying (as of last time I checked) to clear his name.

Problem is, when you refuse to obey a a lawful order, they can charge you for that. Most military personnel don't have the money for a civilian lawyer, then finding one versed in military law.

The only challenge the servicemember has in his defense in the case of refusing to obey a lawful order is to challenge whether or not the order was indeed lawful.

Most military defense council are rookie lieutenants, who have a vested interest (their prospective careers) to not upset the applecart too much, and bascically defying the establishment would be just that.

Ok, being a typical American, full of braggadocio, let me say that as a taxpayer, I do not want to see our troops under any command but American. We pay too much to train and arm them, to have anyone with less training than their US equivalent, commanding them.

So what do I do to make my feelings known? I mean other than writing my Congressmen?

 

[pegwinn]

Ok, being a typical American, full of braggadocio, let me say that as a taxpayer, I do not want to see our troops under any command but American. We pay too much to train and arm them, to have anyone with less training than their US equivalent, commanding them.

So what do I do to make my feelings known? I mean other than writing my Congressmen?

Write the Senate Armed Services Committee. Short of the President that is about as authoritive as civilians get.

I think you may be thinking about US v. New as an example of things gone wrong IRT the UN. It wasn't a foriegn command, it was simply disobedience. But it made the papers.

 

[Annie]

Write the Senate Armed Services Committee. Short of the President that is about as authoritive as civilians get.

I think you may be thinking about US v. New as an example of things gone wrong IRT the UN. It wasn't a foriegn command, it was simply disobedience. But it made the papers.

Thanks Pegwinn! That case certainly relates, but I think I may be going back even further than Bosnia. It seems more like the Congress at the time was concerned about our people, serving in UN (or it could have been NATO), under other than US command. It may have been just the air force for I remember something about the commanders needed to understand the equipment....