Pet Peeve: NATO Service

[Gunny]

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.

Specialist New refused to modify the US Army uniform to represent an entity that had nothing to do with "supporting and defending the Constitution of the US." It had to do with carrying out United Nations policy. I didn't enlist to do that .... did you?

 

[Gunny]

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....

Likely scenario: a bunch of gung-ho Marines serving under some French pantywaist who is more concerned for politically correct public opinion and how he will look for prosperity than he is the lives of his subordinates.

 

[pegwinn]

Specialist New refused to modify the US Army uniform to represent an entity that had nothing to do with "supporting and defending the Constitution of the US." It had to do with carrying out United Nations policy. I didn't enlist to do that .... did you?

Specialist New was convicted because a military court doesn't tolerate the antics a civilian court does and they are more inclined to interpret the letter of the law as written, not as imagined. Under those conditions, New never stood a chance.

Nope, I enlisted to kill people in Beirut.

 

[William Joyce]

Specialist New was convicted because a military court doesn't tolerate the antics a civilian court does and they are more inclined to interpret the letter of the law as written, not as imagined. Under those conditions, New never stood a chance.

Rep. James Traficant was the only one in the U.S. Congress to defend him (which may play into why Traficant himself is now in prison, but who believes those crazy conspiracy theories?)

Anyway, however good the argument -- and I like it -- the practical reality is that if the commanders say go, you go, and that's the end of it. I could make a great argument that it's unconstitutional for me to have to pay all the federal taxes I do, but if it comes down to who's got more power, me or the federal government, the federal government will win.

 

[Gunny]

Specialist New was convicted because a military court doesn't tolerate the antics a civilian court does and they are more inclined to interpret the letter of the law as written, not as imagined. Under those conditions, New never stood a chance.

Nope, I enlisted to kill people in Beirut.

LOL, I enlisted to kill Iranians.

I understand what you are saying; however, I still have the same issue, and want to take it a step further .....

Unless it is something that directly contradicts law, how does one prove an order unlawful?

 

[Mr. P]

Here's the oath, Gunny.

"I, (state your name), 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{{, the governor of the state of _______ (for National Guard enlistees)}} and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Unless thats different from what you signed (or are talking about) I see nothing
illegal with it, regarding a servicemen involvement with UN peace keepers or NATO.

 

[pegwinn]

Unless it is something that directly contradicts law, how does one prove an order unlawful?

You don't. You may prove it is morally wrong but unless you can point to a specific statute the order is assumed to be lawful. Additionally, that defense is like insanity. It is up to the defendant to prove it.

One of News problems was that he didn't understand the difference between law and regulation.

 

[Gunny]

Here's the oath, Gunny.



Unless thats different from what you signed (or are talking about) I see nothing illegal with it, regarding a servicemen involvement with UN peace keepers or NATO.

Serving NATO and its aims is in direct contradiction to swearing to support an defend the Constitution since NATO is NOT an organization sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, IMO.

It amounts to the US loaning out our military to serve as a mercenary army for an organization that does not have the best interests of the United States at the forefront of its goals.

Signing on the dotted line means one agrees in principle at least with the ideals and/or laws the Constitution of the US represent. It doesn't mean one agrees with the ideology behind the UN. When you sign on the dotted line committing yourself to possibly taking and or losing human life, I believe a distinction in the ideology one is taking and/or losing human life is an important one.

 

[Mr. P]

Serving NATO and its aims is in direct contradiction to swearing to support an defend the Constitution since NATO is NOT an organization sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, IMO.

It amounts to the US loaning out our military to serve as a mercenary army for an organization that does not have the best interests of the United States at the forefront of its goals.

Signing on the dotted line means one agrees in principle at least with the ideals and/or laws the Constitution of the US represent. It doesn't mean one agrees with the ideology behind the UN. When you sign on the dotted line committing yourself to possibly taking and or losing human life, I believe a distinction in the ideology one is taking and/or losing human life is an important one.

Am I misunderstanding you, Gunny? You do understand NATO and the UN force are two separate animals right?

 

[Annie]

Am I misunderstanding you, Gunny? You do understand NATO and the UN force are two separate animals right?

I'm unsure how NATO operates, but it seems that France can veto anything.

 

[Gunny]

Am I misunderstanding you, Gunny? You do understand NATO and the UN force are two separate animals right?

You are not misunderstanding ... I was not paying attention. Any discussion I have made has been in regard to the UN, not NATO. If someone switched organizations while I wasn't paying attention, I can't really say anything except I missed it.:rotflmao:

 

[pegwinn]

You are not misunderstanding ... I was not paying attention. Any discussion I have made has been in regard to the UN, not NATO. If someone switched organizations while I wasn't paying attention, I can't really say anything except I missed it.:rotflmao:

Nah, you wasn't wrong. I learned early and often that reality was in the eye of the Gunny.

 

[Gunny]

Nah, you wasn't wrong. I learned early and often that reality was in the eye of the Gunny.

LOL, I could have sworn I was talking about the UN.

NATO's a little trickier, IMO, since it is a binding defense treaty; which, the authority to make treaties resides within the US Constitution.

I WILL add however that NATO, IMO, is obsolete and needs to be rethunk since most of its members actively politic against the US.