Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 04/24/2007 View Mon 04/23/2007 View Sun 04/22/2007 View Sat 04/21/2007 View Fri 04/20/2007 View Thu 04/19/2007 View Wed 04/18/2007
1
2007-04-24 Home Front: Politix
SCOTUS turns down U.S. soldier who wouldn't serve U.N. peacekeeping mission
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Anonymoose 2007-04-24 17:25|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 I'm very conflicted about this one. The soldier, like all American military, took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States not the UN Charter. By failing to address this very fundamental issue, SCOTUS lays open the Nuremberg defense of 'only obeying orders'. Its good for military command and control, but can be very bad in the long term. If American military are to subordinate the oath to the Constitution to something else, then the final traditional and cultural check on power is removed. One more step to Caesar.
Posted by Procopius2k 2007-04-24 19:17||   2007-04-24 19:17|| Front Page Top

#2 Uncle Luther didn't sign on to defend Germany either, but he damn sure did.
Posted by Shipman">Shipman  2007-04-24 19:23||   2007-04-24 19:23|| Front Page Top

#3 Do not forget elimination of the electoral college.
Posted by newc">newc  2007-04-24 19:26||   2007-04-24 19:26|| Front Page Top

#4 I might be thinking of a different guy but I remember a medic who allowed the US military to pay for his medical school and then simply didn't want to go to war. The UN insignia is a new edition, probably spinning if it's the same guy.
Posted by Phomogum Poodle7199 2007-04-24 20:02||   2007-04-24 20:02|| Front Page Top

#5 Phomogum Poodle7199: Different guy. This one began before the war. He basically said that he signed up for his country, not to be under the command of some foreigner.

I have to agree with him, that in future, the only US personnel assigned to UN command should either be volunteers, or specifically hired for that purpose. In the best of all worlds, I imagine the US hiring mercenaries for our international obligations, much like the French Foreign Legion.

No survey has been done on the subject, but I suspect a LARGE portion of our military would join with this guy in refusing to wear the baby blue beret.

They equate it with being ordered to surrender because your commanding officer has decided to turn chicken.
Posted by Anonymoose 2007-04-24 20:30||   2007-04-24 20:30|| Front Page Top

#6 I can understand him not wanting to wear the UN insignia, but, having been sent there as part of a UN peace-keeping mission and in order to identify that he is a member of that UN mission I think it's appropriate to wear the UN insignia.
Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues  2007-04-24 20:32||   2007-04-24 20:32|| Front Page Top

#7 I kind of agree with the soldier, but if he was on a UN peace keeping mission, they do need a way to distinguish that. Then again I rather they tow the UN building out into the harbor and sink it, but thats me.
Posted by djohn66 2007-04-24 20:59||   2007-04-24 20:59|| Front Page Top

#8 There are Euro armies whose soldiers have long hair+ beards, or whom have organized unions including contracts on what PUBLIC/NATIONAL orders to obey, versus what NOT of same to obey. Instead of being super-powers or hyper-powers, their nations are part of benign "dying Europe" = future "Eurabia". A US SOLDIER SERVES BOTH PUBLIC AUTHORITY, PUBLIC POLICY AS DECIDED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY, AS WELL AS PUBLIC ORDER/STABILITY WHICH INCLUDES PROTECTION AND SECURITY FROM FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC ANARCHY-HARM. Nations without reliable, disciplined armies cannot defend = won't defend themselves - must rely on others while hoping the latter don't try to take over.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-04-24 21:43||   2007-04-24 21:43|| Front Page Top

#9 Any army has protocols or regulatory heiarchies on how to legally = morally protest an order for - but, once the final policy or decision has been made, and all protocols followed, he should've gone.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-04-24 21:47||   2007-04-24 21:47|| Front Page Top

23:58 JosephMendiola
23:55 Zenster
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:47 Zenster
23:43 Slaviter Claiter8372
23:38 Frank G
23:37 Zenster
23:28 twobyfour
23:24 Brett
23:24 Zenster
23:11 DMFD
23:08 Frank G
23:07 Frank G
22:59 Fred
22:59 Secret Master
22:59 RD
22:58 Frank G
22:57 whatadeal
22:53 Zenster
22:52 Fred
22:49 Mike N.
22:49 Zenster
22:47 Secret Master
22:45 Jackal









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com