United States vs. Spc4 Michael G. New: what are your thoughts?

2015-03-11T16:25:18-04:00

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

United States v. Michael G. New :: Legal Documents

February of 1993 Michael enlisted in the US Army. Michael took an oath to defend the constitution of the United States. His Army Recruiter, in Conroe, Texas, never mentioned UN command, foreign officers, or wearing the UN uniform; instead he was told he was signing up for the US military.

Response by MSgt Michael Durkee made Mar 11 at 2015 4:36 PM

2015-03-11T16:36:49-04:00

Receiving a Big Chicken Dinner, IMO, was a bit excessive. He did sign on the line, and it was his commitment to follow orders. If wearing a United Nations uniform is what is needed, he should have done it.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 11 at 2015 4:43 PM

2015-03-11T16:43:29-04:00

As an enlisted member, he not only swore to defend the Constitution, but follow the orders of the President, and those appointed over him.

When he refused to follow PDD-25 et al, he violated a lawful order, and was subject to the events that transpired.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Mar 11 at 2015 5:25 PM

2015-03-11T17:25:02-04:00

So I should let my troops deploying to Afghanistan not wear OCP's because they are not a uniform covered in the AF Uniform Reg?

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Mar 11 at 2015 6:06 PM

2015-03-11T18:06:05-04:00

Just like I tell my 11 year old son actions have consequences.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Mar 11 at 2015 6:57 PM

2015-03-11T18:57:45-04:00

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.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 7:25 PM

2015-03-11T19:25:08-04:00

Here's my take. I volunteered to serve my country. I swore an oath to defend the US Constitution, not the UN Charter. If the UN wants a military they can open it up to the nation states on a voluntary basis.

Response by SSG Eddye Royal made Mar 11 at 2015 9:01 PM

2015-03-11T21:01:27-04:00

SPC E Henry, Good evening Sir.

1. When a person go into a Requiters office and take an pass the test, there are possibilities.
2. He's assignment was not a regular ARMY, Air Force, Navy or even the Pentagon, it was the UN. and he accepted that.
3. The soldier has to follow the RULES of the ATTACHMENT ORDERS!!!

Why, A a year a so a person on wanted me to take an assignment, that way, I didnt mind; but I asked was it a USA mission, US CHARTER MISSION (FLAG) through the UN, or what? it took the person two weeks to get back with me , by that time he was BRITISH, and it was under the RED CRISIENH, or RED CROSS (VERSION) which means I would have been wearing a different uniforn or under NON-US Command. But it works that way when you speaks multiple languages and the US Govt Recommends YOU. I hope this helps. I checked the offer out on LINKEDIN and the person Qualifications to, maybe he was too young and it played a FACTOR!!

Response by SPC Neil Hood made Mar 12 at 2015 8:32 AM

2015-03-12T08:32:34-04:00

Honestly it seems he failed to understand his training. He swore an oath to follow his orders. Wearing clothes that differ from your daily uniform isn't an unlawful order. His discharge is a mite harsh though.

Response by Sgt Scott Wells made Mar 12 at 2015 9:27 AM

2015-03-12T09:27:55-04:00

Pretty sure the term was "Lawful Orders"..... He may have thought the orders weren't lawful. Fair enough. I do have to argue one point. They do not "look fabulous".

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2015 9:30 AM

2015-03-12T09:30:23-04:00

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.

Response by SSG John Erny made Mar 12 at 2015 9:58 AM

2015-03-12T09:58:42-04:00

Well people have their own thoughts on what is right and wrong. Many people including my self think that the UN is a farse as best. That being said when you raise your right hand you agree to follow the orders of the commander and chief no who it is or what they tell you to do. People cast their votes a leader was chosen and thus you are serving the will of the people who chose that leader.

Now the thing about following an officer from another nation I have done this when rigger school had an exchange program the Aussie's. We had a captain in charge of the heavy drop section from the land down under. I had no problem with that. When serving under a UN mission you are following orders of an American officer that placed you in that position. Would I like it, hell no! Would I do it, yes. Orders are orders. Would I wear there ribbon on my uniform? Hell No.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Mar 12 at 2015 12:14 PM

2015-03-12T12:14:37-04:00

Mr. New accepted the consequences of his actions (those being that he might be charged and tried under the UCJM and that he might end up with a life-time career attempting to earn enough money to pay lawyers). He has a position which he believes in (at least one that he cannot abandon without looking like a complete ass) and he is fighting for that position within the law and using every legal procedure available to him.

That is his right and he has my support in defending his rights.

On the other hand, I have been know to find good aspects in the idiotic activities of complete jerks before.

Response by PO1 Stephen Caldonetti made Mar 23 at 2015 12:32 AM

2015-03-23T00:32:42-04:00

I am not a fan of the UN, but if my CO says where to go and what to wear, I am doing so with no questions asked. Serving in the military, we should not question politics, and we should do as we are told because all orders come from above. If there is anything wrong with the politics, then let them deal with it. All we need is mutiny amongst the crew that could cost lives needlessly. Just focus on what needs to be done so that you and your brothers and sisters can get home safely.

Response by SGT Steve Oakes made Mar 23 at 2015 6:33 AM

2015-03-23T06:33:57-04:00

Stupid, just plain stupid. We take an oath to support and defend The Constitution of the United States. Not the United Nations Carter. He should have never been given that order. If we do UN missions at all, they should be STRICTLY VOLUNTARY.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Mar 23 at 2015 1:10 PM

2015-03-23T13:10:49-04:00

I can't really form an opinion on this subject with out looking at all 3 sides of this story. Spc4 Micheals, the individual who gave the order, and JAG/UCMJ rules and regulations.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 2:41 PM

2015-03-23T14:41:10-04:00

I think it's a clear issue of failing to obey a lawful order. That said, in order to eliminate some of the 'mitigating' circumstances the defense is obviously trying/tried to assert, whatever additions to his uniform should have been issued and he should not have been required to purchase them.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Mar 23 at 2015 4:38 PM

2015-03-23T16:38:53-04:00

I think SP4 New was right. Unfortunately, being right isn't always enough when you have the juggernaut of the U.S military and federal government against you because it's not a decision they can afford to lose.

Response by SSG Kenneth Lanning made Mar 24 at 2015 7:28 PM

2015-03-24T19:28:13-04:00

Pretty cut and dry; he was issued a lwaful order, he disobeyed the order without a lawful reason. If they asked him to don the uniform of another country and then do black ops, that might be a different story-but it wasn't the case.

Response by SFC Ronald Bowers made Apr 12 at 2020 11:35 PM

2020-04-12T23:35:24-04:00

My unit was in Macedonia from May to Nov 1995. His unit was scheduled to replace us. We're we all concerned with the same questions that he had? Of course. We're we all under the assumption that we were being "Sublet to a foreign power" NO, we were not. It took about 10 minutes of research to discover that almost every single wartime action that the US has been involved in has been a UN event of some form of another.
I served for 6 months. Not one time did I fall under the jurisdiction of a foreign commander. No, not once. Our UN charter dictates this.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for standing up for ones principals. But what good did this do? Ruined a soldiers career, embarrassed a whole lot of people, and here we are, 25 years later, still trying to un-ring this bell.