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

Sgt Scott Wells, I'd certainly much rather wear my maroon beret -- or even a black one -- than that powder blue beret.

IMHO, I feel that one wears the uniform outlined by Command at location, in your example, OCP. Defined as such to promote, oh, I dunno, uniformity. Lol

Now, if it comes down to dollars, we know that will divide the issue. "Who's paying for new issue?" ((whole other topic))

in 2013, Afghanistan, AF policy was AF service members could wear at their option the uniform of the US army, but if they did so, they had to follow US Army policy in wear and appearance.
This came to my attention when an AF Major in my JOC was wearing earrings while wearing ACU's // Earrings of course authorised when in AF uniform, but not in the Army uniform.. Little bit of research., discussion with the senior in country AF commander and Sergeant Major, review of current AF policy in country.. Professional discussion with said AF Major and situation resolved politely, professionally.

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA, the Constitution IS federal law. Further, the US signed a treaty to create the UN in 1945. As such, under the Supremacy Clause of our own Constitution, that treaty (and the responsibility outlined in it) are the supreme law of the land.


You assert that the uniform items were un authorized. I previously posted the MILPERS message for the award of a UN Medal where the criteria included wearing the UN items. Thus from official Army Personnel Command, it is authorized.

You assert that leadership of a foreign officer is out of bounds. We have had personnel assigned to NATO for decades and had foreign officers as exchange officers for decades as well. Heck they even just made a German General the Chief of Staff for US Army Europe (http://www.stripes.com/news/army/in-historic-first-german-army-general-appointed-usareur-chief-of-staff-1.296324)

All of this could have been avoided if he were simply given the reference all of us are throwing around "PPD-25", which he had asked about, wasn't told about, and was withheld from discovery at trial by the prosecution presenting a different reference, PPD -18, even though provisions of PPD-25 were the relevant foundation of the legality of the order.

MSgt Copeland, you make several good point about the law. But making legal does not, necessarily make it right.

sinai egypt is not a U.N . tour,iwas stationed there in 1990,we wore our uniforms with a orange beret,our misssion was to make sure that egypt and isrial followed the peace accords that they signed to secure peace in that area,The U.N has no control over this,and the sinai is a volunteer position by rank or assigned by your branch.yhanks

1LT (Join to see), I encourage you to read the letter that SPC New wrote to his chain of command. While the "issued vs. purchased" matter was a minor supporting point mentioned here: http://www.mikenew.com/facts.htm , There was much more at stake. The letter to his chain of command can be found here: http://www.mikenew.com/letter.html

All Soldiers receive a clothing allowance; if he declined to purchased uniform items deemd required by his chain of command with it, that's his own fault. Getting the latest and greatest uniforms issued is a great thing when it happens, but that doesn't always happen (how many people here came out of pocket for the new dress uniform? I know I did).

Hate to put it like this, but until you're in Command, you're DoD sheep...put on the wool that Uncle Sam wants you to put on and join the herd.

SSG Kenneth Lanning, as I noted to 1LT (Join to see), the issued/purchased point was minor. I encourage you to read the letter to his chain of command.

The sheep analogy suggests blind obedience to any order, which seems to conflict with the Article 90 duty to disobey unlawful orders.

SPC Henry-I know it does-good to see someone fully looking into things and not taking stuff for face value ;-)

An interesting point of view, SSG John Erny. I beg to disagree on a significant point: we do not agree to follow orders no matter what they tell you to do. We first swear to "support and defend the Constitution," then to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same," and finally to obey orders "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
SPC New believed that the order to deploy was illegal, that the uniform was unauthorized according to Army regulations, and that the chain of command was unconstitutional, among other concerns.

I did truncate my statement some what, but yes that was my general point of view as well SPC Elijah Henry, However as an enlisted member or any one else in uniform when you do not follow orders UCMJ is not your friend. If someone is OK with getting hammered by a court martial to keep their moral high ground that is on them. Others have tried to play the illegal orders card and lost as well. I am not saying that it can not be done but it is going to be damned hard to do, and it will take a toll on that person.

Like I said I do not like the UN, they truly are a joke and I sure as hell would not want to serve on a UN mission. I think there are better ways to have joint operations with other nations that falling under the blue flag of folly. Most of the UN are not friendly to the US and I understand not wanting to be involved with them.

MAJ Carl Ballinger, I believe that -- given our oaths -- every SM has the moral and legal obligation to understand and comply with the Constitution in all circumstances. Feel free to correct whatever you wish; I believe we are discussing this elsewhere on this page.

SSG John Erny, do you wear Ausie Jump Wings? Or any others for that matter?

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA , I am certain he was capable of deploying I am just stating that this seemed like a personal choice, a banner to carry, for SPC New. He may have shared his dissident feelings with his fellow soldiers but they didn't stand in solidarity with him on the parade field in protest. I am sure many of them may have felt the same way. Were they all Blue Falcons? (They could be with the U.N. blue berets on)

I believe that if he was truly on to something that was against the constitution he would have sought better guidance than his Dad.

I'm sure he was willing to pay the price for his actions if he were wrong. Ultimately The Supreme Court could exonerate him but they haven't.

I also feel that his may be politically motivated due to the timeline showing that President Clinton took office and was the reason this even occurred.

SPC Neil Hood You say " However this shouldn't be a case that the SC makes a benchmark." and I agree.

Mind you, the only reason why the case is even in the same town as the Supreme Court is because Mr. New is DEMANDING that it be there.

SPC Neil Hood, I understand that a number of his colleagues on the parade field agreed with him privately, but they deemed their careers to be more important than the principle. SPC New followed his principles.

As far as seeking better guidance than his Dad, SPC New did in fact seek command guidance and legal counsel besides parental advice.

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA the essence of what I am talking about is pretty much summed up by what MAJ Carl Ballinger Has said. SPC New sought legal counsel amongst multiple sources and I must conclude he received poor counsel all around. The U.S. Army is not a place for you to push your political agenda or beliefs. It is an institution you can join, if you are qualified, to serve your nation at peace or at war.

I think SPC New would have served better as a member of a PAC lobbying Washington for a change in Foreign Policy. The U.N. was involved in a peace keeping mission and needed soldiers to assist in the Balkans where atrocities were being perpetrated. President Clinton was willing to supply said soldiers. I would think as a medic, SPC New would be willing to help people in pain and anguish in a place where his skills would be sorely needed.

I myself would have gladly stood by men and women of other nations to help an area going through a Nazi-like ethnic cleansing. At the end of the tour I would proudly put my issued Army uniform back on knowing that I did good in this world.

Using the Army as a forum for dissidence should be met with punishment. And punishment is what SPC New received. I am not arguing whether or not he was brave or stood up for a cause for what he believed to be unconstitutional.

I am arguing because SPC New was wrong.