Changes

**'''Reply''' Again, no-one is 'forced' to 'serve the UN'. Nations decide whether or not to participate in UN actions, and it is those nations that 'force' their military personnel to deploy. The remark about Hitler's soldiers is a fallacy; the Nuremburg trials made it very clear that 'I was just following orders' is not acceptable as a defense when it comes to certain crimes, known these days as crimes against humanity. And America didn't take a step in the wrong direction by 'joining the UN'; it was one of the the driving forces behind the creation of the UN, and one of its founding member nations. Check it out: http://www.un.org/aboutun/unhistory/ [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 13:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

**'''Reply''' Again, no-one is 'forced' to 'serve the UN'. Nations decide whether or not to participate in UN actions, and it is those nations that 'force' their military personnel to deploy. The remark about Hitler's soldiers is a fallacy; the Nuremburg trials made it very clear that 'I was just following orders' is not acceptable as a defense when it comes to certain crimes, known these days as crimes against humanity. And America didn't take a step in the wrong direction by 'joining the UN'; it was one of the the driving forces behind the creation of the UN, and one of its founding member nations. Check it out: http://www.un.org/aboutun/unhistory/ [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 13:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

**'''Reply''' We have to seperate the moral argument from the constitutional argument for a second here.  You are correct that under the constitution if Michael New was ordered to kill 2 million black people (why are you dragging racism into this debate?) then he would have to obey.  The Bible Tells us to obey those in authority over us, unless they are telling us to do something morally wrong.  that is the difference.  In the example you gave, Michael New's Moral obligation would be to refuse to kill the people, and take his dishonorable discharge.  In the UN case, obeying his superiors would not be morally wrong.  Therefore, disobeying was wrong both constitutionally and morally.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:30, 16 January 2007 (EST)

**'''Reply''' We have to seperate the moral argument from the constitutional argument for a second here.  You are correct that under the constitution if Michael New was ordered to kill 2 million black people (why are you dragging racism into this debate?) then he would have to obey.  The Bible Tells us to obey those in authority over us, unless they are telling us to do something morally wrong.  that is the difference.  In the example you gave, Michael New's Moral obligation would be to refuse to kill the people, and take his dishonorable discharge.  In the UN case, obeying his superiors would not be morally wrong.  Therefore, disobeying was wrong both constitutionally and morally.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:30, 16 January 2007 (EST)

:::'''Reply''' Wrong. Under the UCMJ, no member of the armed forces is required to obey a patently illegal order - such as, for example, the disingenuous example above, of being ordered to kill two million black people. However, there is nothing illegal in the '''American''' government ordering an '''American serviceman''' to serve under American officers in a unit to be employed in a UN operation. Bear in mind the UN has no power to compel its member nations to participate in any UN intervention, so when American units participate in such, it is with the full knowledge and blessing of the government. Furthermore, the government at no time surrenders control of those personnel to the UN; if the mandate for the UN operation in question should change - or even if it doesn't but the government no longer wishes to support the mandate - then the government withdraws its troops. It's as simple as that. Likewise the American government and military are perfectly within their rights to order their servicemen and women to wear whatever insignia they deem suitable to the taskings at hand. If a unit is deploying in support of a UN operation and that unit's personnel are required to wear the UN-blue helmet and shoulder patch, then that's the ordered uniform. So Michael New knowingly disobeyed a lawful command from his superiors.

**'''Reply''' Wrong. Under the UCMJ, no member of the armed forces is required to obey a patently illegal order - such as, for example, the disingenuous example above, of being ordered to kill two million black people. However, there is nothing illegal in the '''American''' government ordering an '''American serviceman''' to serve under American officers in a unit to be employed in a UN operation. Bear in mind the UN has no power to compel its member nations to participate in any UN intervention, so when American units participate in such, it is with the full knowledge and blessing of the government. Furthermore, the government at no time surrenders control of those personnel to the UN; if the mandate for the UN operation in question should change - or even if it doesn't but the government no longer wishes to support the mandate - then the government withdraws its troops. It's as simple as that. Likewise the American government and military are perfectly within their rights to order their servicemen and women to wear whatever insignia they deem suitable to the taskings at hand. If a unit is deploying in support of a UN operation and that unit's personnel are required to wear the UN-blue helmet and shoulder patch, then that's the ordered uniform. So Michael New knowingly disobeyed a lawful command from his superiors.

 

::Bye the bye, there seems to be a notion that American servicemen and women cannot be required to serve under foreign command. That's a crock; there are American servicemen on exchange with other nations all the time, and while they are working with those other nations, their duties are prescribed by that nation, and they can be subject to that nation's military regulations as well as the UCMJ. Of course, foreign military personnel working in the US can likewise be subject to the UCMJ as well as their own national military regs. What American servicemen and women cannot be required to do, either by the American government or a foreign government, is to surrender their connection to the chain of command - short, that is, of being released from their service. Of course, this same right obtains with foreign military and their governments as well - the US government cannot require a British officer on exchange in the States to act against his oath to the Queen, for instance. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Bye the bye, there seems to be a notion that American servicemen and women cannot be required to serve under foreign command. That's a crock; there are American servicemen on exchange with other nations all the time, and while they are working with those other nations, their duties are prescribed by that nation, and they can be subject to that nation's military regulations as well as the UCMJ. Of course, foreign military personnel working in the US can likewise be subject to the UCMJ as well as their own national military regs. What American servicemen and women cannot be required to do, either by the American government or a foreign government, is to surrender their connection to the chain of command - short, that is, of being released from their service. Of course, this same right obtains with foreign military and their governments as well - the US government cannot require a British officer on exchange in the States to act against his oath to the Queen, for instance. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

 

Yes he was, and I'll prove it.  In class yesterday, I was trying to make the argument that some of Michael New's rights as a citizen of the United States might be compromised if he were forced to join the United Nations.  While that is true, as shown in article 1 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations itself is what really condemns the action:

Yes he was, and I'll prove it.  In class yesterday, I was trying to make the argument that some of Michael New's rights as a citizen of the United States might be compromised if he were forced to join the United Nations.  While that is true, as shown in article 1 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations itself is what really condemns the action: