Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?

Yes

Yes! We don't realize what is at steak with this battle. If American soldiers can be forced to serve a foreign military against their will, then we are not a free country. Michael New joined the Army to fight for America, not to further a third-parties goals for world peace. PhilipB 10:41, 12 January 2007 (EST)

• Reply As a member of the US Armed Forces he was (would have been) fighting for America. Just because in this case America was working together with other nations does not change that fact. A soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty. He signed up to fight as a soldier for America wherever America wanted him to go. If you think that he has a right to choose where he fights, then you have to sefend any soldier who does not like following orders and fighting where he is told to fight. Also It was not "third parties goals" because america is part of the UN they have to do their part in the UN peacekeeping forces, as much as i hate the UN does not change that fact. If Aamerica tells him to fight for the UN then that is his duty to America. Even though American forces fighting in Vietnam and Korea were not directly fighting to defend america, they were still fighting for america. it is the same concept here.

--TimSvendsen 23:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)

Yes!!

~DeborahB~

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:

Article 15 
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his  nationality.

Article 20 
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

The United Nations could not even accept him into the Peacekeeping Corps. if he objected.

David R

• Reply Even if the UN could not force him to fight, (which is debatable) America still could. America does not have to follow UN policy. Michael New was subject to the US Military and they told him to. He does not have the right to refuse.

--TimSvendsen 23:46, 15 January 2007 (EST)

Excellent point, David! I may be able to use your point in a law brief to the Supreme Court. --Aschlafly 11:58, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Do you think that the Supreme court will accept an argument based on the UN declaration of human rights in any case, especialy a case involving an american soldier disobeying orders under american law? --TimSvendsen 23:48, 15 January 2007 (EST)

No

Comment on the Constitution:

Michael New sites article I section 9 of the constitution which says that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without consent of congress, accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.” The reason why Michael New’s argument fails to fit his citation of the constitution is the word ‘emolument’. According to Noah Webster’s dictionary, the word ‘emolument’ means “the profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as compensation for services.” The salary of the American soldiers on a UN peacekeeping mission is still paid by the US. Furthermore, it is by the order of the United States that they wear a UN uniform; Michael New was clearly not accepting emolument from the United Nations.

--BenjaminS 21:11, 15 January 2007 (EST)