[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 102 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1243-E1244]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          OATH OF UNCERTAINTY

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR.

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 10, 1996

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, American soldiers and sailors should not be 
sent to foreign battlefields except under the command of American 
generals and admirals. Even then, they should not be sent unless there 
is a very clear vital U.S. interest or threat to our national security. 
Neither of these is present in Bosnia, Haiti, or some other recent 
foreign social work projects undertaken by our military. I would like 
to place in the Record the following article from the American Legion 
magazine pointing out U.S. military men and women take an oath to 
defend the U.S. Constitution not the United Nations.

                 [From the American Legion, July 1996]

                          Oath of Uncertainty

                           (By Cliff Kincaid)

       I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and 
     defend the Constitution of the United States Against all 
     enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith 
     and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders 
     of the President of the United States and the orders of the 
     officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the 
     Uniform Code of Military Justice, So help me God.--The oath 
     of enlistment
       The future looked bright for 22-year-old Army Specialist 
     Michael G. New. He had been decorated for his service in the 
     Persian Gulf War and seemed to have a promising military 
     career ahead of him. But that was before he was ordered to 
     serve in a United Nations military unit, wearing a U.N. 
     insignia on his shoulder and a U.N. cap on his head.
       When New refused--citing his oath as a soldier to the U.S. 
     Constitution--he rekindled a firestorm of controversy about 
     the meaning of the soldier's oath as well as the soldier's 
     right to refuse orders he deems ethically or procedurally 
     objectionable. It is a debate whose overtones take us back a 
     half-century to arguments raised in the aftermath of Nazi 
     atrocities.

[[Page E1244]]

       New himself was willing to accept a different assignment 
     (under U.S. command in his own Army uniform) or even an 
     honorable discharge. The Army chose to court-martial him. In 
     a complex legal case that will continue to be argued in 
     Congress and the courts, New received a bad-conduct discharge 
     as well as a stigma that will follow him the rest of his 
     life.
       From the beginning, the military oath has been considered a 
     soldier's sacred connection to America's Founding Fathers and 
     the Constitution. ``When taking the oath,'' says one Army 
     pamphlet, ``you accept the same demands now that American 
     soldiers and Army civilians have embodied since the 
     Revolutionary war.''
       The first Officer's oath was in fact established in 1776 by 
     the Articles of War under the Continental Congress. It 
     required the officer to ``renounce, refuse and abjure any 
     allegiance or obedience'' to King George the Third of Great 
     Britain. The U.S. Constitution carried this patriotic impulse 
     one step further, declaring in Article I, Section 9 that no 
     U.S. official or officer ``shall, without the consent of 
     Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of 
     any kind whatsoever, from any King, Prince or foreign 
     state.''
       In a filing in the new court case, the Army conceded that 
     the U.N. insignia and caps had not been approved by the Army 
     and that a U.N. identification card ``is the only identity 
     document required in the area of operation.''
       Nonetheless, the Army's designated spokesperson on the New 
     affair, Lt. Col. Bill Harkey, says this would not have 
     amounted to serving under foreign command. ``The president 
     [of the U.S.] never surrenders command of U.S. troops,'' 
     maintains Harkey. He adds that ``nobody was asking [New] to 
     shift his allegiance. Over his left breast pocket it still 
     says, `U.S. Army.' ''
       Unconvinced, New continues to insist that serving the U.N. 
     and wearing its symbols was a blatant violation of his oath. 
     ``As an American soldier,'' he says, ``I was taught and 
     believe that the Constitution is the fundamental law of 
     America, and if there is any ambiguity or conflict with the 
     U.N. or any treaty or international agreement or 
     organization, that the U.S. Constitution would always 
     prevail. My Army enlistment oath is to the Constitution. I 
     cannot find any reference to the United Nations in that 
     oath.''
       As for the argument that New's disobeying of orders had the 
     potential to disrupt military order and discipline, his 
     lawyers, led by Marine Colonel Ron Ray (retired), point out 
     that the oath says the orders have to be ``according to 
     regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.'' The 
     orders, in other words, must be lawful. This raises issues 
     about the individual responsibility to choose between right 
     and wrong that hark back to Nuremberg and the infamous ``I 
     was just following orders'' defense.
       New's superiors suggested that he study the U.N. Charter, 
     the governing document of the international organization. New 
     did so--and concluded that it was ``incompatible'' with not 
     only the U.S. Constitution but also the Declaration of 
     Independence.
       The military judge in New's case elected to sidestep the 
     matter of the Constitution and the deeper meaning of the 
     oath, focusing instead on his the relatively simple issue of 
     his refusal to live up to an agreement he had signed. As Army 
     spokesperson Harkey puts it, ``The oath says, `I will obey 
     the orders of the officers appointed above me. . . .'
       ``However, the military panel refused to send New to jail, 
     a possible indication of sympathy for his plight.
       In the past, mostly in times of war, U.S. soldiers have 
     temporarily served under foreign commanders or in U.N.-
     authorized operations; indeed, the Persian Gulf War was 
     backed by the U.N. Security Council. The Congress has 
     passed a U.N. Participation Act, authorizing military 
     involvement with the U.N. under limited circumstances.
       The Clinton Administration has gone even further by issuing 
     a secret pro-U.N. Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD 25) 
     that has been withheld from Congress. In the public version 
     of this document, entitled ``The Clinton Administration's 
     Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations,'' the 
     president pledges that he ``will never relinquish command of 
     U.S. forces''--but he also reserves for himself the authority 
     to place troops under ``operational control'' of a foreign or 
     U.N. commander within the approval of Congress.
       Harkey emphasizes that operational control is not the same 
     as being under foreign command--and he uses the Bosnia 
     peacekeeping mission as a case in point. He says the U.S. 
     Task Force commander reserves the right to act in the best 
     interest of our troops and may in fact oppose a foreign 
     commander's orders by going up the U.S. chain of command.
       In any case, it wasn't until the Clinton administration 
     that U.S. soldiers started receiving orders to wear U.N. 
     symbols on their uniforms. Part of the fallout from the New 
     case has been the introduction of legislation in Congress to 
     prohibit this practice.
       Aside from being ordered to wear the U.N. ``uniform''--the 
     insignia on the sleeve and the blue cap--New was told to 
     report to Brig. Gen. Juha Engstrom of the Finnish Army, the 
     Commander of the U.N. Preventive Deployment forces in the 
     former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia. Engstrom had said of 
     his position, ``This is a very unique and historic 
     opportunity. Before Macedonia, a non-American or non-NATO 
     officer has never before had command of an American battalion 
     abroad . . . .''
       As of Jan. 11, 1996, official Department of Defense figures 
     showed that a total of 69,847 U.S. forces were participating 
     in, or acting in support of, U.N. operation or U.N. Security 
     Council resolutions. This includes 37,000 troops in Korea.
       Though much effort is expended in official Washington 
     circles to down-play the implications of such situations, 
     there are times when the reality blares forth in dramatic 
     fashion. When a U.S. helicopter was shot down by Korean 
     communists in December 1994, the body of the American pilot, 
     Chief Warrant Officer David Hilemon, was returned in a coffin 
     draped with a blue U.N. flag, and was handed over to a U.N. 
     honor guard. And in April 1994, after American personnel 
     participating in a U.N. mission were downed over Iraq, Vice 
     President Albert Gore stated that the casualties ``died in 
     the service of the United Nations.''
       That ideology has inspired a good deal of discomfort in the 
     ranks. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Ernest G. ``Guy'' Cunningham has 
     undertaken a controversial study of U.S. involvement in U.N. 
     operations titled ``Peacekeeping and U.N. Operational 
     Control: A Study of Their Effect on Unit Cohesion.'' 
     Cunningham asked a group of 300 Marines if they agreed or 
     disagreed with the statement that, ``I feel there is no 
     conflict between my oath of office and serving as a U.N. 
     soldier.'' Fifty-seven percent disagreed.

                          ____________________