Posted on 04/24/2007 12:42:28 PM PDT by rightalien
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by a U.S. soldier who received a bad conduct discharge after refusing to serve on a United Nations peacekeeping mission in the former Yugoslavia.
Former Army medic Michael New has been fighting his discharge for the past 11 years. New argued that he was not afforded all his legal rights in the course of the court-martial that stemmed from his refusal to wear the U.N. insignia on his Army uniform.
He was supposed to be among a few hundred soldiers who were sent to Macedonia, a former Yugoslav republic, to guard against the spread of unrest from other areas torn by ethnic turmoil.
The justices declined to hear his case without comment.
The case is U.S., ex rel. New v. Rumsfeld, 06-691.
The guy should not have enlisted if he was not willing to play by the rules and obey as directed by the President. Like him or not, Clinton was the President and elected to use the military in this manner. The proper choice of action is to elect honorable men who will support the USA first and not put the UN's agenda ahead of our own.
This guy enlisted in '93, after Clinton was elected. He should have known Clinton's policy on this or did he come to the conclusion later?
Sorry, but this is in the same category as those who suddenly become Conscientious Objectors after a war starts. They knew the rules going in and they should obey them.
Before anyone gives me grief over this, I will say this:
I agree fully with the guys position as far as US troops serving under the guise of the UN. But, I'm not the President and it is his opinion that soldiers agree to support, like it or not.
I do hope President Bush pardons him, but I would bet he does not. It is a bet I would love to lose.
And.....................................
*On Feb. 18, 1993, Michael New enlisted in the United States Army for an eightyear term. He received training as a medical specialist, then spent two months on a United Nations peacekeeping mission in Kuwait. While there, he wore a U.S. Army uniform and answered to American superior officers. He was deployed to Schweinfurt, Germany, in July 1995.
* On Aug. 21, 1995, Specialist New was told that the 550 members of his unit would be sent to Macedonia in October as “United Nations Fighting Persons.” While there, the troops would “observe, monitor, report and make the UN presence known.” They would be required to wear a United Nations uniform, carry a United Nations identification card and serve under UN superior officers.
He has served overseas. He is not a coward.
He wants to wear his country’s uniform and serve under his country’s leadership.
Who said he was?
Not all CO's are cowards either. For example a CO who serves honorably as a corpsman is not a coward.
One person on this thread called him a “a whiny slacker coward”. Not you.
You are right about CO’s. Haven’t some received the Congressional Medal of Honor?
Auscwitz guards stood at their posts too! Look, we’re going to disagree on this, but New took a pricipled stand that he figured would get him into trouble...he’ll have to pay for it. He’s lucky to not have gotten any prison time.
Just the fact that he said no to a malignant body such as the UN, put the New Order crowd on notice that many Americans won’t “come along quietly” into the abyss. That Yugo-slav conflict we got pulled into, was many more times unjustified, then what our intervention in Iraq ever was.
You are comparing the US soldiers who did their job in the Balkans to genocidal Nazis?
PRESS RELEASE - for immediate release
23 April 2007
contact: Daniel New, Project Manager 254-796-2173 ddnew@mikenew.com
Michael New Action Fund
Michael New Legal Defense Fund
P.O. Box 100
Iredell, Texas 76649
Former Army Specialist Michael New’s petition to the US Supreme Court, asking them to review his case, and the lack of due process and the sudden change in the legal “standard of review” applied to it, has been denied. Thus ends a legal battle that began in August of 1995.
What does this ruling mean to Americans?
1. If you are in the military, it means that you and your attorneys have no right to present evidence in your defense in courts-martial, for evidence has suddenly become “discretionary element” of the prosecution. This means that, if the judge and the prosecutor want the jury to see your evidence, they will allow it, and if they don’t, they will deny it. And the bottom line on this issue is that no member of the Armed Forces can mount an effective legal defense. They will be denied due process, and the “standard of review” that has been recognized by all Appellate Courts for over 40 years has just been shredded. Lawyers will understand the legal chaos and confusion that has just been upheld.
2. If you are in the military, or considering enlisting, it also means that the Executive Branch now will feel completely at liberty to ignore the US Constitution, and place you in a United Nations uniform, under the command authority of a foreign officer, to pursue a military policy that is distinct from the legal and official policies of the United States of America. In effect, you may be turned into a mercenary at the discretion of the President. You are for sale, rent, hire, or loan, as determined by the political party of the moment, and you, or your children, may be ordered to fight, bleed and possibly die for the United Nations, without due process.
3. If you are a Member of Congress, or are represented there, it means that the Executive Branch may now send our soldiers into war, (under the UN), without bothering with little inconveniences like getting a Congressional Declaration of War. This, thanks to Presidential Decision Directive #25, which was touted as the legal basis of the order to send Michael New under the UN, in apparent contradiction of existing law and precedent. The balance of power between the branches of government, as intended by the Founding Fathers, has just been destroyed.
4. If you are a tinhorn petty dictator, posing no real threat to the United States, it means you no longer have to threaten the USA with words or action - that the President can send troops to invade you without a formal declaration of war.
There is more, but that’s enough to demonstrate that the USA has just experienced a figurative shifting of the tectonic plates of our very existence, and the USA is not what we have all been led to believe it is - our Constitutional Republic is no longer simply sick - it appears to be dead. If the President can force Americans to fight, without a declaration of war, under foreign powers, then the Republic no longer exists.
Other than that, it’s just another day. The grass will continue to grow, and the sun will continue to shine.
And what do we do now?
We’re thinking about that, and considering many options. This would be a very good time to give us your own thinking on the subject.
Thank you all, so much, for your support over the past decade.
Daniel New
Project Manager
Real Americans don’t wear U.N. blue!
www.MikeNew.com/
This is a U.N.-free Zone
www.UN-freeZone.org/
Real Americans don’t wear U.N. blue!
www.MikeNew.com/
(Donations are not tax-deductible, but they sure will make you feel good! :c)
No, I’m not comparing our soldiers to Nazi’s, I’m pointing out the absurdity of your view that there can be no valid reason for any American soldier to stand against an order that stands against his conscience and the Constitution. Such a soldier will have to weigh the risks of punishment and ostracism.
That being said, New had just better get on with his life as best as he can now; he was lucky not to have lost the better part of his youth in a Federal penitentiary!
If an order is against the constitution it is illegal on its face.
Michael New was not given any anti-Constitutional order.
It's not a matter of "conscience" if a soldier is too stupid to understand the Constitution.
Yes, there-fore as New understood his constitution, he was not to don a UN uniform and follow the unconstitutional orders of his commanders by serving under that emblem!
Does the constituion mean what it says, or are we, as it has been accelerating since Clintonious, reduced to for-ever arguing about shifts of nuance and meaning? New argues from a very black and white basic interpretation of the language, the army tries to say “well yeah the constitution but we’ll supply the interpretation which mean you follow the orders of the president even if he is acting from a transnational point of view”.
That point of view doesn’t wash with me, and I hope there will be many more “News” if they keep pushing that UN !thing!
In other words, he is a moron who does not understand the Constitution.
Being too stupid to read is not a defense against insubordination.
Does the constituion mean what it says
Yes.
And it says that Congress has the power to enter into treaties on the behalf of the Federal Government and sign them into US law.
It also says that the President is the executive charged with enforcing the laws authorized by Congress.
It also says that the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the US Armed Forces.
I don't care if you or Michael New don't like the fact that Congress, using the authority expressly granted to it under the Constitution, signed the UN Charter committing the US to UN missions as a permanent member of the Security Council.
Forgot this part.
New is not arguing from any interpretation of the US Constitution, black white or green.
He has absolutely no Constitutional basis to refuse his orders.
The Army is not "supplying an interpretation" - Congress is authorized by the Constitution to sign treaties. The Executive, which controls the military, is authorized by the Constitution to enforce the treaties Congress signs.
It isn't complicated.
His felony convictions for drug dealing might be an impediment.
The UN didn't court martial him. The US Army did for refusing to obey orders.
A couple of court martials, various appeals courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court all ruled that the order was legal. I guess they should have talked to you first, huh?
agree with you on this.
He was going to. His NCOs were Americans. His platoon leader was American. His company commander was American. His battalion commander was American.
New took a stand based on his opinion of what was legal and what was not. It turns out his opinion was wrong. He should suck it up and deal with it.
Looks like he understood wrong, doesn't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.